Effects of soy vs. casein protein on body weight and glycemic control in female monkeys and their offspring
ABSTRACT Nutritional interventions are important for reducing obesity and related conditions. Soy is a good source of protein and also contains isoflavones that may affect plasma lipids, body weight, and insulin action. Described here are data from a monkey breeding colony in which monkeys were initially fed a standard chow diet that is low fat with protein derived from soy. Monkeys were then randomized to a defined diet with a fat content similar to the typical American diet (TAD) containing either protein derived from soy (TAD soy) or casein-lactalbumin (TAD casein). The colony was followed for over two years to assess body weight, and carbohydrate and lipid measures in adult females (n=19) and their offspring (n=25). Serum isoflavone concentrations were higher with TAD soy than TAD casein, but not as high as when monkey chow was fed. Offspring consuming TAD soy had higher serum isoflavone concentrations than adults consuming TAD soy. Female monkeys consuming TAD soy had better glycemic control, as determined by fructosamine concentrations, but no differences in lipids or body weight compared with those consuming diets with TAD casein. Offspring born to dams consuming TAD soy had similar body weights at birth but over a two-year period weighed significantly less, had significantly lower triglyceride concentrations, and like adult females, had significantly lower fructosamine concentrations compared to TAD casein. Glucose tolerance tests in adult females were not significantly different with diet, but offspring eating TAD soy had increased glucose disappearance with overall lower glucose and insulin responses to the glucose challenge compared with TAD casein. Potential reasons for the additional benefits of TAD soy observed in offspring but not in adults may be related to higher serum isoflavone concentrations in offspring, presence of the diet differences throughout more of their lifespan (including gestation), or different tissue susceptibilities in younger animals.
- SourceAvailable from: Lynn A Fairbanks
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "In the current study, we challenged for 7–8 weeks an entire pedigreed colony of vervet monkeys—initially consuming a low fat, standard primate diet—with a " typical American " diet (TAD) that was high in fat [37% of calories; Wagner et al., 2009]. Although dietary challenges have been conducted in human subjects to identify G × D interactions [especially with respect to plasma lipids; Dreon et al., 2000], most studies have been done on an outpatient basis using individuals of unknown relatedness. "
ABSTRACT: Nutrient composition of a diet (D) has been shown to interact with genetic predispositions (G) to affect various lipid phenotypes. Our aim in this study was to confirm G × D interaction and determine whether the interaction extends to other cardiometabolic risk factors such as glycemic measures and body weight. Subjects were vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops sabaeus; n = 309) from a multigenerational pedigreed colony initially fed with a plant-based diet, standard primate diet (18% calories from protein, 13% from fat, and 69% from carbohydrates), and subsequently challenged for 8 weeks with a diet modeled on the typical American diet (18% calories from protein, 35% from fat, and 47% from carbohydrates). Our results showed that although exposure to the challenge diet did not result in significant changes in weight, most lipid and glycemic biomarkers moved in an adverse direction (P < 0.01). Quantitative genetic analyses showed that cardiometabolic phenotypes were significantly heritable under both dietary conditions (P < 0.05), and there was significant evidence of G × D interaction for these phenotypes. We observed significant differences in the additive genetic variances for most lipid phenotypes (P < 10(-4) ), indicating that the magnitude of genetic effects varies by diet. Furthermore, genetic correlations between diets differed significantly from 1 with respect to insulin, body weight, and some lipid phenotypes (P < 0.01). This implied that distinct genetic effects are involved in the regulation of these phenotypes under the two dietary conditions. These G × D effects confirm and extend previous observations in baboons (Papio sp.) and suggest that mimicking the typical human nutritional environment can reveal genetic influences that might not be observed in animals consuming standard, plant-based diets. Am. J. Primatol. 00:1-9, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.American Journal of Primatology 05/2013; 75(5). DOI:10.1002/ajp.22125 · 2.44 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To critically evaluate the clinical evidence, and when not available, the animal data, most relevant to concerns that isoflavone exposure in the form of supplements or soy foods has feminizing effects on men. Medline literature review and cross-reference of published data. In contrast to the results of some rodent studies, findings from a recently published metaanalysis and subsequently published studies show that neither isoflavone supplements nor isoflavone-rich soy affect total or free testosterone (T) levels. Similarly, there is essentially no evidence from the nine identified clinical studies that isoflavone exposure affects circulating estrogen levels in men. Clinical evidence also indicates that isoflavones have no effect on sperm or semen parameters, although only three intervention studies were identified and none were longer than 3 months in duration. Finally, findings from animal studies suggesting that isoflavones increase the risk of erectile dysfunction are not applicable to men, because of differences in isoflavone metabolism between rodents and humans and the excessively high amount of isoflavones to which the animals were exposed. The intervention data indicate that isoflavones do not exert feminizing effects on men at intake levels equal to and even considerably higher than are typical for Asian males.Fertility and sterility 04/2010; 93(7):2095-104. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.002 · 4.59 Impact Factor
- The Journal of urology 01/2011; 185(1):254. DOI:10.1016/S0022-5347(11)60100-6 · 4.47 Impact Factor