What's wrong with soy nut butter?

[anniesbay]

I've heard some rumors about soy, and seen some posts recommending against soy products, but no one has really explained WHY. I prefer soynut butter to the other nut butters. Is this not recommended by Lyle? Can someone please educate me as I can't find mention of soy in Lyle's keto diet guide.

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

[jecristragedy]

i think its just the guys who are stupid and think the trace amount of estrogen will shrink their balls or some **** who say that. soy is really healthy and if the carbs are the same, its fine for keto. i know i used soy milk all the time.

[ryo1549]

Soy is awful for babies. I've read a lot into that.

There are also studies that show SOY can cause gynecomastia in men if eaten regularly.

I have read that soy can put women in a greater risk for breast cancer as well. I try and stay away from the stuff myself, not because my balls will shrink, its because the studies keep proving more and more about the negative effects of soy.

[jecristragedy]

wooow did you just make that up??? lol...

i find it very interesting how oriental countries have eaten it as a huge staple for thousands of years and seen none of these effects... but more like the exact opposite with lower breast, colon, & prostate cancer rates, longer life expectancy, less heart disease, lower cholesterol.... now all of a sudden americans think soybeans are like grown in the devil's garden.



asians must have some kind of gene that changes the make up of soy to do awesome things.
or, more likely, these studies are silly and unreliable. or you read them wrong. cause that's the first time i've ever heard it puts you at a GREATER risk for cancer.

[jahnc1]

wooow did you just make that up??? lol...

i find it very interesting how oriental countries have eaten it as a huge staple for thousands of years and seen none of these effects... but more like the exact opposite with lower breast, colon, & prostate cancer rates, longer life expectancy, less heart disease, lower cholesterol.... now all of a sudden americans think soybeans are like grown in the devil's garden.



asians must have some kind of gene that changes the make up of soy to do awesome things.
or, more likely, these studies are silly and unreliable. or you read them wrong. cause that's the first time i've ever heard it puts you at a GREATER risk for cancer.

ya im going to have to agree with that...half korean and i havnt seen any of those problems in my family...but seriously it does shrink your family jewls

[SpiderJerusalem]

wooow did you just make that up??? lol...

i find it very interesting how oriental countries have eaten it as a huge staple for thousands of years and seen none of these effects... but more like the exact opposite with lower breast, colon, & prostate cancer rates, longer life expectancy, less heart disease, lower cholesterol.... now all of a sudden americans think soybeans are like grown in the devil's garden.



asians must have some kind of gene that changes the make up of soy to do awesome things.
or, more likely, these studies are silly and unreliable. or you read them wrong. cause that's the first time i've ever heard it puts you at a GREATER risk for cancer.

Asians don't eat anywhere *near* the amount of soy that Westerners do. We put it in everything. They ferment it the proper amount of time first of all, and use it in small quantities for flavoring and such.

Soy is one of the last things anyone trying to gain muscle should be consuming. Sorry, but that **** is poison. I've read enough about it (from both sides) to conclude it just isn't worth it. And I found out long ago that soy protein powder gives me headaches.

[ryo1549]

wooow did you just make that up??? lol...

i find it very interesting how oriental countries have eaten it as a huge staple for thousands of years and seen none of these effects... but more like the exact opposite with lower breast, colon, & prostate cancer rates, longer life expectancy, less heart disease, lower cholesterol.... now all of a sudden americans think soybeans are like grown in the devil's garden.



asians must have some kind of gene that changes the make up of soy to do awesome things.
or, more likely, these studies are silly and unreliable. or you read them wrong. cause that's the first time i've ever heard it puts you at a GREATER risk for cancer.

Do some research on it. There are a ton of articles linking it to all kinds of different issues.

[anniesbay]

I'll try to research this more but it would help if Ryo and Spider would post links to the studies they've read about it being bad.

Anyway, I think you all just proved my point. If all I eat is soynut butter, I should be fine. I think it has healthy fats, protein, and a better carb/fiber ratio. I'm not a baby, so that point is shot. I'm not a dude so I'm not worried about the gynecomastia although I'm flat so I'd welcome some of it.

Oh BTW Ryo, I like how you used soy protein powder to make the keto pancakes. Hypocrite?

[jahnc1]

Asians don't eat anywhere *near* the amount of soy that Westerners do. We put it in everything. They ferment it the proper amount of time first of all, and use it in small quantities for flavoring and such.

Soy is one of the last things anyone trying to gain muscle should be consuming. Sorry, but that **** is poison. I've read enough about it (from both sides) to conclude it just isn't worth it. And I found out long ago that soy protein powder gives me headaches.

first off, just saying, my family does not use it in "small" quantities...you fail...soy is a staple in the korean diet as well as various other asian countries lol you should realize that soy sauce isn't the only source of soy found in a typical asian diet...try tofu, noodles made from soy bean, soybean sprouts, soybeans mixed in rice, etc...etc...etc...not a single person from my mother's korean side has had one of these "problems" that you speak about...like you said, you have READ about it where as i have EXPERIENCED it...

EDIT: the only person that has passed away so far on my mothers side was my grandmother and she was 102...i don't think it was because of this so-called "poison" you're talking about...

[kldd22]

I've been having two servings of soy nut butter everyday since i started keto... hope this ain't true lol

[jecristragedy]

did you really just say asians eat less soy than westerners...


lulz. what is this "everything" that we put it in? maybe a tiny amount as a filler in *some* things, but like jahnc1 already said, they eat it in every form as a major part of their diet.
they snack on edamame, use tofu in dishes the way we'd use meat, etc.

half the people i know turn up their noses at the mention of anything soy, even though they've never tasted it.

[¡STFU!ˇNˆLIFT!]

Isn't it mutated soy ( GMO ) that is the problem and not "good soy" that is not processed and mutated ?

[Rann]

Perhaps the benefits of soy -- or unpleasant effects from it -- are race-related to some degree, the same way lactose intolerance and the speed of alcohol metabolism clearly vary between racial groups. What's good for Koreans might not be as good for caucasians/blacks or whatever.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Oh for ****'s sake, do you people not know how to Google?

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/soy.htm

http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/index.htm

http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/soydangers.htm

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...about-soy.aspx
(now much Asians really eat)

http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com/article.cfm/soy

Don't believe the soy lobby. Why would you even risk eating this ****? At the very least, if you're going to have soy, make sure it's from a non-GMO source and has been properly fermented (the Japanese do so for at least 2 years prior to consumption, whereas most soy used in the U.S. is not).

[queloque]

From what I read and living in asia for a year I think the quantity of soy eaten in the US can't compare to the quantity overseas.

Americans learn something new and we go crazy and do it in excess. Just the quantity of food eaten in general is way different.

People learn about Acai and now we got people chugging that down like water.

What next?

[SpiderJerusalem]

From what I read and living in asia for a year I think the quantity of soy eaten in the US can't compare to the quantity overseas.

Americans learn something new and we go crazy and do it in excess. Just the quantity of food eaten in general is way different.

People learn about Acai and now we got people chugging that down like water.

What next?

Exactly. Companies stuff it into all kinds of "food" over here (much of it snack and convenience food) because it makes for cheap filler. Soybeans grow in all kinds of conditions and require much less in the way of effort to raise than other crops. But as we all know, cheap does not always mean healthy...

[jahnc1]

Oh for ****'s sake, do you people not know how to Google?

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/soy.htm

http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/index.htm

http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/soydangers.htm

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...about-soy.aspx
(now much Asians really eat)

http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com/article.cfm/soy

Don't believe the soy lobby. Why would you even risk eating this ****? At the very least, if you're going to have soy, make sure it's from a non-GMO source and has been properly fermented (the Japanese do so for at least 2 years prior to consumption, whereas most soy used in the U.S. is not).

OK, now that I have time to sit down and dissect your argument, here goes...

Oh and by the way, for ****'s sake, I in fact do know how to Google...ROFL...I too can find biased, uneducated web pages and testimonials spreading yet more fear mongering among the general public...but that is not what I'm going to do...

Lets start off with this "Dr." Mercola clown...don't worry, I'll get into Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig in a little bit because I do feel they are quite important to this argument since they are the reason and main source of all soy bashing circulating the public...but, back to clown #1 (Mercola).

Let me start off by saying that Mercola does not have an M.D., but instead a D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathy). All the power to him, for he does present some very useful information on his website. On the other hand though, the main problem with him, to me, is that he presents opinions that are based on his own biases and are not backed up by any kind of reasonable science. Let us look at example one in which I have a website taking an excerpt from one of his articles and discussing it:

http://lowcarbconfidential.com/

BIOPHOTONS, o rly?!? But, like the website said, if you truly believe what he is saying then go ahead and buy his biophoton analyzer for $1795...seems like a hell of a deal to me...The next example of his quackery (stupidity), I found on a website in which e-mails were taken by a Mr. Fumento concerning numerous Splenda bashers discussing Dr. Mercola's "findings":

http://fumento.com/hatemail/hatemail36.html

WTF, OMG?!? Throw all your Splenda enhanced products out because they will kill you and then hide under your table until help comes...help like Mr. Joseph Mercola...I mean can you seriously believe this guy? It seems like you honestly believe anything that is written on the internet...and in that case I guess you believe this too:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327

O, bejebus! I guess I'm going to have to go tell my girlfriend that I have been gay all this time...it should be alright though because she eats a significant amount of soy products so she is probably gay to...lulz

Ok, I could say a lot more about your so-called source, including the fact that he was issued two warnings by the FDA, but I don't think its necessary...and besides, we sir, have some soy bashing that must be dealt with!

Lets start off with this web page you gave from Mercola's website:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...about-soy.aspx

"In short, not that much, and contrary to what the industry may claim soy has never been a staple in Asia. A study of the history of soy use in Asia shows that the poor used it during times of extreme food shortage..."
First off lol what study...second, if it was a study of the history of soy in Asia and how only the poor regularly ate it then why didn't they consider that in 1981, there was an 80% poverty rate in Eastern Asia...in fact, like I have said before (but you won't listen), my mother is Korean and I think she would know more about this than a fake study. And yes, I am talking about tofu...Actually, you know what, I'm going to go tell my mom that she is a liar just for you because you sir heard from this other guy who heard from a "validated, semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire". Are you serious? Validated by who? What variables is this "questionnaire" based on? What socio-economic level were these people from? Etc...etc...etc...On top of this, the only other "study" that this article puts forward was one describing the eating habits of the Chinese in...drum roll please...1930?!? Now, I'm not saying that soy makes up the majority of an Asian diet, but it is a staple and it is commonly found on a day to day basis...much more than then this web page exclaims...

Now lets move on and get to the serious business...as far as I can see, the following two websites you gave are based off of the findings of Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig...

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/soy.htm

http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com/article.cfm/soy

I'm not even going to get in to the credibility of these websites lol if you want to take your advice from an aromatherapist then go ahead...
Ok, so not to sure why you would revert to finding alternate websites talking about Fallon and Enig's studies when you could have just found their actual studies...but whatever helps you make the argument that you know what you're talking about then go ahead...As for Fallon and Enig's studies, I have read numerous, legitimate articles based on how their "findings" are completely absurd and inaccurate. The best one I have read was the following:

http://www.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htm

This article is completely void of any bias views as it is based solely on credible resources and their studies. Read it and tell me what you think...Oh and by the way, I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I do agree that soy can possibly be harmful to your health...when it is genetically modified. But, this wasn't what you were arguing was it...in fact you said that one should avoid ALL soy that has not been properly fermented (which would include organic products like tofu)...and on that note, not even all soy grown in the United States has these genetically engineered properties...

As for bodybuilding and soy, I found a great article written by Will Brink (credentials can be found at the bottom of the page)...don't forget to go to part 2 where he thoroughly dissects soy's bad image and discusses it's benefits...

http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/he...fits-use-1.htm

Now, you can continue to believe that your right, it doesn't matter to me...just stop going around spreading outrageous claims about nutrition when you don't know what you're talking about...

Soy = good
Tofu = good
Cheap processed, genetically altered soy = bad
Homosexuality:soy = LMAO

[anniesbay]

haha, you're repped, jahnc1, i feel the same way.

[tabasco.sauce]

best argument for me... soy/soy nuts are damn tasty...

[jahnc1]

lol i just don't understand people these days

[SpiderJerusalem]

OK, now that I have time to sit down and dissect your argument, here goes...

Oh and by the way, for ****'s sake, I in fact do know how to Google...ROFL...I too can find biased, uneducated web pages and testimonials spreading yet more fear mongering among the general public...but that is not what I'm going to do...

Lets start off with this "Dr." Mercola clown...don't worry, I'll get into Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig in a little bit because I do feel they are quite important to this argument since they are the reason and main source of all soy bashing circulating the public...but, back to clown #1 (Mercola).

Let me start off by saying that Mercola does not have an M.D., but instead a D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathy). All the power to him, for he does present some very useful information on his website. On the other hand though, the main problem with him, to me, is that he presents opinions that are based on his own biases and are not backed up by any kind of reasonable science. Let us look at example one in which I have a website taking an excerpt from one of his articles and discussing it:

http://lowcarbconfidential.com/

BIOPHOTONS, o rly?!? But, like the website said, if you truly believe what he is saying then go ahead and buy his biophoton analyzer for $1795...seems like a hell of a deal to me...The next example of his quackery (stupidity), I found on a website in which e-mails were taken by a Mr. Fumento concerning numerous Splenda bashers discussing Dr. Mercola's "findings":

http://fumento.com/hatemail/hatemail36.html

WTF, OMG?!? Throw all your Splenda enhanced products out because they will kill you and then hide under your table until help comes...help like Mr. Joseph Mercola...I mean can you seriously believe this guy? It seems like you honestly believe anything that is written on the internet...and in that case I guess you believe this too:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327

O, bejebus! I guess I'm going to have to go tell my girlfriend that I have been gay all this time...it should be alright though because she eats a significant amount of soy products so she is probably gay to...lulz

Ok, I could say a lot more about your so-called source, including the fact that he was issued two warnings by the FDA, but I don't think its necessary...and besides, we sir, have some soy bashing that must be dealt with!

Lets start off with this web page you gave from Mercola's website:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...about-soy.aspx

"In short, not that much, and contrary to what the industry may claim soy has never been a staple in Asia. A study of the history of soy use in Asia shows that the poor used it during times of extreme food shortage..."
First off lol what study...second, if it was a study of the history of soy in Asia and how only the poor regularly ate it then why didn't they consider that in 1981, there was an 80% poverty rate in Eastern Asia...in fact, like I have said before (but you won't listen), my mother is Korean and I think she would know more about this than a fake study. And yes, I am talking about tofu...Actually, you know what, I'm going to go tell my mom that she is a liar just for you because you sir heard from this other guy who heard from a "validated, semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire". Are you serious? Validated by who? What variables is this ?questionnaire? based on? What socio-economic level were these people from? Etc...etc...etc...On top of this, the only other "study" that this article puts forward was one describing the eating habits of the Chinese in...drum roll please...1930?!? Now, I'm not saying that soy makes up the majority of an Asian diet, but it is a staple and it is commonly found on a day to day basis...much more than then this web page exclaims...

Now lets move on and get to the serious business...as far as I can see, the following two websites you gave are based off of the findings of Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig...

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/soy.htm

http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com/article.cfm/soy

I'm not even going to get in to the credibility of these websites lol if you want to take your advice from an aromatherapist then go ahead...
Ok, so not to sure why you would revert to finding alternate websites talking about Fallon and Enig's studies when you could have just found their actual studies...but whatever helps you make the argument that you know what you're talking about then go ahead...As for Fallon and Enig's studies, I have read numerous, legitimate articles based on how their "findings" are completely absurd and inaccurate. The best one I have read was the following:

http://www.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htm

This article is completely void of any bias views as it is based solely on credible resources and their studies. Read it and tell me what you think...Oh and by the way, I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I do agree that soy can possibly be harmful to your health...when it is genetically engineered. But, this wasn't what you were arguing was it...in fact you said that one should avoid ALL soy that has not been properly fermented (which would include organic products like tofu)...and on that note, not even all soy grown in the United States has these genetically engineered properties...

As for bodybuilding and soy, I found a great article written by Will Brink (credentials can be found at the bottom of the page)...don't forget to go to part 2 where he thoroughly dissects soy's bad image and discusses it's benefits...

http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/he...fits-use-1.htm

Now, you can continue to believe that your right, it doesn't matter to me...just stop going around spreading outrageous claims about nutrition when you don't know what you're talking about...

Soy = good
Tofu = good
Cheap processed, genetically altered soy = bad
Homosexuality:soy = LMAO

I merely Googled and picked some of the first articles I saw. I didn't vet all of them and all of their authors. My point was that simply Googling around will show there is much controversy about soy's supposed "benefits".
The fact that you choose to ignore that there's even any question about soy's legitimacy as a "food" makes *me* laugh. But by all means, please, go ahead and consume it. Enjoy the extra estrogen, oxalic acid and phytates in your system. But you do others a disservice by pretending there's nothing possibly wrong with it.

[jahnc1]

I merely Googled and picked some of the first articles I saw. I didn't vet all of them and all of their authors. My point was that simply Googling around will show there is much controversy about soy's supposed "benefits".
The fact that you choose to ignore that there's even any question about soy's legitimacy as a "food" makes *me* laugh. But by all means, please, go ahead and consume it. Enjoy the extra estrogen, oxalic acid and phytates in your system. But you do others a disservice by pretending there's nothing possibly wrong with it.

First of all, any controversy you find on the internet is based upon ludicrous accusations by a miss Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig...did you even read any of the articles before you posted this comment? Extra estrogen? Oxalic acid? Phytates? Obviously not, or you're just to stubborn to except actual scientific findings. Second, I did not "ignore that there's even any question about soy's legitimacy as a food" as I did state that cheap processed, genetically altered soy is not good. But then again, this holds true for any food...the real "disservice" is you pretending that there is legitimate findings out there that discredit soy and its scientifically backed benefits...

[startnow]

In my opinion, for a normal person everything in moderation is fine, it's when it's consumed in excess when it becomes a problem. Again I'm talking about a normal person, if you're diabetic, allergic to nuts, sensitive to milk, etc obviously you have your own limit on certain items.

As with most things though...

Too much salt is bad for you.
Too much alcohol is bad for you.
Too much caffeine is bad for you.
Too much splenda is bad for you.

The list goes on and on with probably about 99% of the things out there. In the case of soy, if I was eating a soy product everyday (and I mean a lot of it) I'd probably want to look at the labels and find out what else (processed ingredients) I'm also consuming. As some posts point out, its not the soy itself really, its the processed stuff that's "allegedly" bad...but again...how much of the soy product do you need to consume (along with the "allegedly" bad stuff) for it to be bad for you...look up a study I guess. If you can't find one then you probably need to consume a hell of a lot of it for it to be bad for you (if its bad for you at all)...because if it was just a little...then obviously the side effects would be affecting A LOT of people and would be reported. I'm no scientist or doctor and that's just my opinion really. If you like soy nut butter, then go for it. Just eat it in moderation with everything else to get a good healthy and rounded diet.

Oh yeah and lets not forget my favorite...too much water is bad for you...yep called water intoxication.

[Slimshady01]

There are countless studies that show that the soy we eat today is pure crap. Its filled with aluminum and fluoride and 90% of the soy out there is GMO. Why would anyone want to bother with chemically processed GMO soy.

Go get yourself some non GMO fermented soy and enjoy.

[jahnc1]

There are countless studies that show that the soy we eat today is pure crap. Its filled with aluminum and fluoride and 90% of the soy out there is GMO. Why would anyone want to bother with chemically processed GMO soy.

Go get yourself some non GMO fermented soy and enjoy.

where did you get all of this information? what studies? i would love to read about it...

listen, i'm not trying to sell off soy as a godsend product...i'm not telling you to go out and buy soy now because it is absolutely essential to your diet, i could care less...i'm just irritated with all of this idealology that is just floating around the public...if you want to trust these quacks, that's fine, but i'm going to go ahead and trust things that are proven...

[SpiderJerusalem]

where did you get all of this information? what studies? i would love to read about it...

listen, i'm not trying to sell off soy as a godsend product...i'm not telling you to go out and buy soy now because it is absolutely essential to your diet...i'm just irritated with all of this idealology that is just floating around the public...if you want to trust these quacks, that's fine, but i'm going to go ahead and trust things that are proven...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...edicalresearch

Like those "quacks" at Harvard, lol

EDIT: and here's something from MedLine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...t=AbstractPlus
..."even small differences in soy phytoestrogen intake may influence thyroid function..."

[jahnc1]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...edicalresearch

Like those "quacks" at Harvard, lol

EDIT: and here's something from MedLine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...t=AbstractPlus
..."even small differences in soy phytoestrogen intake may influence thyroid function..."

ok first off lol you are going nowhere with your arguments...when i refer to a "quack" im speaking of someone who passes along assumptions as if it were completely true, without having significant scientific findings...like this Mercola clown...this study is not a "quack" study genius lol look at the title...Health: Soya-based foods *MAY* harm male fertility, say scientists...they are not exclaiming that this study is indeed fact...

as for the actual study, the following statement pretty much sums it up:
"The apparent fall in sperm count is unlikely to make healthy men infertile, but some experts said it could have a significant impact on those already with lower than average sperm counts." Notice the words..."it could"...the following link has the full experiment, including details about the subjects which i found interesting, as well as a follow-up interview with the lead researcher of the experiment...lol

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healt...rm-count/26685

EDIT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...t=AbstractPlus

"In conclusion, only *modest association* was found between actual phytoestrogen levels and parameters of thyroid function. On the other hand, even small differences in soy phytoestrogen intake *may* influence thyroid function, *which could be important when iodine intake is insufficient*."

Everything I stated above applies here as well...

[SpiderJerusalem]

ok first off lol you are going nowhere with your arguments...when i refer to a "quack" im speaking of someone who passes along assumptions as if it were completely true, without having significant scientific findings...like this Mercola clown...this study is not a "quack" study genius lol look at the title...Health: Soya-based foods *MAY* harm male fertility, say scientists...they are not exclaiming that this study is indeed fact...

as for the actual study, the following statement pretty much sums it up:
"The apparent fall in sperm count is unlikely to make healthy men infertile, but some experts said it could have a significant impact on those already with lower than average sperm counts." Notice the words..."it could"...the following link has the full experiment, including details about the subjects which i found interesting, as well as a follow-up interview with the lead researcher of the experiment...lol

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healt...rm-count/26685

EDIT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...t=AbstractPlus

"In conclusion, only *modest association* was found between actual phytoestrogen levels and parameters of thyroid function. On the other hand, even small differences in soy phytoestrogen intake *may* influence thyroid function, *which could be important when iodine intake is insufficient*."

Everything I stated above applies here as well...

You don't like the "may" and "could" language. That's fine. Show me a pro-soy study that doesn't use those terms. Show me something that states definitively that soy absolutely has such-and-such benefit.

And I noticed you glossed right over the part above about soy actually lowering sperm count; yeah, I get that the fertility issue may not be affected, but the lowered sperm count from soy appears to be *fact*. I'm fairly certain most guys don't like the sound of that. There's also a logical deduction that can be made from that study, even though they don't want to come right out and say it: less sperm = less chances for those sperm to reach and fertilize an egg (think of a lottery ticket; the more you buy, the better your chances for winning get, the fewer tickets, the worse your chances). They might still be healthy, but now instead of "x" chances, you have "x-y" chances. Is this an issue for everyone? Maybe, maybe not. But if a guy's trying to have kids, why would they want to risk consuming something that could affect their reproductive health, even marginally?

[jahnc1]

You don't like the "may" and "could" language. That's fine. Show me a pro-soy study that doesn't use those terms. Show me something that states definitively that soy absolutely has such-and-such benefit.

And I noticed you glossed right over the part above about soy actually lowering sperm count; yeah, I get that the fertility issue may not be affected, but the lowered sperm count from soy appears to be *fact*. I'm fairly certain most guys don't like the sound of that. There's also a logical deduction that can be made from that study, even though they don't want to come right out and say it: less sperm = less chances for those sperm to reach and fertilize an egg (think of a lottery ticket; the more you buy, the better your chances for winning get, the fewer tickets, the worse your chances). They might still be healthy, but now instead of "x" chances, you have "x-y" chances. Is this an issue for everyone? Maybe, maybe not. But if a guy's trying to have kids, why would they want to risk consuming something that could affect their reproductive health, even marginally?

Regarding my references to the English language, they were merely there to make the point that these studies were concluded with the researchers understanding that what they found was not significant enough to be considered solid data...they also acknowledged that their assumptions about the experimented material was not necessarily fact...something that a "quack" would do (which I thought was your argument, but anyways)...

You ask for studies and I will give you studies...

Below is an abstract concerning a study that showed a "significant improvement in some cholesterol profiles - particularly the Total:LDL ratio as well as LDL:HDL ratio." A study that was held reliable enough to be published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition...

http://www.healthcastle.com/soy-hear...hy-young.shtml

I know what you're thinking, what about that other study brought to attention in the editor's notes (if you actually read it) which concluded that soy had only a modest effect on cholesterol levels; and that they found that eating a high amount of soy only caused a 3% reduction in LDL cholesterol levels. Well, I decided to look in to it just for you...following is the link to the abstract of the study:

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-man...ad-cholesterol

Please notice that this study's results were based on a period of 6 weeks as compared to the other study which was two weeks longer; and that the sources of soy given to the subjects (soy protein in drinks, custard, cookies, snack bars, and pasta) were not exactly the greatest sources to consume. Nonetheless, there were still findings as we can read in the following excerpt:

"While on the higher-dose soy protein diet, participants had a 3% drop in their total cholesterol and a slight drop in their LDL cholesterol. And although their LDL cholesterol dipped slightly, that change wasn't statistically significant, meaning that it might have been due to chance."

Yes, total cholesterol only dropped 3%, but it still dropped. Also, we can see that the findings of the experiment MAY have been due to chance, or then again, they MAY have not been. Did they say chance? seriously lol...I didn't know we were playing monopoly...Now, considering the positive history of studies done concerning the relationship between soy and cholesterol, I'm going to go with the latter (that they were not a result of chance). Realize that this study is not the one I was initially praising, but as you can see, even a so-called negative study concerning the effects of soy on cholesterol still yielded positive results.

Moving along, we have your hysterically, uninformed testimonial about the relationship between soy and sperm count...do you even research in to the things you post? How about I'll do it for you...The following WebMD link makes clear the negative liability of this so-called finding:

http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and...entration-link

"But the study, published online in Human Reproduction, doesn't claim that soy foods are to blame for those lower sperm concentrations, most of which were still in the normal range."

"Almost all of the men -- 90% -- had sperm concentrations that were within the normal range, and 42% of the men had normal semen analyses, which include sperm shape and motion in addition to sperm concentration."

"Since the study was a snapshot in time, it doesn't prove that eating soy foods affected the men's sperm concentration; the researchers note that other factors -- including being overweight or obese -- could have been involved. And the men who took part in the study may not be representative of all men."

If the first section of the article has not convinced you that these findings are irrelevant, read on to the next section concerning Nancy Chapman of the Soy Foods Association of North America and her stand on the test's results...test results which Chavarro issued directly to the organization...

"In her email, Chapman notes that the study showed no association between soy foods and "the important measures of sperm quality and male fertility," and she underscores the study's limits noted by Chavarro's team, especially the possibility that extra weight, not soy foods, affected the men's sperm concentration. "Men with high levels of body fat are likely to produce more estrogen than their slim counterparts," writes Chapman."

And if that doesn't convince you, then here is something that you can in no way challenge...lmao

"She adds that compared to men who didn't eat soy foods, the men with the highest soy foods intake produced more ejaculate volume but about the same amount of sperm, leading to the lower sperm concentrations."

Now if you don't understand what this is saying, then let me put in simple terms for you...the subjects who hate the most soy had essentially the same amount of sperm in their ejaculate, but it was just spread out throughout a larger volume...this in turn led to lower results due to the fact that the researchers only took a certain volume of each sample and not the whole sample...this watering-down effect of sperm concentration should not be mistakenly associated with a decrease in fertility. I remembered a similar critique of this study was published in Muscle and Fitness, but alas I could not find the issue so we will have to live without it...

Listen, you have lost every argument thus far on this subject, so could you please just let it go...because, to be honest, you're making yourself look really bad right now...Just give it a rest and live to fight another day...because today sir, is not your day...

[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.