The C.A.M. Report
Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Fair, Balanced, and to the Point
  • About this web log

    This blog ran from 2006 to 2016 and was intended as an objective and dispassionate source of information on the latest CAM research. Since my background is in pharmacy and allopathic medicine, I view all CAM as advancing through the development pipeline to eventually become integrated into mainstream medical practice. Some will succeed while others fail. But all are treated fairly here.

  • About the author

    John Russo, Jr., PharmD, is president of The MedCom Resource, Inc. Previously, he was senior vice president of medical communications at, a complementary and alternative medicine website.

  • Common sense considerations

    The material on this weblog is for informational purposes. It is not medical advice or counsel. Be smart, consult your health professional before using CAM.

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Soy fails to improve cholestrol levels

    That’s the conclusion from a long-term study by researchers in Florida and Oklahoma.

    First, the details.

    • 62 postmenopausal women with moderately high cholesterol levels were randomly assigned to take soy or control foods daily for 1 year.
    • Blood samples were analyzed for total cholesterol, LDL (bad) cholesterol, HDL (good) cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein (Apo) A, and Apo B.
      • Apolipoproteins bind to fats (Apo A is in LDL cholesterol and Apo B is in HDL cholesterol)

    And, the results.

    • There was no change in total cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL and HDL cholesterol levels after 1 year of soy protein supplementation.
    • There was a significant increase in Apo B levels and a significant decrease in Apo A levels.

    The bottom line?

    The authors concluded, “1-year soy protein supplementation did not confer cardiovascular benefits, in terms of favorable alterations in the lipid profile.”

    A review of 42 studies concluded that soy does have a positive effect on lipids.

    The difference might be found in the duration of the studies. The lack of effects after 1 year would seem to be more significant clinically compared to a 12-week study summarized here.

    3/11/10 20:56 JR

    Leave a Comment

    You must be logged in to post a comment.