WTF!?!?!?! The Bugez is advocating the consumption of Tofurky sausages???...

(((Bugenhagen)))

youtube.com/watch?v=yoP6NCGb3oM
skip to 6:04
is this dude right about soy or not?

what do you mean exaggereted? Like it's effects on test levels or what?

youtube.com/watch?v=KUwARjzw2OQ

wtf alphadestiny says it's okay too???????? im so confused???

smiled throughout the entire video

love eric

sounds like a midget

if i suck his dick would i get some test

>he advocates r*cemixing is good in his q&a

i mean, he's american

I forgive him.

soyboys would say that, dont be confused

There's nothing wrong with having a beautiful latina wife

Friendly reminder that over 95% of Veeky Forumsizens toting the soy meme have not done any proper research and just spout what the rest of the echo chamber says.

Do proper research and ignore memes, now and forever.

He doesn't, he claims people of different ethnic backgrounds like him(german, norwegian) make superior specimens.

He'll probably get a way with it, but make no mistake, a product that is protective against prostate cancer(organ that is specifically sensitive to androgenic activity) DOES affect male hormones.

souce?

Tbh proper research entails looking at all the literature.
Just looking at meta analysis on soy doesn't cut it, you gotta read up on its effects on androgen receptors to really get into the heart of the problem.
Soy's isoflavones are literally ANTI ANDROGENIC.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1975677/
>Cytostatic doses of ISF, which can have weak estrogenic effects, may trigger a damage or stress response that mimics the metabolic effects of androgens.
>This study demonstrated that ISF treatment significantly altered genes involved in multiple cellular processes, including proliferation, cell cycle regulation, cholesterol synthesis, and lipid metabolism. More than 40 androgen-regulated genes were affected.

jn.nutrition.org/content/133/2/389.long
>Prostate cancer cells rely on androgen for growth. Genes regulated by androgenic hormones are of critical importance for the normal physiologic function of the human prostate gland.
>It has been suggested that soy isoflavones, especially genistein, have weak estrogenic activities and may function as weak estrogens/antiestrogens (32). However, the possible antiandrogen activities of soy isoflavones have not been well studied. In this study, we found that genistein and daidzein dose-dependently inhibited the androgen-induced expression of the PART-1 transcript, suggesting that soy isoflavones may have direct antiandrogen activities.

Soy is okay to drink

>Cytostatic doses of ISF, which can have weak estrogenic effects, may trigger a damage or stress response that mimics the metabolic effects of androgens.
They only found statistically significant effects with concentrations that can only be found in prostate cancer patients who are taking high dosages of NovaSoy...

The average Japenese diet consumes 40mg of ISF in ONE DAY, the concentration used for their 95% gene suppression was 150mg/L

Stick to meta analyses if you're too retarded to understand orders of magnitude. Speaking of which, here are two you might want to look over:
fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(10)00368-7/fulltext
fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(09)00966-2/fulltext

he's said many times that he's mostly vegetarian aside from milk because of his wife

See this is my issue with claiming soy causes no issue.
First, people say soy has no effect in hormones in humans, which is incorrect.
When presented with evidence that soy does infact influence hormonal balance in humans, estrogenic and androgenic activity too, people like you change their line to "well you have to eat a lot of it for it to be so"
Well do they or do they not influence hormones in humans? Which is it?
Also, you conveniently avoid addressing the second study, feel free to actually mention it and also the fact that the the doses are irrelevant, considering that no one here is implying eating any ammount of soy inhibits 91% androgenic expression in receptors lmao.

You also imply that people need to eat this enormous ammount of soy in order to suffer an effect.
Well is this true?
100g of tofu has over 25mg of isoflavones.
20mg of isoflavones are toxic in children, but I guess you forgot to leave that out.
100g, 100g of tofu, 100g of tofu has less than 110 calories.
So you're getting 25-30mg of isoflavones from 110 calories worth of soybean.
You claim the average japanese diet has around daily 40mg of isoflavones, which is slightly more than that found in 100g of tofu, this is not representative of what soy fanatics consume, at all. A baby fed on soy formula gets less than that ammount for example, but experiences effects from their consumption like estrogenic dominance and phytoestrogen concentration over 22000x higher than their actual natural estrogen production.
Soy's isoflavones are as potent as estradiol at concentrations 200-350x higher.
Do the math.

I'm sorry, but the way you're formulating your argument makes it sound like you don't have an understanding of biology or scale. It is ironic that you end your post with "Do the math.", when you
a) discount meta-analyses (literally just scientists doing the math)
and b) are posting studies that are looking at concentrations that are HUNDREDS OF TIMES HIGHER THAN THOSE FOUND IN REGULAR DIETS

I didn't look at your second link because the first was so tenuous and poorly correlated with the topic at hand.
I did just look at it now, and it is also looking at prostate cancer treatments, but this time using genistein concentrations that are TWICE AS HIGH as the amount from the 150mg/L ISF solution used in the first one you linked.

Did you know that tap water contains the deadly poison chlorine? Sure, it is present at about 1/1000th of the LD50 dose, but it is there.
If I'm to use your logic of "anything that has a negative impact on the body at a certain concentration is bad at all concentrations", does that mean that I should avoid drinking tap water?

And why are you bringing up babies? This is a thread in a fitness forum talking about adult males eating soy products.

Not the guy you are arguing with, but I was with you up until you mention chlorine.
>is a tiny amount of poison in the drinking water hurting you?
>yes, my body probably hates that shit
>is a tiny amount of soy hurting you?
>yes, my body probably hates that shit
Thanks for clearing things up for a brainlet

Whoops, was about an order of magnitude off with the LD50 dose for an adult male (should be about 1/8000). Nothing like blasting a retarded about his ignorance of numbers and then forgetting to multiply a LD50 by average bodyweight.

I mean, if you want a single analogy on a single post in a single thread on a single website to inform your stance on medication and toxicity, no one is stopping you.
Just realise that virtually every useful drug has a concentration where it becomes toxic/deadly, so using your new "yes, my body probably hates that shit" mantra, you essentially need to swear off all medications and medically active foods.
:^)

>Someone's opinion contradicts the opinion of others
>wat do

Brainlet here now that the dust has settled is soy good or bad?

his wife is vegan dummy

Soy is protective against cancer in tissues that are sensitive to androgenic activity, by inhibiting androgenic activity.
For longevity they have some benefits, for optimal performance and body composition and mood and libido? Obviously not.

>And why are you bringing up babies? This is a thread in a fitness forum talking about adult males eating soy products.
Because babies get affected for the rest of their lives from early exposure to "modest" levels of isoflavone consumption, some times in the way of stunted genital growth and low levels of androgens during adulthood, because people are stupid enough to defend a product that is 100% unecessary and shilled for by pretty much any industry influenced institution(vegan/farmer/beef/poultry industries are all pro soy because it's a cheap source of nitrogen for soil and cattlefeed).

Meta analyses don't look at the heart of the problem in soy consumption which is long term effect in adrogenic activity in humans, specially males.
Most of the studies looked at in the meta analysis you just shared to me last for less than 4 months.
The issue is in long term uncontrolled consumption. Adults that went through puberty are less affected.

>high fat diet
Dyel

Except that there are studies that have lasted years that show no significant impact on male sex hormones...

And how exactly does looking at fuck huge high doses of isoflavones on cancer cells hold more stock when looking at "at the heart of the problem in soy consumption" than two meta analyses that look at literally all of the studies that have been done on this topic?
An 80kg man would need to eat 50 kilograms of tofu to arrive at the intracellular concentrations from your first study... That's essentially the same amount of bananas you would have to eat to die from potassium poisoning.

Your position isn't based on science. If you want, you can cede that the current research just isn't enough for you, and that you don't want to gamble with the (low) risk that moderate soy consumption is going to fuck with you long term. That's fine. But don't pretend that that is any more than just a hunch you have.

Please just read back over your posts and see how far you've moved the goal posts and reframed your stance... It's a joke.

>daily reminder that mouth open is just a facial expression and that you're a faggot that needs to either kill yourself or go back to /a/ or /pol/
→

>Somatic cell counts greater than a million per teaspoon are abnormal and “almost always” caused by mastitis. When a cow is infected, greater than 90% of the somatic cells in her milk are neutrophils, the inflammatory immune cells that form pus. The average somatic cell count in U.S. milk per spoonful is 1,120,000.

Think of it this way: An estrogen molecule is like a jumbo jet that attaches to the Jetway of an airport. It discharges passengers into the terminal, which is suddenly a busy, noisy place. Phytoestrogens, being weak estrogens, are like small, private planes with few passengers and no cargo, yet they still occupy the Jetway after landing. When phytoestrogens occupy the cell, normal estrogens cannot. Plant estrogens do not eliminate all of estrogen's effects, but they do minimize them, apparently reducing breast cancer risk and menstrual symptoms

I didn't move any goalposts.
My original and current stance is that soy's isoflavones do impact hormonal activity in humans, which is absolutely undeniable.
To claim that soy merely has protective effects on androgenic sensitive tissues and no side effects is irresponsible.

And again, the meta analysis on the subject of soy consumption and hormonal balance in adult males that you cite doesn't look at actual androgenic activity or its effects in muscle protein synthesis or body composition or LONG term hormonal balance, all of which are important for everyone lurking this board.
When soy concentrate(which has much higher levels of isoflavones is compared to soy isolate) is compared to soy isolate, soy isolate demolishes it despite having virtually the same level of bioavailability and amino acid profile.
And when soy isolate is compared to whey concentrate, whey blows it the fuck out despite again having similar amino acid profiles and bioavailability.
Add to that the fact that some people metabolize phytoestrogens differently from the norm and as such suffer from it in ways that we still to this very day are trying to understand and how different gut bacteria metabolize certain isoflavones into mammalian phytoestrogens depending on one's diet and genetic makeup and you have a recipe for confusion and cloudness.
As such there is reason to avoid soy, and little to no reason to consume it.

You claim that the relationship between soy consumption and male sex hormones is best explained by prostate cancer medication research, and not studies that look specifically at that relationship.
This stance is explained by these studies not looking at protein synthesis or long term hormonal balance, even those the cellular biology research doesn't examine these effects either (and you arbitrarily discounting the longer studies as not being long enough).

The only salient point in your entire ramblings is something you only just brought up, which is that both groups of people and people within groups can metabolise these isoflavones differently. And that these differences are not very well understood. (fun fact, when Wiseman et al. studied 38 individual subjects who consumed approximately 110 mg/d isoflavones for 10 weeks, they found that the highest with the lowest circulating genistein and daidzein levels varied >30- and 1,500-fold, respectively.)

But we're back to you choosing to ignore the scientific concensus in favour for some tangential cellular pathways and a dogma that has an unrealistically high standard for what is scientifically "safe" to consume. Which I would love to stake money on you not applying to other foodstuffs you eat, as you would be left with virtually nothing.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353476
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11103227
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15735098
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/10798211/
>Poor cognitive test performance, enlargement of ventricles and low brain weight were each significantly and independently associated with higher midlife tofu consumption. A similar association of midlife tofu intake with poor late life cognitive test scores was also observed among wives of cohort members, using the husband's answers to food frequency questions as proxy for the wife's consumption. Statistically significant associations were consistently demonstrated in linear and logistic multivariate regression models. Odds ratios comparing endpoints among "high-high" with "low-low" consumers were mostly in the range of 1.6 to 2.0.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10763906
From an user describing the studies below and the same on isoflavones: Genistein, dihydrogenistein, and equol have essentially the same binding affinity and degree of receptor activation at ERb as endogenous estrogen. Same with dihydrogenistein and equol at ERa. 3 oz of steak contains 1.9ng of estrogen, 8 ounces of soy milk contains 30000ng of isoflavone, clearly higher on a mole for mole basis. And unlike phytoestrogens estrogen is catabolized by the gastrointestinal tract and only about 5% survives first pass to the liver.
>onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.13622/full
>press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/endo.139.10.6216
>jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/24/4/24_4_351/_article
>newsroom.unl.edu/announce/beef/2846/15997
>ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/isoflav/Isoflav_R2.pdf
>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958694611002123
>(cont.)

>(cont.)
Jamie Lewis on soy
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/09/soy-is-devil-and-not-in-fun-way.html
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/09/soy-is-devil-and-not-in-fun-way-22-12.html

>get nonwestern wife so you don't have to deal with their retarded braindead bullshit
>shes vegan

whats the fucking point? im sure shes "mexican american" and not mexican, this is why its about not getting western women not just avoiding white women

Wow it's almost as if the people losing their minds over soy are weak faggots who are themselves trying to believe their own bullshit so they can convince themselves there's a magical way to get bigger and stronger.

You don't need to go vegan. Just eat good quality meats and vegetables. Onions are fucking great for you but they're not a magical solution. Soy is a solid protein source. Lift weights and stop making excuses about your diet or your testosterone levels because your body chemistry is way more complex than you give it credit for.

that's a good video

source or jewish propaganda

Yes I imply that looking at the supplementation of soy isoflavones and its effects in androgen sensitive tissue is a good way to determine overall androgenic activity in the human body.
Beause well, it is.

And since you yourself know that there is a huge individual variance to phytoestrogen metabolism please tell me why do you even cite meta analysis that look at a variety of studies each with their respective groups of people.

Equol for example is produced by the gut bacteria that feeds on isoflavones, and it is a phytoestrogen of mammalian origin and shows a great affinity for alpha estrogen receptors.
Depending on one's genes, and one's gut bacteria, it might be a troublesome issue.
This is ofc ignoring the fact that no matter how weak soy's isoflavones are, they are still in copious ammounts, enough to have more of an effect in humans than actual mammalian hormones found in breastmilk or cow milk.
The main isoflavones found in soy are a mere few hundred times weaker than the strongest estrogen in mammals.
Soy's isoflavones are found in the miligrams in most soy products.
Estrogens in cow milk are found in the same concentrations as human breastmilk, literally in the nanograms.

Also soy is inferior to even wheat protein in mammals for body composition despite being a protein of higher quality.

youre retarded

you guys fell for another meme, the midget is right

Eric is so fucking BASED

this is why i love Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums in general
long lasting memes that after a while dyels and bros just take them as facts

I have an idea- invent a powder or liquid dropper drug that you pour in your drink or food that negates all estrogens in plastics, meats, soy, milk etc
I'd be a fucking billionaire. Time to get a degree in biochem....

Or here's a better idea.
Stop shilling for shady foods and products that do indeed cause harm in at least some people.

Soy is inferior to even wheat gluten for pretty much everything all the way from muscle protein synthesis and body composition to thyroid and hormonal balance.

There are many food groups out there that are as safe to eat as breastmilk, soy is one of those that is not, and as such it should be avoided.
The estrogens in milk are irrelevant, human breastmilk has arguably more estrogens than conventional cow milk.
Meats have mere trace ammounts of hormones, not even comparable to any soy product.
Animals that are bred for slaugher are never injected with sex steroids either, so it's a non issue in that department too.
Plastics mostly impact our health from our dietary choices, mainly from sea food consumption.

>Meats have mere trace ammounts of hormones, not even comparable to any soy product.
Could you provide some source for all of this? I find it terribly interesting how processed foods and shit affect us beyond simple stuff such as nutrients.

>