Of course, note the comment that the fact that some women may experience longer periods and greater discomfort is not considered siginificant by the researchers.
I don't think that the comment about longer periods and discomfort being "insignficant" was meant in the sense of "those effects are no big deal and we don't care about them"; rather I think the study concluded that the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant.
Look at it this way:
Imagine you took two groups of women, one group whose home addresses had even numbers and another whose home addresses had odd numbers.
You have 1000 women in each group.
You measure the average length of menstrual periods and pain in each group.
Guess what? It's not going to come out exactly the same. One group will have a very slightly higher length than the other. It's very unlikely that the two measurements will match precisely. But the difference will not be statistically significant.
When the researchers then tell you that this effect is not statistically significant, they're not being unsympathetic to the group with more pain. They're just saying they think it's very unlikely that the effect has anything to do with their home addresses.
Stories in the popular press about scientific studies are often not very well worded.
I notice it didn't say anything about early development in girls, which is what I've always heard suspicions about. That using soy formula may be a contributing factor in girls reaching menarche sooner and sooner these days.
Luckily, I was blessed with two good breast-feeders who are not allergic to cow's milk now that they're older, so I don't have to worry about it.
Linear Mode
