4.7 Article

Food intake and its relationship with semen quality: a case-control study

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 91, Issue 3, Pages 812-818

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.020

Keywords

Semen quality; food frequency; xenobiotics

Funding

  1. The Seneca Foundation
  2. Regional Agency of Science and Technology
  3. Department of Education and Culture
  4. Region de Murcia, Spain [00694/PI/04]
  5. Reproductive Medicine Chair of the Miguel Hernandez University-Instituto Bernabeu.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare dietary habits in normospermic and oligoasthenoteratospermic patients attending a reproductive assisted clinic. Design: An observational, analytical case-control study. Setting: Private fertility clinics. Patient(s): Thirty men with poor semen quality (cases) and 31 normospermic control couples attending our fertility clinics. Intervention(s): We recorded dietary habits and food consumption using a food frequency questionnaire adapted to meet specific study objectives. Analysis of semen parameters, hormone levels, Y microdeletions, and karyotypes were also carried out. Main Outcome Measure(s): Frequency of intake food items were registered in a scale with nine categories ranging from no consumption to repeated daily consumption. Result(s): Controls had a higher intake of skimmed milk, shellfish, tomatoes, and lettuce, and cases consumed more yogurt, meat products, and potatoes. In the logistic regression model cases had lower intake of lettuce and tomatoes, fruits (apricots and peaches), and significantly higher intake of dairy and meat processed products. Conclusion(s): Frequent intake of lipophilic foods like meat products or milk may negatively affect semen quality in humans, whereas some fruits or vegetables may maintain or improve semen quality. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009; 91:812-8. (C) 2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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