What's wrong with soy nut butter?

[SpiderJerusalem]

Well, 10 days later and no follow-up posts attempting to counter my sources. I'd say I made my point then. Soy=bad news. Or at least questionable enough to be avoided in any significant amount.

Win.

[Atavis]

Asians only eat soy after it's been fermented.

Fresh soy contains trypsin inhibitors and goitrogens. Soooo, if you want to make it harder to digest protein and decrease your thyroid functions, go for eat up.

[jahnc1]

Originally Posted by SpiderJerusalem

Well, 10 days later and no follow-up posts attempting to counter my sources. I'd say I made my point then. Soy=bad news. Or at least questionable enough to be avoided in any significant amount.

Win.

Whoa whoa whoa lassy! To be honest, I didn't even know you responded back until last night as I havn't had much time to get on the boards due to school exams...and yes, exams are much more important than this argument...On that note, I'm going to Thunder Over Louisville this weekend and working a double shift on Monday so I'll hit you up on Tuesday when I have some time to sit down...How can you say you've "won" by the way lol you havn't "won" a single argument thus far...

Originally Posted by Atavis

Asians only eat soy after it's been fermented.

Fresh soy contains trypsin inhibitors and goitrogens. Soooo, if you want to make it harder to digest protein and decrease your thyroid functions, go for eat up.

First statement: ummm no...and I'm not even going to argue this as it has already been discussed...

Second statement: I'll get to it when I get to his ^

EDIT: BTW have you heard that susan boyle lady on britains got talent...i dont even like that music, but she rocked it out...just had to get it out...

[SpiderJerusalem]

Originally Posted by jahnc1

Whoa whoa whoa lassy! To be honest, I didn't even know you responded back until last night as I havn't had much time to get on the boards due to school exams...and yes, exams are much more important than this argument...On that note, I'm going to Thunder Over Louisville this weekend and working a double shift on Monday so I'll hit you up on Tuesday when I have some time to sit down...How can you say you've "won" by the way lol you havn't "won" a single argument thus far...



First statement: ummm no...and I'm not even going to argue this as it has already been discussed...

Second statement: I'll get to it when I get to his ^

EDIT: BTW have you heard that susan boyle lady on britains got talent...i dont even like that music, but she rocked it out...just had to get it out...

My last post on page 1 is impregnablz! lol
Seriously, unless you think lowered testosterone is a *good* thing for bodybuilders?

EDIT: I don't watch much TV, but I read about Ms. Boyle, and good on her I say!

[jahnc1]

Originally Posted by SpiderJerusalem

The American Heart Association disputed the FDA's "heart-healthy" claims. Read the "Claims of Cholesterol reduction" on the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean
"In January 2006 an American Heart Association review (in the journal "Circulation") of a decade long study of soy protein benefits casts doubt on the FDA allowed "Heart Healthy" claim for soy protein and did not recommend isoflavone supplementation. The review panel also found that soy isoflavones have not been shown to reduce post menopause "hot flashes" in women and the efficacy and safety of isoflavones to help prevent cancers of the breast, uterus or prostate is in question."

See also the "Health Risks/Men" section on the same page. This sentence stands out, and anyone here trying to build muscle ought to take note: "Because of the phytoestrogen content, some studies, but not all, have suggested that there is an inverse correlation between soybean ingestion and testosterone in men.[49] For this reason, they may protect against the development of prostate cancer.[50] A theoretical decrease in the risk of prostate cancer should, however, be weighed against the possible side-effects of decreased testosterone, which are still unclear."

I'm sorry, *decreased* testosterone? No thank you. Even if not all studies have shown this inverse correlation, seriously, why risk it until all the evidence is in?

Soy is also high (one of the highest food sources, actually) in oxalic acid. Proper fermentation helps reduce the amount. Most soy consumed in the West, however, is not properly fermented. Check out the "Physiological effects" section on the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxalic_acid

And I know that anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, but given how soy protein gives me headaches, I'm not seeing anything from your side that would convince me its worth consuming it.

Like I said, small amounts of properly-fermented, non-GMO soy are probably okay as a seasoning, but including soy as any kind of food staple in a bodybuilding diet isn't looking so good.

Now to the good stuff...I like your style btw man lol you make for a good debate...

Let me start off by telling you that whenever you want to make an argument, for future sake, never use wikipedia...I could go on there right now and change everything to say what I want it to say, which makes "wiki-siting" not very reliable...but, for argument sake I'll look in to the sources from which these statements were derived (that is if there even is sources)...

I'll start off with what arguments you brought forth from the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean

Lets discuss the AHA review of soy protein; and for the record, what was stated on wikipedia was not necessarily how it was stated in the actual AHA advisory of soy protein (which you can get to by going through the source and then clicking on the full text option)...Also, I'm a little confused if this is what you are using as an argument against soy, as the AHA really doesn't say anything negative (will cause cancer, cause Alzheimer's, etc...) against soy...

The wikipedia page made it sound as though the AHA was completely frowning upon any use of soy when in reality, they were not at all...The actual conclusion went as follows: (page 8)

"Earlier research indicating that soy protein, as compared with other proteins, has clinically important favorable effects on LDL cholesterol and other CVD risk factors has not been confirmed by many studies reported during the past 10 years. A very large amount of soy protein, more than half the daily protein intake, may lower LDL cholesterol by a few percentage points when it replaces dairy protein or a mixture of animal proteins. The evidence favors soy protein rather than soy isoflavones as the responsible nutrient. However, at this time, the possibility cannot be ruled out that another component in soybeans could be the active factor. No benefit is evident on HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, lipoprotein(a), or blood pressure. Thus, the direct cardiovascular health benefit of soy protein or isoflavone supplements is minimal at best. Soy protein or isoflavones have not been shown to improve vasomotor symptoms of menopause, and results are mixed with regard to the slowing of postmenopausal bone loss. The efficacy and safety of soy isoflavones for preventing or treating cancer of the breast, endometrium, and prostate are not established; evidence from clinical trials is meager and cautionary with regard to a possible adverse effect. For this reason, use of isoflavone supplements in food or pills is not recommended. In contrast, soy products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, or some soy burgers should be beneficial to cardiovascular and overall health because of their high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and low content of saturated fat (Table 4). Using these and other soy foods to replace foods high in animal protein that contain saturated fat and cholesterol may confer benefits to cardiovascular health. Soy protein also may be used to increase total dietary protein intake and to reduce carbohydrate or fat intake. However, much less is known about the potential impact of high-protein diets on risk factors for CVD. In the meantime, these remain dynamic areas for research. The AHA will continue to monitor the results and modify its advisory statement as needed."

From this we can see that the AHA still acknowledges that soy has at least some benefits on cardiovascular health according to their research of other studies. As for menopause/cancer, all they say is that supplementing with soy isoflavones may or may not be a beneficial means of treatment according to certain studies, but this is still uncertain. Never do they exclaim that soy causes any sort of health problem?they even go on to suggest the use of soy products which can be seen in the following excerpt:

"In contrast, soy products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, or some soy burgers should be beneficial to cardiovascular and overall health because of their high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and low content of saturated fat."

Lets move on to your claim against soy concerning lowered testosterone on the same page. First off, I'm not quite sure why people truly believe soy to have a negative effect on testosterone levels as you will see in the following links.

The first link is to a well known study (Goodin) concerning soy's effect on testosterone levels in humans (actually this study is the stem and reason why most weight trainers avoid soy)...please note that the following abstract, which most of the population and media read and made their conclusions on, has many serious flaws and misprints which will be discussed next...

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...e2=tf_ipsecsha

Before you start saying "I told you so", click on the following link in which Jim Stoppani (a published writer of Muscle and Fitness) critiques the actual study and not the abstract, which as I said has misprints and misleading information that does not allow the viewer to truly understand what happened during the research...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n27410483/

Still not convinced that soy, at the worst, has no effect on testosterone? The following link is to a study done in response to the Goodin research in which resistance trainers saw no ill-effect to their testosterone levels...in fact, testosterone even increased in subjects using the soy/whey blend...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908338

The truth is, soy doesn't decrease testosterone levels at all so I can't see why someone should avoid supplementing with soy for bodybuilding...you sir are 0 for 2 right now...

As for the thyroid statement by the other guy, what are you basing this on? General belief? Self belief? Following is a link regarding soy and thyroid function...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571087

Moving on to your statement about oxalic acid and soy...lol I don't even know were to begin...yes soybeans have a considerable amount of oxalic acid, BUT according to your own wikipedia page you posted so does spinach, nuts, black pepper, etc...Hahahaha here is the statement from the page...

"Oxalic acid and oxalates are abundantly present in many plants, most notably fat hen (lamb's quarters), sorrel, and Oxalis species. The root and/or leaves of rhubarb and buckwheat are listed being high in oxalic acid.[8]
Other edible plants that contain significant concentrations of oxalic acid include...in decreasing order...star fruit (carambola), black pepper, parsley, poppy seed, amaranth, spinach, chard, beets, cocoa, chocolate, most nuts, most berries, and beans."

Assuming soybeans fall in to the bean category, they have the least of all of them...rofl I guess I'll stop eating spinach and using black pepper now...

Well I'm done now, seeing as you went 0 for 3 this go-around lol...BTW, how do you even know that soy is the cause of your headaches? Regardless, like everytime before, I WIN...

EDIT: Concerning the testosterone source from the wikipedia page, I had no idea what the abstract was saying so I didn't discuss it...

[SpiderJerusalem]

Originally Posted by jahnc1

*snip*


I'll start off with what arguments you brought forth from the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean


The wikipedia page made it sound as though the AHA was completely frowning upon any use of soy when in reality, they were not at all...The actual conclusion went as follows: (page 8)

"Earlier research indicating that soy protein, as compared with other proteins, has clinically important favorable effects on LDL cholesterol and other CVD risk factors has not been confirmed by many studies reported during the past 10 years. A very large amount of soy protein, more than half the daily protein intake, may lower LDL cholesterol by a few percentage points when it replaces dairy protein or a mixture of animal proteins. The evidence favors soy protein rather than soy isoflavones as the responsible nutrient. However, at this time, the possibility cannot be ruled out that another component in soybeans could be the active factor. No benefit is evident on HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, lipoprotein(a), or blood pressure. Thus, the direct cardiovascular health benefit of soy protein or isoflavone supplements is minimal at best. Soy protein or isoflavones have not been shown to improve vasomotor symptoms of menopause, and results are mixed with regard to the slowing of postmenopausal bone loss. The efficacy and safety of soy isoflavones for preventing or treating cancer of the breast, endometrium, and prostate are not established; evidence from clinical trials is meager and cautionary with regard to a possible adverse effect. For this reason, use of isoflavone supplements in food or pills is not recommended. In contrast, soy products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, or some soy burgers should be beneficial to cardiovascular and overall health because of their high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and low content of saturated fat (Table 4). Using these and other soy foods to replace foods high in animal protein that contain saturated fat and cholesterol may confer benefits to cardiovascular health. Soy protein also may be used to increase total dietary protein intake and to reduce carbohydrate or fat intake. However, much less is known about the potential impact of high-protein diets on risk factors for CVD. In the meantime, these remain dynamic areas for research. The AHA will continue to monitor the results and modify its advisory statement as needed."

From this we can see that the AHA still acknowledges that soy has at least some benefits on cardiovascular health according to their research of other studies. As for menopause/cancer, all they say is that supplementing with soy isoflavones may or may not be a beneficial means of treatment according to certain studies, but this is still uncertain. Never do they exclaim that soy causes any sort of health problem?they even go on to suggest the use of soy products which can be seen in the following excerpt:

"In contrast, soy products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, or some soy burgers should be beneficial to cardiovascular and overall health because of their high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and low content of saturated fat."

Let me highlight some quotes from that same paragraph:

"Thus, the direct cardiovascular health benefit of soy protein or isoflavone supplements is minimal at best."

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

"In contrast, soy products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, or some soy burgers should be beneficial to cardiovascular and overall health because of their high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and low content of saturated fat"

Key word: *should*. Not "are". Big difference, and that depends also on whether you truly believe that saturated fats are "bad" for you (I don't--not as part of a lower-carb diet, anyway) and fiber is "good" for you (show me a peer-reviewed medical journal that states without opposition that fiber is necessary for the human digestive and elimination systems and I'll happily buy you a jar of metamucil, lol).

So basically what they're saying is that there is no conclusive evidence that soy is even good for you. They say it "should" be good based on fiber, vitamins, fat content, etc, but that's as far as they push it. In other words, no tangible benefit over other foods. Which was a big part of the point of my last post--yes, you can apparently find any number of studies and papers that refute the negative health claims against soy. That's fine. But on the other hand you *can't* find any that show conclusively that it has any real benefits. The jury's still out. And while the jury's out, anyone with doubts is probably going to at least limit their soy intake.

I'm sorry, but I entirely disagree with your conclusion that "From this we can see that the AHA still acknowledges that soy has at least some benefits on cardiovascular health according to their research of other studies." That's not what they said at all. They said "may have" in those paragraphs, or "should". Not "has". If it were "has", they wouldn't likely have revoked their heart-healthy claim, would they. And for the record, I never said the AHA claimed soy causes health problems, simply that they were refuting the claims of cardiovascular benefits from consuming soy and pulled their approval for such claims made by manufacturers.

Originally Posted by jahnc1

Lets move on to your claim against soy concerning lowered testosterone on the same page. First off, I'm not quite sure why people truly believe soy to have a negative effect on testosterone levels as you will see in the following links.

The first link is to a well known study (Goodin) concerning soy's effect on testosterone levels in humans (actually this study is the stem and reason why most weight trainers avoid soy)...please note that the following abstract, which most of the population and media read and made their conclusions on, has many serious flaws and misprints which will be discussed next...

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...e2=tf_ipsecsha

Before you start saying "I told you so", click on the following link in which Jim Stoppani (a published writer of Muscle and Fitness) critiques the actual study and not the abstract, which as I said has misprints and misleading information that does not allow the viewer to truly understand what happened during the research...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n27410483/

Stoppani makes some interesting points, sure. I wasn't referring to that study when I spoke of decreased testosterone. I was referring to this one, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15735098 , and this one http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=1208260 as quoted on the Wiki page. Both found indications of lowered testosterone due to soy intake. The context of the second was in relation to prostate function. And the big question that comes out is, if soy might prevent or control BPH by reducing DHT/testosterone levels in males, is that benefit worth it versus the as yet unweighed consequences of lowering testosterone? If you read both studies' conclusions, the authors have little doubt that testosterone (and DHT, etc) was lowered in their test subjects. THAT's what I was referring to, as you'll see if you go back and check my previous post.

(continued...)

[SpiderJerusalem]

Originally Posted by jahnc1

Still not convinced that soy, at the worst, has no effect on testosterone? The following link is to a study done in response to the Goodin research in which resistance trainers saw no ill-effect to their testosterone levels...in fact, testosterone even increased in subjects using the soy/whey blend...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908338

Whey protein has already been shown in numerous studies to have a positive effect on testosterone levels. As far as I'm concerned, combining whey with soy and then suggesting that soy might have had some kind of pro-testosterone effect is not very scientific.

So what we're left with from the studies you pointed to is that, *at best*, soy may not decrease testosterone. The ones I pointed to show a negative impact. Maybe not huge, but negative nonetheless.

Originally Posted by jahnc1

The truth is, soy doesn't decrease testosterone levels at all so I can't see why someone should avoid supplementing with soy for bodybuilding...you sir are 0 for 2 right now...

....Aaaaaaaannnnd, no.

Originally Posted by jahnc1

As for the thyroid statement by the other guy, what are you basing this on? General belief? Self belief? Following is a link regarding soy and thyroid function...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571087

The link you just pointed to says soy may be contraindicated in people who have limited/low iodine intake in their diets (or other conditions). Given that there are quite a few people out there with pre-existing thyroid conditions to varying degrees (and may not even know about them), that alone should give people pause.

Here's the quote from your link:
"In total, 14 trials (thyroid function was not the primary health outcome in any trial) were identified in which the effects of soy foods or isoflavones on at least one measure of thyroid function was assessed in presumably healthy subjects; eight involved women only, four involved men, and two both men and women. With only one exception, either no effects or only very modest changes were noted in these trials. Thus, collectively the findings provide little evidence that in euthyroid, iodine-replete individuals, soy foods, or isoflavones adversely affect thyroid function. In contrast, some evidence suggests that soy foods, by inhibiting absorption, may increase the dose of thyroid hormone required by hypothyroid patients. However, hypothyroid adults need not avoid soy foods. In addition, there remains a theoretical concern based on in vitro and animal data that in individuals with compromised thyroid function and/or whose iodine intake is marginal soy foods may increase risk of developing clinical hypothyroidism. Therefore, it is important for soy food consumers to make sure their intake of iodine is adequate."

We must be reading this differently, because I see phrases like "very modest effects (on thyroid)" and "In contrast, some evidence suggests that soy foods, by inhibiting absorption, may increase the dose of thyroid hormone required by hypothyroid patients", and "individuals with compromised thyroid function and/or whose iodine intake is marginal soy foods may increase risk of developing clinical hypothyroidism". Those look like effects to me. Again, maybe not huge effects, but effects nonetheless.

Originally Posted by jahnc1

Moving on to your statement about oxalic acid and soy...lol I don't even know were to begin...yes soybeans have a considerable amount of oxalic acid, BUT according to your own wikipedia page you posted so does spinach, nuts, black pepper, etc...Hahahaha here is the statement from the page...

"Oxalic acid and oxalates are abundantly present in many plants, most notably fat hen (lamb's quarters), sorrel, and Oxalis species. The root and/or leaves of rhubarb and buckwheat are listed being high in oxalic acid.[8]
Other edible plants that contain significant concentrations of oxalic acid include...in decreasing order...star fruit (carambola), black pepper, parsley, poppy seed, amaranth, spinach, chard, beets, cocoa, chocolate, most nuts, most berries, and beans."

Assuming soybeans fall in to the bean category, they have the least of all of them...rofl I guess I'll stop eating spinach and using black pepper now...

Well, the "Oxalosis and Hyperoxaluria Foundation" seems to think soy can be an issue. Soy products have their very own sub-section(s) on their foods (to be aware of) page: http://www.ohf.org/docs/Oxalate2008_withcookbook.pdf


Granted, oxalic acid is present in a variety of foods. And, granted, it's not a sure thing that it's going to cause problems for someone. But if someone is susceptible (genetically or otherwise), it can be an issue, as can the relative amount of soluble and insoluble oxalate in food, which apparently has an important role in the determination of oxalate absorption. Calcium binding also influences whether oxalate will be a problem or not.

Personally, I'd rather just avoid soy than deal with the myriad "what-if's" we've covered so far.

Originally Posted by jahnc1

Well I'm done now, seeing as you went 0 for 3 this go-around lol...BTW, how do you even know that soy is the cause of your headaches? Regardless, like everytime before, I WIN...

EDIT: Concerning the testosterone source from the wikipedia page, I had no idea what the abstract was saying so I didn't discuss it...

I tried using soy as my main supplemental protein source for a while (in addition to other foods). I started to get headaches and to feel lethargic within days. When I stopped using it, the headaches and lethargy went away. Switching to whey, on the other hand, did not cause me the same symptoms. Like I said before, completely anecdotal. Maybe I've got an allergy or a sensitivity, who knows. But it's enough to keep me from using it again.

And I covered the testosterone source from the Wiki page further above here.

So, to sum up: no proven tangible benefits from soy, lots of "jury's still out" on soy's effects one way or the other, and from at least two studies soy lowers testosterone in a way that might be beneficial for BPH but may or may not provide overall benefit due to unknowns related to lowering testosterone.

So.... I stand by what I've said so far. AFAIC this stuff is not worth the risk of lowered testosterone (slightly or otherwise), given that it has no proven benefits. And if you have any kind of pre-existing oxalate-related or thyroid-related issues (known or otherwise) then doubly and triply not worth it. But if you want to continue to consume soy, then by all means do so. Just please don't claim that it's beneficial at all or that it has no ill side effects whatsoever when evidence so far would indicate that is not so, or is at best inconclusive.

[titebuoy]

the soy bashing comes from the milk industry. They are scared of an alternative to milk. Some fo the negative opinions about soybeans probably derive from the overprocessing of the food, which turn it into oil, milk, and flour. With that being said, the soybean shouldnt be harmful in its whole form.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Originally Posted by titebuoy

the soy bashing comes from the milk industry. They are scared of an alternative to milk. Some fo the negative opinions about soybeans probably derive from the overprocessing of the food, which turn it into oil, milk, and flour. With that being said, the soybean shouldnt be harmful in its whole form.

Sources please.

[jahnc1]

Lol why are you criticizing your own source (AHA claim) that you sited for your last argument? You sited it so shouldn't you be defending it lol or am I missing something? Anyways I'll talk about what you said since you're so concerned about losing that you have reverted to bashing your own source...

Originally Posted by SpiderJerusalem

"Thus, the direct cardiovascular health benefit of soy protein or isoflavone supplements is minimal at best."

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Am I reading this wrong or is it just you? They are acknowledging that soy has at least some benefit are they not? I don't see any "may have" or "should" in that sentence. The fact is that they never stated that soy has a negative effect on CVD, just maybe not a huge positive effect...and this is why they withdrew their claim on soy because, according to certain studies (not their own), it may not be the best option for reducing CVD, not because soy has adverse effects on it...Then you go on to again bash your own source in the following statements...

Originally Posted by SpiderJerusalem

"In contrast, soy products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, or some soy burgers should be beneficial to cardiovascular and overall health because of their high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and low content of saturated fat"

Key word: *should*. Not "are". Big difference, and that depends also on whether you truly believe that saturated fats are "bad" for you (I don't--not as part of a lower-carb diet, anyway) and fiber is "good" for you (show me a peer-reviewed medical journal that states without opposition that fiber is necessary for the human digestive and elimination systems and I'll happily buy you a jar of metamucil, lol).

So basically what they're saying is that there is no conclusive evidence that soy is even good for you. They say it "should" be good based on fiber, vitamins, fat content, etc, but that's as far as they push it. In other words, no tangible benefit over other foods. Which was a big part of the point of my last post--yes, you can apparently find any number of studies and papers that refute the negative health claims against soy. That's fine. But on the other hand you *can't* find any that show conclusively that it has any real benefits. The jury's still out. And while the jury's out, anyone with doubts is probably going to at least limit their soy intake.

First off, this argument is not about whether or not soy has any benefit over other foods, it's about whether or not soy is harmful to a person's health (if you don't recall, you're the one that started this all by stating that soy is poison when you had no idea what you were talking about)...This argument is not about saturated fats, low-carb diets, or fiber for that matter...it's about soy and how there is nothing wrong with eating it...yes, the whole "benefits" thing may have come up here and there, but I'm not telling everyone they should go out and buy it immediately because it will cure them of all their illness...I'm simply stating that there is no reason to avoid soy according to what reliable scientific findings there are...Now that I got that rant out of the way, I find it funny that your own source is still suggesting the consumption of soy as a replacement for various sources of food...who cares if they said should lol it's your source and they said it even after everything "bad" that was exclaimed...and when I say bad, I mean according to you...

Moving on, we have the two actual sources from the wikipedia page which I chose not to use in place of a more clear stated one...but, since you apparently understand what they are saying I am forced to read further in to these studies...The following link is to the actual study, not the abstract, of the first source...

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/7/3053

I find it odd how the abstract doesn't really say what the actual study exclaims which can be seen in the following excerpt from the results section:

"Baseline levels were similar in the active and casein placebo groups for FSH and LH and serum testosterone (Table 4). Serum estrogen levels were less than 20 mmol/L (because of the assay sensitivity constraints); and therefore, average levels were not given. After 3 months of therapy, there were no significant changes in any hormonal levels in males or females in either group (Table 4)."

If you look at the table that goes along with this conclusion you can see that the soy and the casein placebo both yielded virtually the same results...so I guess people should stay away from casein to then, huh?

On to the second source...

Well this is a case study where no actual experimenting took place so I'm going to disregard this source. There are too many variables within the case study that could create inaccurate results. Also, from what I saw, this study if anything is more soy plus, so why are you using it...

Moving on to the next statement you exclaimed:

Originally Posted by SpiderJerusalem

Whey protein has already been shown in numerous studies to have a positive effect on testosterone levels. As far as I'm concerned, combining whey with soy and then suggesting that soy might have had some kind of pro-testosterone effect is not very scientific.

So what we're left with from the studies you pointed to is that, *at best*, soy may not decrease testosterone. The ones I pointed to show a negative impact. Maybe not huge, but negative nonetheless.

This had me laughing because nowhere in my statement about the soy/whey mixture did I state that soy might have some pro-testosterone effect. How does saying, "...in fact, testosterone even increased in subjects using the soy/whey blend...", imply a pro-testosterone effect from the soy? Please tell me...the point I was making was that when soy was mixed with the whey, the soy had no negative effect on the whey's testosterone raising capabilities. As for the second statement, the sources you pointed to do not show any negative impact at all...unless you want to consider the miniscule amount that equaled that of the casein placebo, which the study found to be insignificant all together...and if you do consider this miniscule amount then you, yourself, are implying that people should also stay away from casein which sounds like quackery to me...

....Aaaaaaaannnnd, no what? You havn't shown anything at all that displays soy lowering testosterone...

*CONTINUED*

[jahnc1]

On to your next statement concerning my thyroid source in which you said:

Originally Posted by SpiderJerusalem

The link you just pointed to says soy may be contraindicated in people who have limited/low iodine intake in their diets (or other conditions). Given that there are quite a few people out there with pre-existing thyroid conditions to varying degrees (and may not even know about them), that alone should give people pause.

Here's the quote from your link:
"In total, 14 trials (thyroid function was not the primary health outcome in any trial) were identified in which the effects of soy foods or isoflavones on at least one measure of thyroid function was assessed in presumably healthy subjects; eight involved women only, four involved men, and two both men and women. With only one exception, either no effects or only very modest changes were noted in these trials. Thus, collectively the findings provide little evidence that in euthyroid, iodine-replete individuals, soy foods, or isoflavones adversely affect thyroid function. In contrast, some evidence suggests that soy foods, by inhibiting absorption, may increase the dose of thyroid hormone required by hypothyroid patients. However, hypothyroid adults need not avoid soy foods. In addition, there remains a theoretical concern based on in vitro and animal data that in individuals with compromised thyroid function and/or whose iodine intake is marginal soy foods may increase risk of developing clinical hypothyroidism. Therefore, it is important for soy food consumers to make sure their intake of iodine is adequate."

We must be reading this differently, because I see phrases like "very modest effects (on thyroid)" and "In contrast, some evidence suggests that soy foods, by inhibiting absorption, may increase the dose of thyroid hormone required by hypothyroid patients", and "individuals with compromised thyroid function and/or whose iodine intake is marginal soy foods may increase risk of developing clinical hypothyroidism". Those look like effects to me. Again, maybe not huge effects, but effects nonetheless.

No, we're reading the same thing...you just can't read very well...Do you know what the word modest means? It means a considerably small amount...so very modest would mean that the changes were so small that they wouldn't matter...As for the "In contrast" statement, it was used to show that their findings refute that of other "negative" studies...Lastly, concerning your last excerpt, you might want to read the whole sentence next time which states, "In addition, there remains a theoretical concern based on in vitro and animal data that in individuals with compromised thyroid function and/or whose iodine intake is marginal soy foods may increase risk of developing clinical hypothyroidism." Do I really need to explain to you what this sentence states or do you think you can figure it out on your own? They also state that "hypothyroid adults need not avoid soy foods" as long as their iodine intake is adequate. Do you know where people get there iodine intake from? Here is a short list: fish, eggs, cheese, iodized salt, mayonaise, etc...I don't think getting your iodine would be too much of a problem...

Moving along to your oxalate rebuttal, you still have not really said anything that would make me concerned about soy and its oxalate levels...I mean according to your chart, if one is to avoid soy for its oxalate levels then they should also avoid food items such as almonds, spinach, whole-wheat pasta, black pepper, sweet potatoes, etc...that is just insane...

Now for your closing sentences in which you stated:

Originally Posted by SpiderJerusalem

So, to sum up: no proven tangible benefits from soy, lots of "jury's still out" on soy's effects one way or the other, and from at least two studies soy lowers testosterone in a way that might be beneficial for BPH but may or may not provide overall benefit due to unknowns related to lowering testosterone.

So.... I stand by what I've said so far. AFAIC this stuff is not worth the risk of lowered testosterone (slightly or otherwise), given that it has no proven benefits. And if you have any kind of pre-existing oxalate-related or thyroid-related issues (known or otherwise) then doubly and triply not worth it. But if you want to continue to consume soy, then by all means do so. Just please don't claim that it's beneficial at all or that it has no ill side effects whatsoever when evidence so far would indicate that is not so, or is at best inconclusive.

First statement: I'll say it again...soy has not been shown to significantly lower your testosterone...

Second statement: It may not have any "proven" benefits according to you, but then again do all foods we eat necessarily have "proven" benefits. The real thing you should look at here is that there are no reliable documented studies concerning the negative effects of soy...Lower testosterone is a no; decreased thyroid function is a no; and yes, maybe there is a chance that soy may cause kidney stones, but then you must also take in mind all of the other foods that rank higher than soy on the oxalate chart which makes your claim to avoid it sound ridiculous. As for your little closing sentence, I am claiming that soy has no ill side effects based on scientific findings that, more than often, refute the unreliable, negative findings against soy...Like I said before, I don't care if you want to eat it or not, but stop preaching about things you have no idea about...

You are not going anywhere with your arguments, simply stated you are going around in circles...You still have not won an argument, so why don't you stop trying...I heard the other day that even looking at the word soy may cause brain cancer, so why don't you stop before you hurt yourself lol

[jecristragedy]

whoa this is still going on LOL
i know this is old but

Originally Posted by Atavis

Asians only eat soy after it's been fermented

this statement is ignorant.

i have no comment on the pissing contest cuz like who has time to read that!

if you enjoy soy and think its cool, eat it.
if you dont, dont. there, I WIN!

[SpiderJerusalem]

Originally Posted by jecristragedy

whoa this is still going on LOL
i know this is old but



this statement is ignorant.

i have no comment on the pissing contest cuz like who has time to read that!

if you enjoy soy and think its cool, eat it.
if you dont, dont. there, I WIN!

Well, that's your choice.
Whereas I'd rather avoid soy for the reasons I outlined above. And being a guy, I'd prefer not to risk lowering my testosterone, not even a little bit. Let alone the other risks mentioned here.

[titebuoy]

Originally Posted by SpiderJerusalem

Sources please.

I don't say think that one should consume soy milk or anything like that. But there is also a lot of milk bashing, probably emanating from the soy milk industry.
The soybean is a legume as is the peanut, green pea, and black beans(which we all have no problem eating). I just dont feel that we should be eating processed soybean products. For example, soy milk like wheat flour, has synthetic vitamins added to it like D2 instead of natural D3.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Soybean/id/1897100

[johnnyironboard]

Originally Posted by anniesbay

I don't eat anything else soy BTW. Just this butter.

I like soy sauce.

[SpiderJerusalem]

@jahnc1:

1. I'm not criticizing my own article. I'm criticizing your interpretation of it as somehow being "pro-soy" in your previous post. Anyone going back to read what you posted can see that you were claiming it showed some positive benefit. Whereas, clearly, it does not. The AHA article backs up my stance, not yours. I find it absolutely thigh-slappingly hilarious that you lecture me about the word "modest" while you yourself ignore the term "minimal" as used in the AHA article to describe your supposed cardiovascular "benefits" of soy. And then you go on to imply that I was claiming the AHA was somehow saying that soy caused *negative* cardiovascular consequences, which clearly I was not--I merely pointed out that they found no benefit worth advocating. Funny stuff! My pointing out the AHA's extremely weak language about supposed positive CVD benefits due to other factors was merely to illustrate the conjecture on their part. In other words, they found no tangible CVD benefits to soy when they looked at it themselves, but in an attempt not to demonize it they pointed out other factors that they believed could be healthy (of course, without proof of such). I am being honest with my arguments. I don't know what the AHA's motives were/are in regard to soy, but their conjecture about supposed benefits has no place in a study that proved there were none.

2. That study you just linked to: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/7/3053 Is that supposed to be something I was making a claim about? Because that's an entirely different study from the two that I linked to. Entirely different authors too. I never said anything about casein either. One of the studies I linked to was specifically referring to BPH (Benign Prostate Hypertrophy), but you linked to one about BP (Blood Pressure). Either you're having difficulty reading, or else you're trying to sidestep the results of the two studies I linked to (probably because they inconveniently--for you--show soy decreasing testosterone levels in study participants). And I'd hardly call that "soy plus". At best one would have to weigh the slight benefits of soy for BPH versus the negatives of decreased testosterone, as I already stated in my previous post.

3. Here's exactly what you said about the whey/soy blend:

"The following link is to a study done in response to the Goodin research in which resistance trainers saw no ill-effect to their testosterone levels...in fact, testosterone even increased in subjects using the soy/whey blend...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908338"

Seems to me you're trying to make a point there about testosterone increasing, with soy as a component. If you didn't mean to imply that soy has testosterone-boosting properties, then we'll have to chalk that up to your vague wording. Regardless, it would be more revealing to compare testosterone levels between one amount of whey vs the same amount of whey combined with x amount(s) of soy to see whether testosterone went up by the same amount for both, or if soy dragged it down in the blend, or vice versa. Given that some studies are showing soy reduces testosterone, I'm willing to bet that adding soy to whey will at best do nothing and at worst impair whey's testosterone-boosting properties. Like watering down the house wine.

4. Apparently you do have a reading problem. In regard to the "modest" discussion, did you not read where I stated "Those look like effects to me. Again, maybe not huge effects, but effects nonetheless"? That's me saying right there that modest effects are not huge effects. Hello? Okay. But still effects nonetheless. And I get what "theoretical" means, but that only applied to part of what was being said about hypothyoidism. There was also this: "In contrast, some evidence suggests that soy foods, by inhibiting absorption, may increase the dose of thyroid hormone required by hypothyroid patients." That's in contrast to the absent or modest effects that they were downplaying. In other words, a possible negative effect. For some people, iodine absorption is a real issue. And as I already stated, not everyone has that issue. But some do. It's a concern.

5. Oxalates: did you ignore the points about absorption and calcium binding? Depending on the type and amount of oxalate-containing food, these actions will vary. A pinch of black pepper is unlikely to have the same effect as a soy burger washed down with a glass of soymilk in regard to oxalate ingestion amount and action. You don't wonder why soy has an entire section of that chart dedicated just to it alone in all its variations? Or why it gets a high rating for concern? Hmm.

6. No, I'll have to revise your closing statement in light of the studies I actually quoted that you've chosen to ignore or downplay:
"Lower testosterone is a *possibility*; decreased thyroid function is a *possibility*; and yes, maybe there is a chance that soy may cause kidney stones...blah blah blah"

You're the one who back on April 5th said:
"Soy = good
Tofu = good"

Evidently that's not true now is it. You have yet to point to a study that conclusively *proves* positive benefits from soy. So, you're wrong. Sorry. I've at the very least shown that there are studies indicating the possibility of ill effects from soy, or at best no effects. So, given the food choices we make, why would anyone bother with something like soy, which has the potential for lowering testosterone to varying degrees, possible thyroid and kidney implications, and has no proven positive effects beyond what some would postulate based on some fairly mediocre physical and chemical traits that are present in any number of other foods? If someone is trying to build muscle (this IS a bodybuilding forum after all), why would they even want a slight risk of lowering their testosterone levels? There's no upside to tofu. That's what I'm saying and what you have so far failed to refute. And there's a possible downside. Okay, maybe the word "poison" was a little extreme, but it's a far cry from the "miracle food" that some people would have us believe it is (namely soy industry lobbyists).

[SpiderJerusalem]

Originally Posted by titebuoy

I don't say think that one should consume soy milk or anything like that. But there is also a lot of milk bashing, probably emanating from the soy milk industry.
The soybean is a legume as is the peanut, green pea, and black beans(which we all have no problem eating). I just dont feel that we should be eating processed soybean products. For example, soy milk like wheat flour, has synthetic vitamins added to it like D2 instead of natural D3.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Soybean/id/1897100

I'm all about the organic (non-rBGH) whole milk these days! Makes me feel like a million bucks.

[Atavis]

Originally Posted by jecristragedy

whoa this is still going on LOL
i know this is old but



this statement is ignorant.

i have no comment on the pissing contest cuz like who has time to read that!

if you enjoy soy and think its cool, eat it.
if you dont, dont. there, I WIN!

Interesting, because I am asian and the only time I've had unfermented soy (or perhaps I should say isn't highly processed?) is in american food. I've had plenty of the fermented variety in my life though.

No pissing contest... just find it interesting.