Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by rgrieselhuber | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

rgrieselhuber

Not a great food for men, though.

View on HN

Here are two PubMed surveys that show there is no evidence for Soy consumption having feminizing effects on men.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106

I'll do some more research on this, since you took the time to post. My initial reaction after doing a bit of searching on the author is that he appears to have a financial interest in promoting soy-based foods.

Soy-based foods have essentially no impact on testosterone levels in men at the typical levels of consumption: https://examine.com/nutrition/is-soy-good-or-bad-for-me/

You'd have to basically almost be subsisting off of soy to start to see effects.

Your second point is worth looking into further. Soy can be found in many products: https://www.verywell.com/food-and-ingredients-to-avoid-on-a-...

Presence isn't really the an indicator of amount.

Prevelance is.

Not really. If every food you eat has a microgram of soy, that still wouldn't be the same as eating a pound of tofu, which wouldn't be the same as eating 3000 Calories of tofu.

Note that the second is specific to isoflavones.

A newer study I came across this afternoon in an endocrinology journal came to the same conclusion about soy isoflavones.

I think men in societies where they have eaten tofu for centuries like China, Indonesia and Japan are doing just fine.

I can't speak for China and Indonesia, but I've lived in Japan for a number of years. Tofu is not super common as a dish, mostly as a filler in small portions of some side dishes.

What do you have to say to the other two responses that debunk your claim?

I'm always willing to look at evidence. I'm a little concerned about the objectivity of the author of the papers linked to.

You mean as opposed to the 0 papers you cited?

Well, yes actually. I've read enough over the years that I personally avoid soy and soy-based products. When it comes up, I explain why. It's not a great accomplishment to link to a paper that performs well in organic search.

> It's not a great accomplishment to link to a paper that performs well in organic search.

It's a cursory BS test. If the evidence is hard to find, it's generally because there's no evidence available from credible sources. Belief that the truth is out there, is not sufficient anymore.

The Cochrane Collaboration has nothing.

A google search might lead to the NIH having an article citing "studies" about various related effects, but mostly says nothing and has 0 references. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480510/

But if you search the NIH databases via https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed using (soybean[Title/Abstract]) AND men[Title/Abstract] you'll come across a doctor who wrote this: http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(11)60100-6/fullte... - admittedly, I don't think it's compelling as a standalone opinion.

This is a study, by a relatively small organization is better: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/3/570S.long

You might benefit from seeing the evidence in favor of Soy being a serious factor in reducing prostate cancer rates and other such ancillary benefits.

You can read a lot to support nearly any claim, that statement is less valuable evidence than even an actual anecdote. Regardless, surely you'd be able to recall at least one reputable source to serve your "explanation." Why do all the high performing organic search results supporting your claim come from sketchy websites and paranoid blogs? I see the "soy is evil" sentiment come up on hn with some regularity, and I can't understand why because the argument never presents it as more a credible claim than alternative medicines or homeopathy.

I read they don't eat a lot and when they do its fermented.

Some scientific studies on soy prep and pseudo estrogen effects would be fascinating.

Yeah,

- only some people

- occasionally

- along with all other types of food making tofu a very small portion of the diet

Debunked: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224 "Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis."

Citing one study (meta analysis or not) and claiming debunked is not a serious argument, especially with respect to diet where there is data all over the place.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2721724/

There was an inverse association between soy food intake and sperm concentration that remained significant after accounting for age, abstinence time, body mass index, caffeine and alcohol intake and smoking. In the multivariate-adjusted analyses, men in the highest category of soy food intake had 41 million sperm/ml less than men who did not consume soy foods.

Wrong measure. What if men had lower concentration of sperm but higher volume of the ejaculate? Soy is known to have benefits on prostate and much of the volume of sperm comes from prostate liquid.

Possibly wrong measure, and not the whole story in any case.

The implicitly suggested volume measure might not be the wrong measure either since fertility depends on quite a few variables, several we don't even know about.

These unknowns are actually a bit concerning on their own since fertility has been falling rapidly, at least in most of the western hemisphere, and the cause is unknown.

Well, Asia does not seem to suffer yet soy is a significant part of their caloric intake.

Citation required? I doubt it is even 5%.

> Nevertheless, Americans as a whole still consume very little soy protein. Based on 2003 data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, per-capita soy protein consumption is less than 1 gram (g) per day in most European and North American countries, although certain subpopulations such as vegetarians, Asian immigrants, and infants fed soy-based formula consume more. The Japanese, on the other hand, consume an average 8.7 g of soy protein per day; Koreans, 6.2–9.6 g; Indonesians, 7.4 g; and the Chinese, 3.4 g.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480510/

At least it's several times bigger than European and USA consumption.

Citation required for what? The fact that they eat more soy?

Demonizing soy is just a fad. Like demonizing meat or dairy.

Most of USA and Europe eats female mammals like cows and chickens, are we going to make claims that female animal estrogen contained in that flesh makes men infertile? Seems like a much more probable cause than phytoestrogen from plants, not that I would be irresposible to make that argument without any evidence, as is the case for soy.

I'm not attacking soy, just the style of argument.

Especially with the lightspeed downward trend in androgens and fertility over the last few decades.

How do you mean ?

As long as its nutricous and preferrably somewhat edible, it should be at the very least not harmful for any sex, right ?

The parent is referring to the presence of isoflavones, which can have estrogen-like effects.

IDK if any of that is actually a problem, but that's the reference.

Ah, looks like your're right.

Good thing soy isnt the only good source of plant based protein.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com