Poll: Is it Safe for Men?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17

Thread: SOY? Good for Men or not?

  1. #16
    Advanced User Renk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17.08.08
    Location
    Elsewhere
    P2P Client
    utorrent
    Posts
    581
    Activity Longevity
    0/20 19/20
    Today Posts
    0/5 ssssss581
    Quote Originally Posted by slikrapid View Post
    without context/numbers these don't mean anything, some are also contradictory having access to medical literature alone is not enough
    Sure, but I think references to medical literature are at least necessary. And there is very very few science/fact based references in your sentences.



    the findings are often contradictory (should be checked for bias or inadequate methodology or financial dependence, especially newer research,...) and you don't have an overview of what is going on with the food in question (like the virgin market push and regulatory manipulation mentioned above)ie.
    I don't see any contradiction. When I say that in men too low and too high level of estrogens are harmful, it's not a contradiction. When I say that in the most breast cancers ER-alpha is activated, but that in some breast cancers ER-beta is activated, there is no contradiction.
    And most part of what I wrote was not really an interpretation, it was a (simple) recapitulation of some facts. Moreover I think it's not necessary to have a complete overview and to be omniscient to see that among eg japanese women, who consume much soy and little dairy products, prevalence of osteoporosis is low. As it is not necessary to be omniscient to know that soy is consumed in Asia for ages, with no substantiated adverse effects. And there is no contradiction either.


    your interpretation of the findings is erroneous
    Where is the facts-based proof of this affirmation ? What is so erroneous/false in what I wrote? All what I wrote was erroneous ? Only some parts ? Which parts exactly? And, again, where are the proofs ?



    - it is thus not surprising that even those in the medical community often have opposing or contradictory attitudes regarding common topics - obviously, the easy way out is to simply adopt views spread by the most powerful/influential authorities on the subject ones that are surely accompanied by sizable financial interest/support from the industry & co. (happens in all fields of human activity, not just medicine), so can you really trust these 'authorities'? based on their behavior in the past and a general lack of accountability, definitely not
    I agree. But do you think the Earth is flat because "authorities" have said to you since you was a child that it is spherical? No? So you trust abominable "authorities"... Moreover there always will be lobbies. Then, it depends on their strength. When a corpus of (a priori) serious (scientific peer-reviewed ) studies and immemorial findings are going in the direction of what the less strong lobby say (or the the direction of the less strong lobby's interests), contradicting what the strongest lobbies pretend, it is more plausible that these studies are true than false.



    ...soy isoflavones like genistein and diadzen, the oestrogen-like compounds found in soybeans.
    "oestrogen like" are not oestrogen, period. Milk does contain true estrogens. And soy does not contain any estrogen at all. For example, soy isoflafoves do not have prothrombotic effect, as estrogens have. In fact soy isoflavones are named by scientists "phyto SERM" (selective estrogen receptor modulator). You can of course continue to name them "oestrogen like" if you prefer, but that proves nothing.


    Even China, where soy really is a poverty food
    What exactly means "poverty food"? In what sense ? Where is the proof that soy were "poor" in a nutritional sense ?

    Moreover could really a food having positive effects in breast cancer correctly be described as a "poverty food"?
    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22524810



    again, missing context: to consume 'for how long', like this:
    There is always a context. The role of statistics tools used in studies is to reduce bias as far as possible (and sometimes to falsify data alas)

    But here is an other (multiethnic 13 years long) study (among 46027 post menopausal women):
    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22158125

    And here are 3 meta analysis, so less context-dependent:
    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23057338
    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15945102
    Soy consumption and prostate cancer risk in men: a revisit of a meta-analysis



    In 1991, Japanese researchers reported that consumption of as little as 30 grams or two tablespoons of soybeans per day for only one month resulted in a significant increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone.
    Hypothyroidism! 2 tablespoons! One month ! Concerning a food widely consumed by Asian people on a daily basis since 10000 years! You spoke about "contradictions" and "bias" earlier, isn't ?

    But there is an easy way to verify your assertion. If it is true, and as japanese people consume for ages much more than 2 tablespoons of soy per day on a long term basis, I conclude that hypo (or hyper?) thyroidism would have a high prevalence in Japan. Have you precise sources about that (except Fukushima's related cases of course)?

    By the way, TSH varies widely even in the same individual. And increase in Thyroid Stimulating Hormone, even "significant" does not necessary mean true thyroid impairment: normal levels of TSH varies between 0.3 to 4.2mUI/l, so for example a "significant" increase from 1mUI/l to 2 mUI/l (a 2 fold increase!) may implies nothing concerning thyroid hormonal status (T3/T4/FreeT3/FreeT4).

    In fact, soy isoflavones can inhibit an enzyme involved in thyroid hormone synthesis (thyroid peroxidase) but that has not translated into poor thyroid function (T3, T4 levels) in otherwise healthy individuals (those without pre existing thyroid disease and who have adequate iodine. intake). So additional factors appear necessary to cause thyroid malfunction: inadequate iodine intake, existence of other defects of hormone synthesis, additional goitrogenic dietary factors.
    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11042097

    Of course if you already have a thyroid disorder, soy consumption may be of concern. And more generally, for any health disorder, you can find foods that are of concern for this disorder.
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  2. Who Said Thanks:

    tr-cht-fx-242p (11.06.14)

  3. #17


    Join Date
    22.06.08
    Location
    astral planes
    P2P Client
    sbi finest
    Posts
    3,125
    Activity Longevity
    0/20 19/20
    Today Posts
    0/5 sssss3125
    @Renk:

    man, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble (and some embarrassment, if i may add) by simply reading that article link from my first post, it addresses all? of your latter (research) comments

    there is very very few science/fact based references in your sentences.
    you'll find the references (~70) in the linked article, no need to repeat them here, is there?

    your interpretation of the findings is erroneous
    Where is the facts-based proof of this affirmation ? What is so erroneous/false in what I wrote? All what I wrote was erroneous ? Only some parts ? Which parts exactly? And, again, where are the proofs ?
    firstly, that paragraph i wrote was meant in a general way, addressing research in general (and you as one of the readers/researchers that extracts the data)
    secondly, you misquoted me by mistake (use c/p next time), the correct quote, with context, is:

    Quote Originally Posted by myself
    having access to medical literature alone is not enough since the findings are often contradictory (...) and you don't have an overview of what is going on with the food in question (...), ie. your interpretation of the findings become erroneous
    so what it means is that mere data without an overview is not enough to make a sound conclusion, OK?
    thirdly, relax will ya

    I don't see any contradiction.
    ...Both low and high level of estrogen are associated in men with increased risks of death
    ...When I say that in men too low and too high level of estrogens are harmful, it's not a contradiction.
    really? i see a few:
    - high/low levels indicate some unbalance which could be normal or abnormal, no need for the 'increased risks of death' exaggeration
    - context is needed here, example: technically, a small bruise/wound on one's hand also 'increases risks of death', however here it is obviously an extremely small percentage, whereas regarding things like estrogen levels it is not so obvious
    - shows you're either careless with such statements or don't bother with their meaning or ...
    - also, somehow 'low/high' became 'too low/too high' in the next post
    - finally, the paragraph you're quoting is a general observation, whereas the preceding sentence was addressing contradictions from 'Renk or some article'
    - for someone interested/involved in science, this seems like a lot of errors or a careless attitude displayed in just a few sentences (its not a scientific forum/paper, but still, don't wanna taint your rep like that)

    Moreover I think it's not necessary to have a complete overview and to be omniscient
    now you're exaggerating, dude, thats not scientific

    to see that among eg japanese women, who consume much soy and little dairy products, prevalence of osteoporosis is low.
    What exactly means "poverty food"?
    Moreover could really a food having positive effects in breast cancer
    Soy consumption and prostate cancer risk in men: a revisit of a meta-analysis
    (those without pre existing thyroid disease and who have adequate iodine. intake)
    refer to the linked article, these cases have been discussed there

    As it is not necessary to be omniscient to know that soy is consumed in Asia for ages, with no substantiated adverse effects. And there is no contradiction either.
    i gave you context for that one in my previous post, right?
    besides, asian diet is different than western, you can't just take one ingredient out of it and assume adding it to another diet will translate well for long term or intense usage

    do you think the Earth is flat because "authorities" have said to you since you was a child that it is spherical? No? So you trust abominable "authorities"
    simple: 'trust, but verify' - if you can't verify, 'trust, with some reservations' - but if you can't trust, 'be extra careful' - and if high-level corruption is 'through the roof', then what?
    besides, there's plenty of hints in the sky and around us regarding that example

    Hypothyroidism! 2 tablespoons! One month ! Concerning a food widely consumed by Asian people on a daily basis since 10000 years! You spoke about "contradictions" and "bias" earlier, isn't ?
    eh?
    firstly, that example was to show what kind of context was missing (i already mentioned that part in the previous post)
    secondly, it clearly states 'significant increase', no more and no less, ie. a finding that needs to be considered in further analysis of the 'soy case'
    thirdly, your logic should be: if it takes so little to cause such an increase, there must be other factors allowing asians not to be seriously affected (hint: my previous response regarding the asian diet)
    fourthly, refer to the linked article for more details
    finally, 10000 years of usage means nothing if one fails to understand the context (the same goes with 'huge medical database')

    btw. you a medical/biochemistry student or smth? (no need to answer in detail if inconvenient)
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •