4.7 Article

Effects of high- and low-isoflavone soyfoods on blood lipids, oxidized LDL, homocysteine, and blood pressure in hyperlipidemic men and women

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 76, 期 2, 页码 365-372

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL NUTRITION
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/76.2.365

关键词

soy protein; isoflavones; diet; cardiovascular disease risk; blood lipids; oxidized LDL; homocysteine; blood pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many of the benefits of soy have been attributed to soy isoflavones. Objective: The objective was to determine the effects of high- and low-isoflavone soy-protein foods on both lipid and nonlipid risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: Forty-one hyperlipidemic men and postmenopausal women participated in a study with three 1-mo diets: a low-fat dairy food control diet and high- (50 g soy protein and 73 mg isoflavones daily) and low- (52 g soy protein and 10 mg isoflavones daily) isoflavone soyfood diets. All 3 diets were very low in saturated fat (< 5% of energy) and cholesterol (< 50 mg/d). Fasting blood samples were drawn and blood pressure was measured at the start and end of each diet. Results: No significant differences were seen between the high and low-isoflavone soy diets. Compared with the control diet, however, both soy diets resulted in significantly lower total cholesterol, estimated CAD risk, and ratios of total to HDL cholesterol, LDL to HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B to A-I. No significant sex differences were observed, except for systolic blood pressure, which in men was significantly lower after the soy diets than after the control diet. On the basis of blood lipid and blood pressure changes, the calculated CAD risk was significantly lower with the soy diets, by 10.1 2.7%. Conclusion: Substitution of soyfoods for animal products, regardless of isoflavone concentration, reduces the CAD risk because of both modest reductions in blood lipids and reductions in oxidized LDL, homocysteine, and blood pressure.

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

4.7
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