Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below diamonddiceclay
New member
www.t-mag.com go there and read "soy is a bad protein" and "an american journalist in toronto"-Great info from Mauro Dipasquale,Dorian Yates and more
Excellent Info In New T-mag...
- Thread starter diamonddiceclay
- Start date
Sorry diamond and other folks intersted in soy. I don't have time just now to address all of the total nonsense in those T-Mag media blitzes. Strange but true that I have other, more urgent research demands on my time. However I will say that T-Mag (like any news program or glossy mag) is into sensationalism. You make a story by omitting the truth as much as possible, and exagerating truth (especially if the research involves non-human animals, tissue culture, or even ONE flawed piece of research on humans).
I find this a lot like the Aspartame debate. No conclusive scientific evidence of adverse side effects, but plenty of anecdotal and unsubstansiated rumours IN SPITE of double blind, placebo controlled studies that indicate otherwise.
I find this a lot like the Aspartame debate. No conclusive scientific evidence of adverse side effects, but plenty of anecdotal and unsubstansiated rumours IN SPITE of double blind, placebo controlled studies that indicate otherwise.
riskybizz007
New member
I agree w/ MS
I could write hundreds of pages of info on why those T-mag 'articles' are crap. But to keep things short, I will ignore all of the non-human research. In the case of soy this is totally justified becasue there has been a LOT of human research, and it all shows that humans respond differently to rats, pigs, cheetahs or whatever.
Let's start with the most recent article (since I assume this was the BEST attempt at soy slander they could come up with). This is from "Soy is Still Bad Protein"
by Glen Neilson
There were 3 human research articles cited in this piece of twisted journalism. There was one on Japanese men. The author of that piece of work has co-authored over a dozen other studies on soy in the last 2 years alone! And it's all good! To quote from the very abstarct the T-mag cited article:
"Serum estradiol concentration was significantly inversely correlated with soy product intake"
This means that soy intake REDUCED estrogen levels in men. This has gotta be good for you. Then we have "Total and free testosterone concentrations were inversely correlated with soy product intake after controlling for the covariates, but these correlations were of border line significance."
So that no doubt makes no sense to a lot of you, and all you understood was soy makes test go down. This is not what it said. What it actually said was that the change in testosterone level was not scientifically significant.
I might add that that study did not administer these guys soy versus placebo to look at changes. Instead they gave them food recall questionaires. So we don't know what other dietary lifestyle differences exsisted between the highest soy intake group and everyone else. A lot of soy intake could merely mean that they were undernourished vegos who didn't get enough total protein or fat or other key nutrients. This is pretty common in vegos. In any event, there is certainly REVERSE evidence here of that unfounded rumour that soy increase estrogen. The majority of studies done (on humans) to date indicate that soy is antiestrogenic.
Then we have the study by Irvine et al on phytoestrogen intake in infants. It showed that giving infants phytoestrogen rich soy formulas increased their levels of phytoestrogens (well DUH?). They conclude with "it would be highly desirable to study the effects of soy isoflavones on steroid-dependent developmental processes in human babies."
They didn't do this. All they did was show that infants can absorb phyoestrogens!
Now onto the hypothyroidism in infants fed soy formulas. The paper by Jabbar et al concludes with:
"When initiating soy-formula feeding in infants with congenital hypothyroidism, the L-thyroxine dose should be increased because of significant reduction in intestinal absorption: conversely, when soy feeding is discontinued, the L-thyroxine dose should be decreased."
Helloooo out there. These babies already had congenital hypothyroidism. The soy fed infants required more thyroxine. So what relevance has this got to normal infants with normal thyroid function?? None.
So let's modernize our thinking here. JAMA, 2001 published the results from a very interesting study that looked at 248 fed soy formula and 563 fed cow milk formula as infants. These were controlled feeding experiments, much like is done on rats and mice. It followed their development an monitored measures of physical, hormonal and psychological health into adulthood. The only significant difference was that the soy fed women had slightly longer menstrual cycles (an indication of reduced estrogenic activity). The authors conclude "Exposure to soy formula does not appear to lead to different general health or reproductive outcomes than exposure to cow milk formula........our findings are reassuring about the safety of infant soy formula."
As I say, I could go on for hundreds of pages, but I've already written more than most of you can be bothered reading.
Let's start with the most recent article (since I assume this was the BEST attempt at soy slander they could come up with). This is from "Soy is Still Bad Protein"
by Glen Neilson
There were 3 human research articles cited in this piece of twisted journalism. There was one on Japanese men. The author of that piece of work has co-authored over a dozen other studies on soy in the last 2 years alone! And it's all good! To quote from the very abstarct the T-mag cited article:
"Serum estradiol concentration was significantly inversely correlated with soy product intake"
This means that soy intake REDUCED estrogen levels in men. This has gotta be good for you. Then we have "Total and free testosterone concentrations were inversely correlated with soy product intake after controlling for the covariates, but these correlations were of border line significance."
So that no doubt makes no sense to a lot of you, and all you understood was soy makes test go down. This is not what it said. What it actually said was that the change in testosterone level was not scientifically significant.
I might add that that study did not administer these guys soy versus placebo to look at changes. Instead they gave them food recall questionaires. So we don't know what other dietary lifestyle differences exsisted between the highest soy intake group and everyone else. A lot of soy intake could merely mean that they were undernourished vegos who didn't get enough total protein or fat or other key nutrients. This is pretty common in vegos. In any event, there is certainly REVERSE evidence here of that unfounded rumour that soy increase estrogen. The majority of studies done (on humans) to date indicate that soy is antiestrogenic.
Then we have the study by Irvine et al on phytoestrogen intake in infants. It showed that giving infants phytoestrogen rich soy formulas increased their levels of phytoestrogens (well DUH?). They conclude with "it would be highly desirable to study the effects of soy isoflavones on steroid-dependent developmental processes in human babies."
They didn't do this. All they did was show that infants can absorb phyoestrogens!
Now onto the hypothyroidism in infants fed soy formulas. The paper by Jabbar et al concludes with:
"When initiating soy-formula feeding in infants with congenital hypothyroidism, the L-thyroxine dose should be increased because of significant reduction in intestinal absorption: conversely, when soy feeding is discontinued, the L-thyroxine dose should be decreased."
Helloooo out there. These babies already had congenital hypothyroidism. The soy fed infants required more thyroxine. So what relevance has this got to normal infants with normal thyroid function?? None.
So let's modernize our thinking here. JAMA, 2001 published the results from a very interesting study that looked at 248 fed soy formula and 563 fed cow milk formula as infants. These were controlled feeding experiments, much like is done on rats and mice. It followed their development an monitored measures of physical, hormonal and psychological health into adulthood. The only significant difference was that the soy fed women had slightly longer menstrual cycles (an indication of reduced estrogenic activity). The authors conclude "Exposure to soy formula does not appear to lead to different general health or reproductive outcomes than exposure to cow milk formula........our findings are reassuring about the safety of infant soy formula."
As I say, I could go on for hundreds of pages, but I've already written more than most of you can be bothered reading.
Similar threads
- Sticky
