4.1 Article

Validation of a phytoestrogen food frequency questionnaire with urinary concentrations of isoflavones and lignan metabolites in premenopausal women

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NUTRITION
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 76-82

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2007.10719588

Keywords

food frequency questionnaire; phytoestrogens; urinary metabolites; isoflavones; lignans

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between dietary intake of phytoestrogens estimated by a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) with urinary metabolites. Methods: Participants were 26 premenopausal, Caucasian women aged 25 to 42 years. Dietary intake of isoflavones (genistein and daidzein) and lignans (secoisolariciresinol and matairesinol) were estimated by a 53-item interviewer-ad ministered FFQ on two occasions, reflecting 'habitual' (previous 2 months) and 'recent' (previous 2 days) dietary intake. Isoflavone (genistein, daidzein) and lignan (enterolactone, enterodiol and secoisolariciresinol) concentrations were measured in 24-hour urine samples by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Correlations between FFQ (habitual and recent, separately) and urinary metabolite values were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: Mean habitual isoflavone and lignan intakes were 13.7 mg/day and 13.8 mg/day, respectively. Mean urinary concentrations of isoflavones and lignans were 17.4 umoUday and 20.6 umol/day, respectively. Recent and habitual isoflavone intakes were correlated with urinary excretion of metabolites (r = 0.64, p < 0.001 and r = 0.54, p 0.004, respectively). Urinary excretion of lignans was also modestly correlated with recent and habitual lignan intakes (r = 0.46, p = 0.02 and r = 0.40, p = 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: Our results support the use of this FFQ as a measure of dietary isoflavone and lignan intake in epidemiological studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available