4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Soy protein and bone mineral density in older men and women: A randomized trial

期刊

MATURITAS
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 270-277

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2006.04.011

关键词

osteoporosis; soy; bone mineral density; men; women

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [U01 CA72035] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Test the hypothesis that soy isoflavone supplementation preserves bone mineral density (BMD) in men and women. Methods: We conducted a controlled, parallel-arm, double-blinded trial with 145 participants, 50-80 years, with random assignment to soy beverage daily for 12 months. Active treatment (+ISO) received soy protein containing 83 mg isoflavones (45.6 mg genistein, 31.7 mg daidzein), aglycone units; the comparison group (-ISO) received soy protein containing 3 mg isoflavones. We measured BMD using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at the total hip and posterior-anterior spine (L1-L4) at baseline in 22 women and 123 men, and at 12 months in 13 women and 98 men. We used linear mixed models to test for an isoflavone effect on percentage BMD change from baseline in spine and hip. Results: Among all participants, mean percent change in spine BMD ( +/- S.E.) was 0.16 +/- 0.44 in -ISO (P=0.10) at 12 months. Treatment effects on spine BMD were significantly greater in women than men (P=0.01). At 12 months, in women, mean percent change was 0.58 +/- 0.70 in +ISO and -1.84 +/- 0.86 in -ISO (P = 0.05); among men it was 1.32 +/- 0.53 in +ISO and 0.31 +/- 0.48 in -ISO (P = 0.16). By comparison, percent change in hip BMD was similar in the treatment groups, and was not different between men and women. Mean percent change in hip BMD from baseline to 12 months was 0.54 +/- 0.38 in +ISO and -0.13 +/- 0.36 in -ISO (P = 0.20) among all participants. Conclusions: Soy protein containing isoflavones showed a modest benefit in preserving spine, but not hip BMD in older women. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据