| Literature DB >> 35369873 |
Jingyuan Xiong1, Yujie Xu1, Xueting Liu1, Xiaoyu Wang2, Shufang Shan2, M James C Crabbe3,4, Li Zhao1, He Fang1, Guo Cheng5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietary phytoestrogens have been suggested to influence puberty timing, a critical stage for well-being in adulthood. We hypothesized that childhood soy intake might prospectively influence puberty timing and that dietary fibre and the key isoflavone metabolite equol might play roles.Entities:
Keywords: Cohort study; Dietary fibre; Dietary soy; Puberty; equol
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35369873 PMCID: PMC8978387 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02320-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Characteristics of participants by tertile of total soy intakes at baseline1
| Total soy intakes at baseline | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 (0–8.2)2 | T2 (8.5–39.6)2 | T3 (40.1–69.0)2 | ||
| | 717 (33.3) | 718 (33.4) | 717 (33.3) | |
| Birth weight (kg) | 3.1 (2.7, 3.8) | 3.2 (2.9, 3.7) | 3.2 (2.6, 3.8) | 0.4 |
| Age at baseline (years) | 7.0 (0.8) | 7.2 (0.7) | 7.1 (0.8) | 0.2 |
| Age at menarche (years, | 12.5 (0.8) | 12.8 (0.7) | 13.1 (1.1) | 0.03 |
| Age at Tanner stage B24 (years, | 9.1 (1.3) | 9.3 (1.4) | 9.5 (1.2) | 0.02 |
| BMI SDS at baseline (kg/m2) | 0.1 (0.7) | 0.1 (0.6) | 0.2 (0.8) | 0.09 |
| Percent body fatness5at baseline (%) | 16.7 (15.2, 19.5) | 16.3 (15.0, 18.6) | 15.6 (13.7, 18.5) | 0.04 |
| Overweight6 ( | 96 (13.4) | 85 (11.8) | 80 (11.2) | 0.09 |
| High physical activity ( | 190 (26.5) | 202 (28.1) | 198 (27.6) | 0.1 |
| High family income7 ( | 151 (21.1) | 158 (22.0) | 169 (23.6) | 0.06 |
| High paternal educational level8 ( | 144 (20.1) | 166 (23.1) | 186 (25.9) | 0.05 |
| High maternal educational level8 ( | 127 (17.7) | 133 (18.5) | 137 (19.1) | 0.06 |
| Smoking in the household ( | 471 (65.8) | 408 (56.8) | 345 (48.1) | 0.03 |
| Mother’s age at menarche (years) | 12.1 (1.0) | 12.3 (0.9) | 12.4 (1.1) | 0.08 |
| Total energy intake (kcal/day) | 1594 (236) | 1749 (242) | 1638 (251) | 0.05 |
| Total soy (soybean and products) (g/day) | 6.1 (3.9) | 29.2 (8.7) | 56.7 (9.8) | <0.0001 |
| Total fibre (g/day) | 10.3 (1.3) | 10.5 (1.2) | 10.6 (1.4) | 0.06 |
| Cereal fibre (g/day) | 5.5 (1.0) | 5.5 (0.9) | 5.6 (1.1) | 0.2 |
| Vegetable and fruit fibre (g/day) | 4.2 (1.3) | 4.3 (1.1) | 4.1 (1.1) | 0.1 |
| Carbohydrate (% of energy) | 56.6 (5.0) | 57.8 (4.8) | 57.2 (4.6) | 0.2 |
| Fat (% of energy) | 29.1 (4.6) | 27.4 (4.2) | 28.7 (4.3) | 0.3 |
| Protein (% of energy) | 14.3 (2.0) | 14.8 (2.1) | 14.1 (1.9) | 0.2 |
T1 (0–3.2)10 | T2 (4.6–48.2)10 | T3 (49 1–82.6)10 | ||
| | 876 (33.3) | 876 (33.3) | 877 (33.3) | |
| Birth weight (kg) | 3.6 (3.0, 3.9) | 3.4 (2.7, 4.1) | 3.4 (2.5, 4.0) | 0.3 |
| Age at baseline (years) | 7.1 (0.8) | 7.3 (0.6) | 7.3 (0.7) | 0.1 |
| Age at voice break (years, | 13.6 (1.3) | 13.9 (1.2) | 14.1 (1.2) | 0.04 |
| Age at pubertal stage G24 (years, | 10.8 (1.3) | 11.1 (1.2) | 11.4 (1.2) | 0.04 |
| BMI SDS at baseline (kg/m2) | 0.1 (0.6) | 0.1 (0.8) | 0.2 (0.8) | 0.1 |
| Percent body fatness5 at baseline (%) | 13.7 (11.0, 17.4) | 13.5 (10.1, 17.2) | 13.5 (10.6, 17.5) | 0.05 |
| Overweight6 at baseline ( | 122 (13.9) | 107 (12.2) | 104 (11.9) | 0.06 |
| High physical activity ( | 239 (27.3) | 259 (29.6) | 255 (29.1) | 0.07 |
| High family income7 ( | 182 (20.8) | 183 (20.9) | 186 (21.2) | 0.06 |
| Secondary paternal educational level8 ( | 198 (22.6) | 209 (23.9) | 221 (25.2) | 0.04 |
| Secondary maternal educational level8 ( | 159 (18.2) | 163 (18.6) | 167 (19.0) | 0.03 |
| Smoking in the household (n (%)) | 594 (67.8) | 504 (57.5) | 458 (52.2) | 0.04 |
| Mother’s age at menarche (years) | 12.1 (0.8) | 12.3 (0.9) | 12.2 (0.9) | 0.06 |
| Total energy intake (kcal/day) | 1829 (249) | 1961 (225) | 1790 (229) | 0.1 |
| Total soy (soybean and products) (g/day) | 1.6 (1.3) | 36.9 (7.6) | 57.2 (8.7) | <0.0001 |
| Total fibre (g/day) | 9.8 (1.2) | 10.1 (1.3) | 9.9 (1.2) | 0.1 |
| Cereal fibre (g/day) | 4.3 (1.1) | 5.2 (1.0) | 5.3 (1.1) | 0.1 |
| Vegetable and fruit fibre (g/day) | 3.9 (1.2) | 3.8 (1.3) | 4.1 (1.2) | 0.2 |
| Carbohydrate (% of energy) | 58.5 (6.3) | 60.8 (6.1) | 59.4 (5.9) | 0.2 |
| Fat (% of energy) | 27.2 (4.3) | 26.1 (4.1) | 26.8 (4.2) | 0.6 |
| Protein (% of energy) | 14.3 (2.1) | 13.1 (2.2) | 12.8 (2.1) | 0.3 |
1 Values are means (SD), medians (Q1, Q3) or frequency
2 Values are min-max in tertiles in girls
3 Test for difference between the groups was performed, using ANOVA test for normal distributed continuous variables, Kruskal-Wallis test for not normally distributed continuous variables, and chi-square test for categorical variables
4 Tanner stage 2 for breast development (girls) or the initiation of gonadal growth (boys)
5 Calculated according to Slaughter equations [32]
6 Definition according to the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF) [31]
7 Average annual income of family at least ≥ 35,000 CNY (Chinese Yuan), which is a moderate level in the general population in South China [41]
8 School education at least 12 years
9 Mean values of dietary data at baseline using food frequency questionnaires
10 Values are min-max in tertiles in boys
Associations of total soy intakes in childhood with puberty timing1
| Total soy intakes at baseline | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 (0–8.2)2 | T2 (8.5–39.6)2 | T3 (40.1–69.0)2 | ||
| | ||||
| Basic model | 1 | 0.93 (0.86, 0.98) | 0.91 (0.82, 0.97) | 0.03 |
| Model 24 | 1 | 0.92 (0.84, 0.97) | 0.88 (0.80, 0.97) | 0.02 |
| Model 35 | 1 | 0.92 (0.84, 0.98) | 0.88 (0.80, 0.96) | 0.02 |
| | ||||
| Basic model | 1 | 0.91 (0.83, 0.98) | 0.88 (0.79, 0.96) | 0.03 |
| Model 24 | 1 | 0.89 (0.81, 0.97) | 0.87 (0.77, 0.95) | 0.01 |
| Model 35 | 1 | 0.89 (0.81, 0.96) | 0.87 (0.77, 0.94) | 0.01 |
T1 (0–3.2)6 | T2 (4.6–48.2)6 | T3 (49 1–82.6)6 | ||
| | ||||
| Basic model | 1 | 0.96 (0.90, 1.01) | 0.91 (0.84, 0.99) | 0.04 |
| Model 24 | 1 | 0.95 (0.90, 0.99) | 0.91 (0.83, 0.98) | 0.03 |
| Model 35 | 1 | 0.95 (0.90, 0.99) | 0.91 (0.82, 0.98) | 0.03 |
| | ||||
| Basic model | 1 | 0.95 (0.87, 1.02) | 0.92 (0.86, 1.01) | 0.04 |
| Model 24 | 1 | 0.94 (0.88, 0.98) | 0.90 (0.82, 0.96) | 0.02 |
| Model 35 | 1 | 0.94 (0.89, 0.98) | 0.90 (0.82, 0.97) | 0.02 |
1 Values are models adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI), HR hazard ratio
2 Values are min-max in tertiles in girls
3 P for trend across tertiles were performed by including total soy intakes at baseline as continuous variables
4 Adjusted for parental education level, energy intake at baseline, dietary fibre intakes (residuals) at baseline and mother’s age at menarche
5 Additionally adjusted for percent body fat at baseline
6 Values are min-max in tertiles in boys
Fig. 1HR and 95%CI for B2 (A), M (B), G2 (C) and VB (D) stratified by urinary equol levels. Data are HR with 95% confidence intervals. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used, adjusted for parental education level, mother’s age at menarche, energy intake at baseline, dietary fibre intakes (residuals) at baseline and percent body fat at baseline, with the group of those in both lowest tertile of total soy intakes and lower equol level (< median values) serving as the reference group. p for interactions refers to the 2-way interactions of urinary equol level on the relations between dietary soy intake and puberty markers. A, B Ngirl=589. Range of total soy intakes: 1st tertile (1.5–11.3), 2nd tertile (12.1–38.9) and 3rd tertile (39.3–68.6). Participants in groups: low soy, low equol: n=109; low soy, high equol: n=103; medium soy, low equol: n=95; medium soy, high equol: n=86; high soy, low equol: n=108; high soy, high equol: n=88. C, D Nboy=722. Range of soybean intakes: 1st tertile (0–4.5), 2nd tertile (5.2–46.4) and 3rd tertile (50.2–80.9). Participants in groups: low soy, low equol: n=146; low soy, high equol: n=121; medium soy, low equol: n=123; medium soy, high equol: n=98; high soy, low equol: n=126; high soy, high equol: n=108
Fig. 2HR and 95%CI for B2 (A), M (B), G2 (C) and VB (D) stratified by cereal fibre intakes. Data are HR with 95% confidence intervals. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used, adjusted for parental education level, mother’s age at menarche, energy intake at baseline and percent body fat at baseline, with the group of those in the lowest tertile of both total soy and dietary cereal fibre intakes serving as the reference group. p for interactions refers to the 2-way interactions of cereal fibre intakes on the relations between dietary soy intake and puberty markers. A, B Ngirl=2152. Range of soybean intakes: 1st tertile (0–8.2), 2nd tertile (8.5–39.6) and 3rd tertile (40.1–69.0). Participants in groups: low soy, low cereal fibre: n=285; low soy, medium cereal fibre: n=217; low soy, high cereal fibre: n=222; medium soy, low cereal fibre: n=265; medium soy, medium cereal fibre: n=223; medium soy, high cereal fibre: n=220; high soy, low cereal fibre: n=309; high soy, medium cereal fibre: n=221; high soy, high cereal fibre: n=192. C, D Nboy=2629. Range of soybean intakes: 1st tertile (0–3.2), 2nd tertile (4.6–48 2) and 3rd tertile (49.1–82.6). Participants in groups: low soy, low cereal fibre: n=350; low soy, medium cereal fibre: n=266; low soy, high cereal fibre: n=269; medium soy, low cereal fibre: n=320; medium soy, medium cereal fibre: n=272; medium soy, high cereal fibre: n=268; high soy, low cereal fibre: n=376; high soy, medium cereal fibre: n=274; high soy, high cereal fibre: n=234
Associations of total dietary fibre intakes in childhood with puberty timing 1
| Total dietary fibre intakes at baseline | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 (2.1–6.9)2 | T2 (7.1–9.7)2 | T3 (9.8–14.2)2 | ||
| | ||||
| Basic model | 1 | 0.96 (0.90, 1.07) | 0.93 (0.87, 1.09) | 0.04 |
| Model 24 | 1 | 0.96 (0.86, 1.12) | 0.94 (0.86, 1.11) | 0.07 |
| Model 35 | 1 | 0.96 (0.86, 1.13) | 0.93 (0.87, 1.11) | 0.08 |
| | ||||
| Basic model | 1 | 0.97 (0.90, 1.07) | 0.95 (0.89, 1.10) | 0.03 |
| Model 24 | 1 | 0.96 (0.87, 1.10) | 0.94 (0.88, 1.11) | 0.06 |
| Model 35 | 1 | 0.96 (0.88, 1.12) | 0.94 (0.88, 1.11) | 0.06 |
T1 (1.7–5.8)6 | T2 (6.0–8.9)6 | T3 (9.0–13.8)6 | ||
| | ||||
| Basic model | 1 | 0.95(0.90, 1.10) | 0.94 (0.88, 1.12) | 0.06 |
| Model 24 | 1 | 0.94 (0.86, 1.13) | 0.94 (0.86, 1.12) | 0.08 |
| Model 35 | 1 | 0.94 (0.87, 1.13) | 0.93 (0.87, 1.10) | 0.09 |
| | ||||
| Basic model | 1 | 0.94 (0.87, 1.09) | 0.93 (0.86, 1.11) | 0.05 |
| Model 24 | 1 | 0.94 (0.86, 1.10) | 0.94 (0.87, 1.11) | 0.07 |
| Model 35 | 1 | 0.94 (0.88, 1.11) | 0.94 (0.87, 1.10) | 0.08 |
1 Values are models adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI), HR hazard ratio
2 Values are min-max in tertiles in girls
3 P for trend across tertiles were performed by including dietary fibre intakes at baseline as continuous variables
4 Adjusted for parental education level, energy intake at baseline, total soy intakes (residuals) at baseline and mother’s age at menarche
5 Additionally adjusted for percent body fat at baseline
6 Values are min-max in tertiles in boys