CONTEXT: Phytoestrogens may influence fecundability, although biological mechanisms remain elusive. Since it is hypothesized that phytoestrogens may act through influencing hormone levels, we investigated associations between phytoestrogens and menstrual cycle length, a proxy for the hormonal milieu, in healthy women attempting pregnancy. DESIGN: A population-based prospective cohort of 326 women ages 18 to 40 with self-reported cycles of 21 to 42 days were followed until pregnancy or for 12 months of attempting pregnancy. METHODS: Urinary genistein, daidzein, O-desmethylangolensin, equol, enterodiol, and enterolactone were measured upon enrollment. Cycle length was determined from fertility monitors and daily journals. Linear mixed models assessed associations with continuous cycle length and were weighted by the inverse number of observed cycles. Logistic regression models assessed menstrual regularity (standard deviation > 75th vs ≤ 75th percentile). Models were adjusted for age, body mass index, race, creatinine, exercise, supplements, lipids, lead, cadmium, cotinine, parity, alcohol, and other phytoestrogens. RESULTS: Individual phytoestrogens were not associated with cycle length, although total phytoestrogens were associated with shorter cycles (-0.042 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.080 to -0.003, per 10% increase). Each 1 nmol/L increase in enterolactone (odds ratio [OR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97) and total lignans (OR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95) was associated with reduced irregularity, and each 1 nmol/L increase in genistein with irregularity (OR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.38). CONCLUSION: Phytoestrogens were not meaningfully associated with cycle length but may be associated with menstrual regularity, among women with self-reported regular cycles. These results highlight differences between isoflavones and lignans and are reassuring for women attempting pregnancy. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society 2019.
CONTEXT: Phytoestrogens may influence fecundability, although biological mechanisms remain elusive. Since it is hypothesized that phytoestrogens may act through influencing hormone levels, we investigated associations between phytoestrogens and menstrual cycle length, a proxy for the hormonal milieu, in healthy women attempting pregnancy. DESIGN: A population-based prospective cohort of 326 women ages 18 to 40 with self-reported cycles of 21 to 42 days were followed until pregnancy or for 12 months of attempting pregnancy. METHODS: Urinary genistein, daidzein, O-desmethylangolensin, equol, enterodiol, and enterolactone were measured upon enrollment. Cycle length was determined from fertility monitors and daily journals. Linear mixed models assessed associations with continuous cycle length and were weighted by the inverse number of observed cycles. Logistic regression models assessed menstrual regularity (standard deviation > 75th vs ≤ 75th percentile). Models were adjusted for age, body mass index, race, creatinine, exercise, supplements, lipids, lead, cadmium, cotinine, parity, alcohol, and other phytoestrogens. RESULTS: Individual phytoestrogens were not associated with cycle length, although total phytoestrogens were associated with shorter cycles (-0.042 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.080 to -0.003, per 10% increase). Each 1 nmol/L increase in enterolactone (odds ratio [OR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97) and total lignans (OR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95) was associated with reduced irregularity, and each 1 nmol/L increase in genistein with irregularity (OR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.38). CONCLUSION: Phytoestrogens were not meaningfully associated with cycle length but may be associated with menstrual regularity, among women with self-reported regular cycles. These results highlight differences between isoflavones and lignans and are reassuring for women attempting pregnancy. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society 2019.
Authors: Germaine M Buck Louis; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Enrique F Schisterman; Anne M Sweeney; Courtney D Lynch; Robert E Gore-Langton; Zhen Chen; Sungduk Kim; Kathleen L Caldwell; Dana Boyd Barr Journal: Chemosphere Date: 2012-02-04 Impact factor: 7.086
Authors: C G Solomon; F B Hu; A Dunaif; J Rich-Edwards; W C Willett; D J Hunter; G A Colditz; F E Speizer; J E Manson Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-11-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Chanley M Small; Amita K Manatunga; Mitchel Klein; Celia E Dominguez; Heather S Feigelson; Ruth McChesney; Michele Marcus Journal: Rev Environ Health Date: 2010 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 3.458