4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Antiresorptive Effects of Phytoestrogen Supplements Compared with Estradiol or Risedronate in Postmenopausal Women Using 41Ca Methodology

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 94, Issue 10, Pages 3798-3805

Publisher

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2009-0332

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [P50 AT000477, P50-AT00477] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Reduction of ovarian estrogen secretion at menopause increases net bone resorption and leads to bone loss. Isoflavones have been reported to protect bone from estrogen deficiency, but their modest effects on bone resorption have been difficult to measure with traditional analytical methods. Methods: In this randomized-order, crossover, blinded trial in 11 healthy postmenopausal women, we compared four commercial sources of isoflavones from soy cotyledon, soy germ, kudzu, and red clover and a positive control of oral 1 mg estradiol combined with 2.5 mg medroxyprogesterone or 5 mg/d oral risedronate (Actonel (R)) for their antiresorptive effects on bone using novel Ca-41 methodology. Results: Risedronate and estrogen plus progesterone decreased net bone resorption measured by urinary Ca-41 by 22 and 24%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Despite serum isoflavone profiles indicating bioavailability of the phytoestrogens, only soy isoflavones from the cotyledon and germ significantly decreased net bone resorption by 9% (P = 0.0002) and 5% (P = 0.03), respectively. Calcium absorption and biochemical markers of bone turnover were not influenced by interventions. Conclusions: Dietary supplements containing genistein-like isoflavones demonstrated a significant but modest ability to suppress net bone resorption in postmenopausal women at the doses supplied in this study over a 50-d intervention period. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94: 3798-3805, 2009)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available