I really miss chocolate

I was not trying to argue that soy is harmless or above suspicion. My apologies if it seemed that I was.

But it is absolutely clear that any problems with soy are minor compared to the social, environmental and health consequences of the meat we are eating as a society and the way it is produced. I agree with you that abolishing meat outright is probably not desirable (nor realistic) but there is absolutely no way we are going to escape the environmental crisis without cutting down our beef intake as a society, vegetarians are people doing more than their share.

So when I read rubbish like this: “The real culprit is vegetarians and their obsession with tofu.” I see red. Even if soy is a major problem, it’s pathetic to claim that it is all vegetarians’ fault. There are no enough vegos in the west to account for the falling sperm rates, even if every male vegetarian was infertile, which clearly is not true. Perhaps Count Vlad believes vegetarians are force-feeding meat eaters soy in their processed foods as part of some dastardly plan to stop them breeding as well. (I realise his post might have been ironic, but the follow-ups clearly weren’t)

As to T-nation, I don’t know the specific article you referred to, since you didn’t put in a link, but I’ve been sent stuff from them before (admittedly not recently). Everything I read considered vegetarians as the devil incarnate (or at least dangerously effeminate). They seem quite blase about ethical concerns regarding factory farmed cattle or the environmental disasters involved, but if there are the slightest negative effects from non-meat proteins you can bet that will get a run.

I can’t find the paper suggesting soy lowers breast and prostate cancer I was thinking of, but here is a somewhat tangential piece about research debunking the supposed link between soy and allergies. http://www.scienceinpublic.com/sciencenow/2008/jennifer_koplin.htm

I know this wasn’t what you were referring to, but it’s relevant in the way that possible concerns regarding vegan products get run as scare campaigns when the evidence is far from complete, but established evidence regarding meat or dairy finds it much harder in the MSM.

First we have a connection to a far-right website (sporting Anne Coulter ads when I looked) that tells us that soy is responsible for a 27% jump in Leukemia in one year in America. Hmmm

Yeah, I wouldn’t have chosen that one as a source myself. Fair enough.

The Guardian piece is certainly more balanced. There’s no question this is something that should be researched in more detail, and there may be a problem. But I’ve seen a couple of pieces of peer-reviewed research that back the safety of soy, at least in regard to some of the fears.

You’re missing a key part of the article’s main argument here. The problem is not with traditionally produced soy products, but their modern counterparts and the large number (and volume) of fractionally-extracted soy byproducts added to processed foods at present.

Now, I only have access to the SCOPUS abstracts database, but flicking through what I can see, pretty much all the studies demonstrating positive benefits of soy are conducted on non-western populations who only consume the old-school soy products, and in much smaller amounts than even westerners who only eat things like tofu do. Studies looking at western diets usually appear only to be measuring intake of ‘known soy’ products like soymilk and tofu, too, with no apparent attempt to quantify intake from other sources.

I’ve seen some really interesting stuff related to possible positive effects of soy, but none of it was related to fertility, which is really the topic of this thread. At best, a reduction in breast cancer risk factors was demonstrated, but that’s a) only loosely relevant and b) green tea had more of an effect in the study I read.

When one’s search terms are restricted to “soy reprod*”, the picture changes substantially. Most relevant: a large drop in sperm count associated with increased soy consumption in western males, exacerbated by being overweight[1]. Negative effects of neonatal exposure to soy isoflavones in female rats, leading to changes in morphology, development, and hormone balance[2][3]. A possible link between high soy intake in humans and uterine bleeding/endometriosis symptoms[4]. Alteration of hormone levels in male offspring of female rats fed high levels of soy chemicals[5]. And that’s just stuff from the last two years!

It may or may not have health effects, but as compared to the well established effects from red meat, it looks pretty good.

I have to single this out, because false dichotomies make me stabby, and don’t make a good argument. There’s no room in this discussion for the claim that the only alternative to soy is beef if you’re looking for protein. Its a ridiculous assertion.

Finally Patrickg, it ain’t me that wrecked myself. Soy farming is trashing a lot of the Amazon, but only because the soy is being fed to cattle. Cattle are not very efficient ways of processing food. So you need to put in a whole lot of soy (or anything else) to get out a kilo of beef. If we all went vegetarian we’d have more than enough soy from other places without wrecking the Amazon.

Its certainly true that the demand for animal protein is leading to a lot of unneccessary land clearing for fodder production. However, some caveats: a lot of that soy is going straight into people food, not just cows; other crops are spurring deforestation, particularly those accursed biodiesel crops – and sugarcane is a biggie in Brazil; and even if we ate all that soy, as per above, there’s no guarantee it’d be any good for us. I’m right with you on your implied assertion that westerners eat too much meat, but I don’t believe completely abandoning its consumption is in any way a viable solution. Less is simply more.

The meatheads (pun intended) at T-nation couldn’t give a stuff about the environment until it gives them a chance to beat up on vegetarians, but the fact is that it’s them and fellow carnivores that are creating the problem.

Yeah, this is pure distilled fail. You don’t seem to have sought out the article at all, relying simply on attacking the source. This is not clever, especially since the article is an extended interview with a published researcher in the field. You also seem to know nothing about the site in question and are relying on a knee-jerk hatred of fitness nerds and ‘carnivores’ in order to avoid examining these claims. Not ok.

I understand where you’re coming from, both environmentally and from a dietary choice perspective, and I’m not completely opposed, but your position lacks nuance, weight, and cited facts. Soy isn’t some magical solution to our problems.

_______________________________
[1] Chavarro, J.E., Toth, T.L., Sadio, S.M., Hauser, R.
Soy food and isoflavone intake in relation to semen quality parameters among men from an infertility clinic
(2008) Human Reproduction, 23 (11), pp. 2584-2590.

[2] Bateman, H.L., Patisaul, H.B.
Disrupted female reproductive physiology following neonatal exposure to phytoestrogens or estrogen specific ligands is associated with decreased GnRH activation and kisspeptin fiber density in the hypothalamus
(2008) NeuroToxicology, 29 (6), pp. 988-997.

[3]Jefferson, W.N., Padilla-Banks, E., Newbold, R.R.
Disruption of the developing female reproductive system by phytoestrogens: Genistein as an example
(2007) Molecular Nutrition and Food Research, 51 (7), pp. 832-844. Cited 3 times.

[4] Chandrareddy, A., Muneyyirci-Delale, O., McFarlane, S.I., Murad, O.M.
Adverse effects of phytoestrogens on reproductive health: A report of three cases
(2008) Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 14 (2), pp. 132-135.

[5] Akingbemi, B.T., Braden, T.D., Kemppainen, B.W., Hancock, K.D., Sherrill, J.D., Cook, S.J., He, X., Supko, J.G.
Exposure to phytoestrogens in the perinatal period affects androgen secretion by testicular leydig cells in the adult rat
(2007) Endocrinology, 148 (9), pp. 4475-4488.

First we have a connection to a far-right website (sporting Anne Coulter ads when I looked) that tells us that soy is responsible for a 27% jump in Leukemia in one year in America. Hmmm

The Guardian piece is certainly more balanced. There’s no question this is something that should be researched in more detail, and there may be a problem. But I’ve seen a couple of pieces of peer-reviewed research that back the safety of soy, at least in regard to some of the fears. It may or may not have health effects, but as compared to the well established effects from red meat, it looks pretty good.

Finally Patrickg, it ain’t me that wrecked myself. Soy farming is trashing a lot of the Amazon, but only because the soy is being fed to cattle. Cattle are not very efficient ways of processing food. So you need to put in a whole lot of soy (or anything else) to get out a kilo of beef. If we all went vegetarian we’d have more than enough soy from other places without wrecking the Amazon.

The meatheads (pun intended) at T-nation couldn’t give a stuff about the environment until it gives them a chance to beat up on vegetarians, but the fact is that it’s them and fellow carnivores that are creating the problem.

I’ll keep you all posted of my impending death by breast explosion.

Moz, try almond milk.