apple0154
MEOW
I'm with you on this. I mean who in God's creation would try to find a substitute for a natural breast?
You Will Obey
- Thread starter RockX
- Start date
I'm with you on this. I mean who in God's creation would try to find a substitute for a natural breast?
Like I said milions of pages with studies noting ill effects from soy~~~
I guess Stringy cannot comprehend that some are affected adversely by soy, since millions drink it with no ill effects.
I guess all those people who suffer with severe reactions to nuts, shellfish, strawberries are all rendered null and void since millions thrive with them...
What a MAROON!
Aye Carumba!
And Like I said, not one of them from a credible source.
I guess Stringy cannot comprehend that some are affected adversely by soy, since millions drink it with no ill effects.
I guess all those people who suffer with severe reactions to nuts, shellfish, strawberries are all rendered null and void since millions thrive with them...
What a MAROON!
Aye Carumba!
That's just stupid. Allergic reactions to nuts, shellfish and strawberries do not make those foods unhealthy for the general public. Some people are allergic to soy. That's not what we are talking about, dummy.
Yeah, SFB. Tell us all about your experience with the nutrional benefits of soy and your credentials that qualify you to call someone else's not credible.
Run for a political seat and you think your $hit doesn't stink.
http://www.menshealth.com/men/nutri.../article/0ad3803313651210VgnVCM10000013281eac
You and Gavin Newsom chug-a-lug the soy, and we'll ship you a bra and Midol on the house, k?
What's your credentials to deny the power of long distance faith healing, psychics, palm readers and witch doctors? Or do you accept any and every bit of woo that appears on a web page?
I don't have any credentials to tell you about the benefits of soy, but neither does Fallon (founder of the WAPF). I am somewhat skeptical of all the claims, but it has been shown in peer reviewed studies to have many benefits. I have the credentials to point you to the studies.
As for my expertise in challenging the credibilty of others, it's simply a request for proof. These pages do not reference peer reviewed studies and are just collections of unsubstantiated claims.
The WAPF has a political agenda (they entertain as many conspiracy theories as nAHZi) and they are not a scientific organization. They are just a bunch of quacks proclaiming the benefits of raw milk, meat diets, laetril as a cancer cure, claim that high cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease and all forms of misinformation backed by pseudo science. If you want to take nutrition info from the insane asylum, go ahead. But as a skeptic, I feel obligated to expose such nonsense when it has such an impact on others.
The credible studies that show a negative impact from soy are somewhere between few and none.
Last edited:
Oh STFU, Stringfield. There were plenty of other sources that ID put up. The reality is, you aren't for facts. You're looking for the opportunity to just be right, period.
Nothing ID puts up will satisfy you, because you just wanna fight.
Go suck your soy bottle and give it up!
Ad hom. I told you, I have not drunk soy in a long time. I have no attachment to soy whatsoever. I have an attachment to truth and exposing woo.
The WAPF is the source from which these other pages draw. There was no credible source presented.
The study by Lon White may have some merit. When someone is able to repeat his findings let me know. Many of the other claims on these are demonstrably false. There is no indication that those given soy formula have suffered any ill effects. That's just horseshit.
Soy has been a staple in Asian diets for thousands of years. I don't thin they have a male fertility problem. Maybe, those Japanese pilots were not on kamikaze missions, they were just effeminately checking their hair.
The claims are extraordinary and you are going to need some proof. The truth is that this is largely based on stupid ethnocentric bias, a dislike for vegetarians (I am not one) and some political agenda against the corporate food industry. There is no proof.
And like I said you are full of shit.
And the quacks who tell you cholesterol is fine and has no ill effects are not. Okay.
The majority of the scientific community, dozens of studies and thousands of years of history agree that soy is safe and even beneficial. You've got one epidemiological study (does not show cause and effect) and the ramblings of a bunch of quacks to back you up. Nothing more.
Here's the deal dorkpuss, There ARE studies showing soy to have adverse effects hense my tongue in cheek comment that began your infernal hair splitting and grand standing.
Your need to always be right must make you a real glass of vinegar for those that know you eh?
SOY PRODUCTS MAY AFFECT FERTILITY
Researchers estimate that soy is present in 70% of supermarket products. Most fast food chains also use it because soy is a cheap source of protein and enables food industries to claim higher protein content on labels.
Manufacturers utilize every part of the bean. The husk is used as a source of
fiber in breads, cereals and many snacks. The oil extracted from soybeans is used for salad dressings, cooking oils and margarine. During oil extraction, the bean also produces a substance called lecithin. Lecithin helps fat mix with water and prevents ingredients in foods from separating.
The soy industry skyrocketed after being marketed for its alleged health
benefits: lowering cholesterol, helping menstrual symptoms, and lowing the risk of osteoporosis and some cancers.
However, research has linked soy to diminishing fertility in men and has linked
the phyto-estrogen found in soy to an increased risk of some cancers. Other
researchers claim that soy damages brain function, causes hidden developmental abnormalities in infants, and contributes to the early onset of puberty in women.
Research by Dr. Lorraine Anderson, a specialist in reproductive medicine at
Belfast’s Royal Maternity Hospital, has shown soy’s adverse effect on male
fertility.
In laboratory studies, Anderson discovered that the seminal liquid surrounding
slower-moving sperm samples contained chemicals called isoflavones, also known as phyto-estrogens because they mimic the female hormone estrogen.
Phyto-estrogens are so highly concentrated in soy that infants who are fed soy formulas receive an amount of estrogen equivalent to FIVE birth control pills every day.Dr. Bill Helferish, a professor of food at the University of Illinois, has discovered a possible link between the growth of certain breast cancer tumors that require soy and the chemicals found in soy.
Despite this research and health risks associated with the phyto-estrogen insoy, the FDA issued the health claim that 25 grams of soy per day lowers
cholesterol and reduces heart disease.
Two senior food scientists within the FDA, Dr. Daniel Sheehan and Dr. Daniel
Doerge, protested, but were prohibited from commenting publicly on the health risks of soy after they wrote a letter to the department of Health and Human Sciences.
In May 2003 the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food issued a report
that stated, “In 1940, adverse effects on fertility were observed in animals that had been grazing on phyto-estrogen-rich plants. In the early 1980s, it became clear that phytoestrogens could produce biological effects in humans.”
SOURCE: The Observer, November 7, 2004, http://observer. guardian.co.uk.
HEALTH REPORT
zappasguitar
Well-known member
WOW...alls I gotta say is thank God...THANK GOD...that ID isn't getting involved with those one on one debates.
I mean, with the incisive debating skills she displays and mountains of rock solid evidence to back up what she claims, she'd be an absolute LOCK to win that thing!!
The link is no good. I can’t find the article. Do you have a good link?
Here's the deal, dumbfuck, you made a couple comments positively asserting that soy was bad for men and claimed it was effeminizing. You don’t have any proof of that and one or two isolated studies is not proof.
You make the same mistake that is ALWAYS made in science reporting. You latch onto one or two studies ignore everything else then form conclusions that are unwarranted. Most of the studies latched onto actually show positive affects from soy and one or two unexplained observations are taken out of context and blown up into something the researchers did not intend.
Some studies has shown that soy has negative impacts on sperm counts. Other studies have shown it has a positive impact on sperm counts and others show no impact. More research is necessary. But, Asian populations show no sign of fertility problems and soy has been a staple for a very long time in their diets. There is absolutely no proof that it is effeminizing or will make you gay, which is just a really stupid claim.
The studies showing ill effects are almost all flawed. Many are on animals, which process hormones quite differently than humans or are not accustomed to the same hormone levels as humans. For instance, a human fetus is exposed to large amounts of estrogen. A mouse fetus is not. Others bypass the digestive process and inject the isoflavones directly into the blood stream.
In the study mentioned in the article, are these isoflavones coming into contact with sperm through normal processes or did they just combine some sperm and isoflavones in a dish, then make observations?
Another problem is using very high levels which are many times higher than found in a normal diet.
All of it combined tells us that, soy appears to be safe and quite beneficial AS PART OF A BALANCED DIET. The last part of that sentence is almost always ignored when someone wants to make some food source out to be the devil and source of all ills.
However, you should not mainline soy. You should not try to survive on soy alone. Any food will, probably, eventually kill you if you eat it and nothing else. That could be caused by something in the food that your body will not like in high concentrations or it could be due to some lack of something in the food source that your body needs. For instance, thyroid problems from soy formulas were due to a lack of iodine, not anything in the soy.
Finally, don’t take nutrition info from some fucking religious/political nut with an axe to grind.
And one other thing, while I don't know if I would feed a baby soy formula and nothing else, infants process foods differently than adults. The concerns about soy's effects on sexual development are all theoretical. JAMA (not just some doofus reporter at Men's Health) published a major study in 2001 that showed that people between 20-34 who were fed soy had no ill effects compared to those fed cow's milk.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/7/807
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/7/807
No here's the thing dumbfucker I made a tongue in cheek comment and you got all hair-splitting idiotic. There ARE multiple studies that indicate adverse effects with soy use...period. You stated there are none and that it is all junk science...I am more correct than you...and that dorkpuss makes all these back and forths worth it
Finally I posted different articles including the singular one you wish to latch onto to try and "be right". You can go and google the researchers with the FDA and get your own damned working link dorkpuss.
Nope, not in humans, not that has been peer reviewed or replicated. There are maybe a handful of studies, which you don't seem to be able to cite, except for their inclusion in a Men's Health article, which is of no use.
You stated there are none and that it is all junk science...I am more correct than you...and that dorkpuss makes all these back and forths worth it
Finally I posted different articles including the singular one you wish to latch onto to try and "be right". You can go and google the researchers with the FDA and get your own damned working link dorkpuss.
I have addressed several of the poorly cited "studies," specifically. For instance, how did the phyto-estrogens get to the sperm in the last article? Lon White's study was epidemiological, meaning it only shows correlation which could be due to some other factor that was overlooked (i.e., you need more studies replicating his results before it can be claimed to have any value towards your assertion). I, also, addressed the fear mongering about thyroid effects. Finally, I addressed many of the other animal studies, some of which used injections to bypass the digestive system other using extremely high levels not common in human diets, and explained why they are not applicable to the health effects of humans eating soy in reasonable quantities.
I did google the researchers. I can't find a reference to any study, except in some non-science media or on some freaking crackpot's website. Apparently, you can't either or you would cite them. You did not even give a good source for the last article, which supposedly appeared in a non-scientific journal.
You have done nothing but repeat the fear mongering of a few isolated quacks.
Last edited:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Soy milk is gay.
It gives you sore marble breasts and makes your penis perpetually flaccid!
All this time I just thought Stringy was a closet homo!!