Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T10:41:35.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Urea kinetics in healthy young women: minimal effect of stage of menstrual cycle, contraceptivepill and protein intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Irene S. M. McClelland
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton SO16 7PX
Alan A. Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton SO16 7PX
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Urea kinetics were measured using prime/lintermittent oral doses of [15N15N]urea, on five separate protocols in thirteen normal young women. Each woman underwent either two or three study protocols.Measurements were made at day 12 and day 22 of the menstrual cycle, whilst consuming their habitual protein intake in seven women not taking the contraceptive pill and in six women taking the contraceptive pill. In three woman taking the pill, and three not taking the pill, urea kinetics were measured whilst taking a diet in which the intakewas restricted to 55 g protein/d. There was no difference in the rate of urea production, urea excretion or urea hydrolysis between the women taking the pill and those not taking the pill at day 22. In the women not taking the pill there was no difference in any measure between day 12 and day 22. In the women taking the pill there was a significant difference in the disposal of urea N to excretion or hydrolysis on day 12 compared with day 22, with a relative decrease in excretion and enhancement of hydrolysis at day 12 compared with day 22. On the restricted diet, an intake of 55 g protein/d represented 77% of the habitual intake and urea production, excretion and hydrolysis were reduced to about 84% of the rate found on the habitual intake. In paired studies the reduction in urea production was statistically significant, and there was a statistically significant linear relationship between urea production and either intake or the sum of intake plus hydrolysis. The within-individual variability for urea production was about 10% for excretion 15% and for hydrolysis 44% The between-individual variability for intake was about 17% on the habitual intake. The variability for production, excretion and hydrolysis (14, 13, 36%) was less in the women not taking the contraceptive pill than in those taking the pill (23,32,42% respectively). The variability was reduced on the controlled low intake of 55 g protein compared with the habitual intake.These results confirm the wide variability in aspects of urea kinetics between individuals. In women this variability is not, to any large extent, accounted for by changes associated with themenstrual cycle

Type
Human and Clinical Nutrition
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1996

References

REFERENCES

Bisdee, J. T., James, W. P. T. & Shaw, M. A. (1989). Changes in energy expenditure during the menstrual cycle. British Journal of Nutrition 61, 187199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bundy, R., Persaud, C. & Jackson, A. A. (1993). Measurements of urea kinetics with a singledose of 15N15N-urea in free-living vegetarians. Infernational Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 44, 253259.Google Scholar
Calloway, D. H. & Kurzer, M. S. (1982). Menstrual cycle and protein requirements of women. Journal of Nutrition 112, 356366.Google Scholar
Dalvitt-McPhillips, S. P. (1983). The effect of the human menstrual cycle on nutrient intake. Physiology and Behaviour 31, 209212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielsen, M. S. & Jackson, A. A. (1992). Limits of adaptation to a diet low in protein in normal man: urea kinetics. Clinical Science 83, 103108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Benoist, B., Jackson, A. A., Hall, J. St E. & Persaud, C. (1985). Whole-body protein turnover in Jamaican women during normal pregnancy. Human Nutrition: Clinical Nutrition 39C, 167179.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Social Security (1979). Recommended Daily Amounts of Food Energy and Nutrients for Groups of People in the United Kingdom. Report on Health and Social Subjects no. 15 London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. L. & King, J. C. (1987). Protein turnover and 3-methylhistidine excretion in non-pregnant and gestational diabetic women. Human Nutrition: Clinical Nutrition 41C, 327339.Google Scholar
Fong, A. K. H. & Kretch, M. J. (1993). Changes in dietary intake, urinary nitrogen, and urinary volume across the menstrual cycle. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 57, 4346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization/United Nations University (1985). Energy and Protein Requirements. Report of an Expert Consultation. Technical Report Series 724. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Forrester, T., Badaloo, A. V., Persaud, C. & Jackson, A. A. (1994). Urea production and salvage during pregnancy in normal Jamaican women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 60, 341346.Google Scholar
Gallant, M. P., Bowering, J., Short, S. H. & Turkki, P. R. (1987). Pyridoxine and magnesiumstatus of women with premenstrual syndrome. Nutrition Research 7, 243252.Google Scholar
Garrel, D. R., Welsch, C., Arnaud, M. J. & Tourniaire, J. (1985). Relationship of the menstrual cycle and thyroid hormones to whole body protein turnover in women. Human Nutrition: Clinical Nutrition 29C, 2937.Google Scholar
Grove, G. & Jackson, A. A. (1991). Whole-body protein turnover in healthy women at different stages of the menstrual cycle. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 51, 44A.Google Scholar
Hibbert, J. M. & Jackson, A. A. (1991). The intra-individual variation in urea kinetics in a single individual over a period of four years. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 45, 347351.Google Scholar
Jackson, A. A. (1993). Chronic malnutrition: protein metabolism. Proceedings ofthe Nutrition Society 52, 110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, A. A. (1995). Salvage of urea nitrogen and protein requirements. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 54,535547.Google Scholar
Jackson, A. A., Golden, M. H. N., Jahoor, P. F. & Landman, J. (1980). The isolation of ureanitrogen and ammonia nitrogen from biological samples for mass spectrometry. Analytical Biochemistry 105, 1417.Google Scholar
Jackson, A. A., Picou, D. & Landman, J. (1984). The non-invasive measurement of urea kinetics in normal man by a constant infusion of 15N15N-urea. Human Nutrition: Clinical Nutrition 38C, 339354.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1965). Urea, nitrogen and ammonia. In Standard Methods in Clinical Chemistry, pp. 245256. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Langran, M., Moran, B. J., Murphy, J. L. &Jackson, A. A. (1992). Adaptation to a diet low in protein: effect of complex carbohydrate upon urea kinetics in normal man. Clinical Science 82, 191198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarasak, V. & Beaton, G. H. (1991). Menstrual cycle patterns in energy and macronutrient intake. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53, 442447.Google Scholar
Walser, M. & Bodenlos, L. J. (1959). Urea metabolism in man. Journal of Clinical Investigation 38, 16171625.Google Scholar
Walser, M., George, J. & Bodenlos, L. J. (1954). Altered proportions of isotopes of molecular nitrogen from biological samples for mass spectrometry. Journal of Chemistry and Physics 22, 1146.Google Scholar
Waterlow, J. C. (1968). Observations on the mechanism of adaptation to low protein intakes. Lancet 2, 10911097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waterlow, J. C. (1985). What do we mean by adaptation? In Nutritional Adaptation in Man, pp. 111 [Blaxter, K. and Waterlow, J. C. editors] London: John Libbey.Google Scholar