Phytoestrogens in soy

[defspace]

Is this something anyone actually worries about? Is this concern on the same level as ceramic headset bearings?

[Too Tall]

No easy answer. Read alot and decide for yourself I suppose.
NIH is a good resource ( The pros and cons of phytoestrogens ) as is Tufts ( Tufts Health & Nutrition Letter - The Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy - Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter ).
Mom was a crackerjack Microbiologist and experimental virologist. All in all a sharp cookie with a rye sense of humor.
Her take on food sources was to include a wide variety of food and treat them like toxins...too much of any one thing is too much.

FWIIW Soy is my go to recovery drink mixed with whey.

If I had kids I'd think twice about supplementing their diets with soy.

[devlin]

The idea of growing moobs was enough for me to stop drinking it. It may or may not happen but I was told by a health food practitioner a few years back before this became a hot topic that soy milk upset the bodies hormones so I pretty much gave it up.

[Jonathan]

If excess soy is a problem for adults and kids then its the same old story. Eliminate as many foods as you can that come packaged and you eliminate a whole range of things that probably aren't good for health in addition to excess soy.

It's really a story of modern agribusiness, GMOs, pesticides, increasing population, urban food deserts etc. None of it can be isolated. My kids sort of get it, they call these manufactured and packaged foods "robot turds".

[Octave]

TT pretty much nailed it but I'll add my two cents. As a vegan I consume my fair share of soy, and as a scientist I consume my fair share of research literature..

the reality is that phytoestrogens do exist. Anyone denying that is a fool. Whether or not they actually function in vivo, or in humans, is another question entirely. Soy-derived phytoestrogens DO act like estrogen in a cell culture and in some animal studies, but there's no definitive human research one way or another. In reasonable amounts, the enzymes in your gut actually neutralize or destroy nearly all of these compounds, meaning that the impact on your physiology is nil.

Compared to the hormones present in nearly all dairy products, the estrogenic compounds in soy products are totally negligible. If you're a dairy consumer thinking about switching over to soy-based dairy replacements like soy milk or soy cheese, you're unquestionably reducing your estrogenic consumption. If you're currently not a dairy consumer, that's another story but I would still not worry about the estrogenic effects.

As an adult, these compounds, assuming they work in vivo like they do in vitro, are pretty harmless. Every aspect of your diet impacts hormone production and processing, from the levels of iron you consume from leafy greens to the ratios of omega fatty acids that you ingest.. trying to control all of these is a nightmare and as TT said, moderation is the most clear, agreed-upon answer.

Is soy milk in your coffee or some tofu on your dinner plate going to give you man-breasts? No. I can say that definitively. Will daily consumption of a gallon of soy milk, a block of soy cheese melted over a pound of tempeh as a side to your tofu-steak going to impact estrogenic activity? No clear answer there..

[Jonathan]

and as a scientist I consume my fair share of research literature..

Soy-derived phytoestrogens DO act like estrogen in a cell culture and in some animal studies, but there's no definitive human research one way or another.
..

Octave, I'm interested in the comment wrt to animal studies. I see often that animals studies show a result but it's inconclusive in humans. So to turn the question around, Are you aware of any examples of studies that has shown conclusive evidence that humans are different than other related animals when it comes to processing foods?

[Octave]

Octave, I'm interested in the comment wrt to animal studies. I see often that animals studies show a result but it's inconclusive in humans. So to turn the question around, Are you aware of any examples of studies that has shown conclusive evidence that humans are different than other related animals when it comes to processing foods?

The reason you see a lot of the former and not the latter is that animal studies offer a huge amount of control, while human studies are very difficult to conduct, especially those concerned with diet. Unless people are enrolled in an in-patient study, diet studies rely largely on self-reporting which is notoriously unreliable..

But to answer your question: yes, there are many examples of enzymatic differences between humans and animals in how and through what routes we process nutrients. I don't know of any good review-type articles or metastudies on this, but if you look into specific aspects of nutrition, such as insulin response to carbohydrates or lipid profile changes as a result of caffeine consumption, you'll find a wealth of literature showing differences between humans and rats/mice.

[jitahs]

Compared to the hormones present in nearly all dairy products, the estrogenic compounds in soy products are totally negligible. If you're a dairy consumer thinking about switching over to soy-based dairy replacements like soy milk or soy cheese, you're unquestionably reducing your estrogenic consumption. If you're currently not a dairy consumer, that's another story but I would still not worry about the estrogenic effects.

What is your opinion, subjective or otherwise, regarding the flip side - what are the testosteronic effects of the consumption of dairy and gmo-modified plant and animal life?

Relative to what you said about control groups, that NIH abstract is miraculously incomplete, even for an abstract.

[Carbon_Cowboy]

What is your opinion, subjective or otherwise, regarding the flip side - what are the testosteronic effects of the consumption of dairy and gmo-modified plant and animal life?

for the bolded part Google: Seralini AND retracted. GMO's have never consistently shown any health-related effects in humans or animals. I've got no dog in the GMO fight, but from a health standpoint there is only one side to the coin.

[Octave]

What is your opinion, subjective or otherwise, regarding the flip side - what are the testosteronic effects of the consumption of dairy and gmo-modified plant and animal life?

The GMO debate is a whole other question that I'm not going to touch here, suffice to say I think it's a hugely misunderstood field and that there are plenty of positive, non-nefarious and hugely beneficial ways to genetically modify plants and animals for the betterment of mankind without damaging the ecosystem or our biology, however a few large corporations have ignored that fact and played way loose and fast with technology geared towards profit and control while acting with a total disregard for the well-being of mankind and our ecosystem..

With regards to the testosteronic effects of dairy consumption, they are definitely real and well defined in humans. Consuming dairy, even relatively small amounts, causes a drop in testosterone production through the suppression of gonadotropin secretions. This is true in both juvenile, adolescent and adult populations of men. It can be seen on a global scale and within individuals. This effect is not localized to populations consuming milk from genetically modified or selected cows, nor just those who receive exogenous hormone treatments (though it is exacerbated by these factors). Simply: cow milk consumption by human males results in decreased testosterone production.

Relative to what you said about control groups, that NIH abstract is miraculously incomplete, even for an abstract.

That's because it's a review article, not an original study/dataset. The article itself is pretty informative and provides a lot of references for digging deeper into the nutritional research rabbit-hole. I can upload it somewhere if that'd be helpful for those interested..

[Octave]

for the bolded part Google: Seralini AND retracted. GMO's have never consistently shown any health-related effects in humans or animals. I've got no dog in the GMO fight, but from a health standpoint there is only one side to the coin.

I respectfully disagree with that. The take-away from that study is that GMO corn and glyphosate are unquestionably harmful to living things. That does not imply that GMOs as a whole or as a field are harmful or unsafe for human/animal consumption.

GMOs in some form or another have been around since the dawn of agriculture. Sure, we've got new techniques and mediums for application, but that concept of GMO has been so demonized due to the outliers like Monsanto and their various poisons that we have overlooked a lot of potentially beneficial developments. I worked as a teenager on an organic, non-GMO farm that used zero pesticides/herbicides and stood for everything possible against GMOs. I've also worked with scientists who develop and use GMOs on a regular basis for the betterment of mankind without ill effects. There is more than one side to the coin in regards to the larger field of GMO technology. However, you are right in stating that when it comes to GMO corn and glyphosate, there should be no debate - that shit is poison.

[jitahs]

Definitely no trying to start a GMO debate, I'll just leave it at that.

That's because it's a review article, not an original study/dataset. The article itself is pretty informative and provides a lot of references for digging deeper into the nutritional research rabbit-hole. I can upload it somewhere if that'd be helpful for those interested..

Was looking for an in vivo citation, found it.

[Carbon_Cowboy]

I respectfully disagree with that. The take-away from that study is that GMO corn and glyphosate are unquestionably harmful to living things. That does not imply that GMOs as a whole or as a field are harmful or unsafe for human/animal consumption.

GMOs in some form or another have been around since the dawn of agriculture. Sure, we've got new techniques and mediums for application, but that concept of GMO has been so demonized due to the outliers like Monsanto and their various poisons that we have overlooked a lot of potentially beneficial developments. I worked as a teenager on an organic, non-GMO farm that used zero pesticides/herbicides and stood for everything possible against GMOs. I've also worked with scientists who develop and use GMOs on a regular basis for the betterment of mankind without ill effects. There is more than one side to the coin in regards to the larger field of GMO technology. However, you are right in stating that when it comes to GMO corn and glyphosate, there should be no debate - that shit is poison.

Ok, I get you on a few points, but I was speaking solely on the health impact of GMO's not the whole package, which is indeed quite complex. I'm sure you're a cool dude and you seem very knowledgeable, but I can't let this one go.

The study you're mentioning was retracted for shoddy design and statistical analysis, it proves nothing except that peer review still works.

There is scientific consensus that GMOs pose no known health risk to humans. You are not just disagreeing with me you are also disagreeing with the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, European Commission, The National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society of Medicine....etc.

I know this OT, but because of my chosen field of research I feel an obligation to stop misinformation in hopes of making cocktail parties bearable again. But back to the soy-talk, I'm close to breaking my NY resolution of not arguing on the 'net.

[Jonathan]

Carbon Cowboy, thanks for chiming in. Please stay and present what you know. No need for us to ague. We all win if it stays respectful.

When you mention GMO's are you referring to the processes or are you referring to the product getting to the table. What I'm trying to say, if GMO's allow for more pesticide use can't that be harmful? What about the overall effect on bio diversity? I know these are all bullit points and buzz words of the anti-GMO folks but that's what I'm curious about. I'm very pro science and believe that only science will be ale to help us feed a growing global population, but we humans are littered with examples of how our scientific prowess has caused some real long term problems.

[Carbon_Cowboy]

I am only referring to the product on the table. I'm making no claims to the ecological stuff, I'm a food scientist so that's out of my purview. However, I do know that Bt crops substantially reduce insecticide use, so it isn't correct to say GMO's = more pesticide. Obviously that's true for some, but not for others.

You ask valid questions, but I believe your answer is in the last statement of your post. The deciders firmly believe the combination of climate change + pop increase makes GMO's a necessity to feed everyone, and I tend to agree.