4.5 Article

Fat/fiber intakes and sex hormones in healthy premenopausal women in USA

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2008.08.002

Keywords

Diet; Estrogens; Breast cancer risk; Women

Funding

  1. NIH [CB74104, CA-45128]
  2. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  3. Folkhalsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The mechanisms by which diet affects breast cancer (BC) risk are poorly understood but a positive relationship between fat and a negative association with fiber intake and BC risk have been demonstrated. Here we study the association between dietary fat/fiber ratio and estrogen metabolism. Fifty women were recruited, 22 were included in the low fat/high fiber and 22 were in the high fat/low fiber group and 6 did not meet our criteria. Estrogens (determined in plasma, urine and feces) and dietary records were collected during 3 following days. All data were collected in winter and in summer. The high fat/low fiber group had significantly higher urinary total estrogens, estriol-3-glucuronide, 2-hydroxyestradiol, 16 alpha-hydroxyestrone, and a higher 2-hydroxyestrone/4-hydroxyestrone ratio. Total fat intake correlated significantly with plasma estrone, estradiol, urinary 2-hydroxyestrone, 2-hydroxyestradiol, 2-hydroxyestrone/4-hydroxyestrone ratio, and total urinary estrogens, even after adjustment for total fiber intake. The high fat/low fiber diet was associated with high values both for catechol and 16 alpha-hydroxylated estrogens and a high 2-hydroxyestrone/4-hydroxyestrone ratio, but 2hydroxyestrone/16 alpha-hydroxyestrone ratio was not different between the groups. Our results suggest that fat affects estrogen metabolism more than does fiber and that one mechanism resulting in high estrogen values is an increased reabsorption of biliary estrogens. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available