Table 6. Comparison of serum biochemical markers in low and high isoflavone consumers, by equol phenotypea .
| All subjectsb | Equol nonproducersc,e | Equol producersd,e | ||||
| Low isoflavone intake (n = 98) |
High isoflavone intake (n = 99) |
Low isoflavone intake (n = 36) |
High isoflavone intake (n = 42) |
Low isoflavone intake (n = 62) |
High isoflavone intake (n = 57) |
|
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.90 ± 0.91 | 4.99 ± 0.94 | 5.02 ± 1.01 | 4.92 ± 0.83 | 4.84 ± 0.84 | 5.05 ± 1.01 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.44 ± 1.13 | 1.51 ± 1.14 | 1.58 ± 1.43 | 1.78 ± 1.41 | 1.36 ± 0.91 | 1.31 ± 0.85 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.56 ± 0.40 | 1.57 ± 0.40 | 1.57 ± 0.43 | 1.53 ± 0.43 | 1.56 ± 0.39 | 1.60 ± 0.38 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.71 ± 0.78 | 2.78 ± 0.84 | 2.77 ± 0.87 | 2.72 ± 0.72 | 2.68 ± 0.73 | 2.82 ± 0.93 |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 4.91 ± 0.48 | 4.95 ± 0.73 | 4.90 ± 0.56 | 5.08 ± 0.79 | 4.91 ± 0.43 | 4.86 ± 0.67 |
| GPT (U/L) | 19.60 ± 13.23 | 22.78 ± 15.73 | 21.42 ± 15.29 | 22.88 ± 11.73 | 18.55 ± 11.89 | 22.70 ± 18.23 |
| GOT (U/L) | 18.27 ± 4.62 | 18.97 ± 7.03 | 18.69 ± 4.66 | 19.00 ± 5.35 | 18.02 ± 4.62 | 18.95 ± 8.10 |
| γ-GT (U/L) | 20.47 ± 14.13 | 23.29 ± 23.20 | 21.53 ± 14.56 | 27.74 ± 29.95 | 19.85 ± 13.95 | 20.02 ± 16.11 |
| Total protein (g/L) | 75.44 ± 4.17 | 75.30 ± 3.24 | 74.97 ± 4.75 | 75.02 ± 3.26 | 75.71 ± 3.80 | 75.51 ± 3.25 |
| Albumin (g/L) | 46.61 ± 2.46 | 46.78 ± 1.83 | 46.56 ± 2.79 | 46.60 ± 1.86 | 46.65 ± 2.27 | 46.91 ± 1.82 |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 5.17 ± 1.08 | 5.26 ± 1.18 | 5.42 ± 1.14 | 5.34 ± 1.25 | 5.03 ± 1.03 | 5.20 ± 1.13 |
| Creatinine (µmol/L) | 94.42 ± 15.49 | 95.15 ± 14.44 | 95.42 ± 15.64 | 95.43 ± 12.96 | 93.84 ± 15.50 | 94.95 ± 15.54 |
| Uric acid (µmol/L) | 274.67 ± 99.00 | 269.01 ± 84.88 | 301.94 ± 109.80 | 283.83 ± 85.71 | 258.84 ± 89.30 | 258.09 ± 83.33 |
aAll values are mean ± SD. Binary logistic regression was used to analyze the data, after adjusting for BMI, and energy, protein, fat, fiber, vitamin A, thiamine, vitamin E, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, zinc, copper, and manganese intakes. Means are not significantly different between the low and high isoflavone consumers.
bThe numbers of low and high isoflavone consumers for TC, TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C analyses were 97 and 98, respectively, but 2 men were excluded due to the use of lipid-lowering drugs. The numbers of low and high isoflavone consumers for glucose analyses were 94 and 96, respectively; 4 and 3 subjects, respectively, were excluded due to the use of glucose-lowering drugs.
cThe numbers of low and high isoflavone consumers for TC, TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C analyses were 36 and 41, respectively, but 1 man was excluded due to the use of lipid-lowering drugs. The numbers of low and high isoflavone consumers for glucose analyses were 34 and 40, respectively; 2 and 2 subjects, respectively, were excluded due to the use of glucose-lowering drugs.
dThe numbers of low and high isoflavone consumers for TC, TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C analyses were 62 and 57, respectively, but 1 man was excluded due to the use of lipid-lowering drugs. The numbers of low and high isoflavone consumers for glucose analyses were 60 and 56, respectively; 2 and 1 subjects, respectively, were excluded due to the use of glucose-lowering drugs.
eDetermined by soy-isoflavone challenge.
Abbreviations: TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; HDL-C, high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; GPT, glutamic-pyruvic transaminase; GOT, glutamate-oxaloacetate transaminase; γ-GT, γ-glutamyltranspeptidase; BUN, blood urine nitrogen.