

Culprit found for lower sperm counts: soy (contains estrogen-like chemical) - crocus
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jul/24/foodtech.medicalresearch

======
SwellJoe
This has been somewhat understood for sometime, though the science on how
phytoestrogens actually react with the human body isn't well understood. The
article also doesn't make it clear that there are differences in various soy-
based foods. The process that produces tofu (roughly equivalent to making
cheese from milk) breaks down the hormone-like compounds, while more raw forms
of soy (soy milk, various soy-based meat and dairy alternatives, whole soy
beans, etc.) still contain those chemicals.

The interesting thing about soy, to me, is that it is one of the marketing
miracles of our time. It was considered inedible in western culture until just
the current generation, and now it is considered a "healthy" addition to just
about any food. It was used for oil and other raw materials in industry, but
not for food. While not as successful as corn (which is simply unavoidable in
American foods), the soy industry has integrated its products into the daily
diet of almost everyone. While I eat fresh tofu several times a week, I avoid
mass-market foods that contain soy, and anything that contains soy in its
various "raw" forms (soy flour/meal, soy milk, or whole soy beans). Soy sauce
is problematic, as there are "quick ferment" processes used in most cheap soy
sauce brands that do not break down the suspect compounds...properly slow
fermented soy sauce is generally fine, though.

~~~
mhartl
Do you happen to know if soy protein (as opposed to whole soy flour) has a
significant amount of phytoestrogens?

~~~
SwellJoe
Depends, I guess, on what it's in.

Traditional tempeh is fermented, and so is generally quite friendly. Tofu, as
I mentioned, is basically soy milk curd.

But most instances, in US groceries, where something contains "soy protein"
it's going to be in the form of soy flour, or soy milk (which is generally soy
flour, water, sugar), which, unless fermented for soy sauce and tempeh or made
into tofu, has phytoestrogens to one degree or another.

I've never actually found good data on this topic, and it's an area of
interest since I'm vegetarian. I enjoy some of the soy-based meat alternatives
(Boca Burgers, Morning Star Farms products, etc.), but many contain soy (as
well as wheat gluten) in forms that are poorly defined, so I suspect they are
subject to this problem. I generally avoid them for that reason. I'd be
curious to know what processes _do_ break down those compounds, if any others
besides fermentation and turning into tofu do. Simply cooking seemingly does
not, however.

------
a10
Let's see: the Chinese have been eating soy products since the beginning of
time, and China is the most populous country on Earth -- I would guess they
have a high fertility rate, otherwise the one-child policy would not have been
enacted...something seems amiss here...

~~~
SwellJoe
As I mentioned, tofu does not have these elements, and is the major source of
soy protein consumed in Asian nations (boiled young soybeans, called edamame
in the west, are eaten as a snack by some folks in Japan and to a lesser
degree in other Asian cultures, and I believe there have been a couple of
studies in Japan that indicate that men who consume it do have a lower sperm
count and lower levels of testosterone, but I may be misremembering).

As is usual in US culture, with it's love of fads and quick-fix solutions, the
soybean industry has convinced everyone that soy, in general, is astonishingly
healthy. On paper, it actually does look really good: high protein, high fiber
content, low fat, low carbohydrates, and no cholesterol (a positive when
comparing to other animal-derived protein sources). But, really, soybeans in
most forms are quite hard on the body. Since Americans don't, generally, eat
tofu, the industry has found other ways to sell its products...as "healthy"
additions to breakfast cereal, as a milk alternative, a protein source for
meat alternative products like hot dogs, etc. I'm leery of anything that has
been pushed that hard by huge corporations (corn being the most obvious
example of an industry gone mad with power, and the entirety of the nation
suffers for it). But I do loves me some tofu, and eat it all the time. As you
note, if the Chinese can eat it for thousands of years without negative
impact, I reckon it's safe.

~~~
sratner
> As you note, if the Chinese can eat it for thousands of years without
> negative impact, I reckon it's safe.

That's a dangerous statement. Your lifestyle is different to the lifestyle of
the Chinese over the past few millennia.

People in northern Europe eat very large quantities of cholesterol-rich foods:
salted/cured pig fat, and a thick meat-based jell-o made by boiling pig legs
for hours, are two popular dishes in Russia. This diet is not only tolerable,
but is recommended during the colder months, as (1) fat is the best energy
store we have, and (2) cholesterol reduces the freezing point of lipid cell
membranes, helping maintain their fluidity. On the other hand, such a diet
would be outright suicidal for an average middle-American.

The same cultures also eat large quantities of heavily-salted preserved
vegetables during the winter; the salt is not particularly good for you, but
the negatives are outweighed by the benefits of vitamins in the vegetables,
which would otherwise be unavailable in the winter months. Again, not
recommended for the average American who has access to fresh fruit and
vegetables all year.

In Australia, people are hospitalised every year from over-eating after a rich
Christmas turkey meal in 40C heat. The tradition evolved in the English
winter, where energy demands are higher and digestive systems operate at a
greater efficiency.

I do agree with you on the fads. Human metabolism is still sufficiently
misunderstood that any claim that advocates particular extreme dietary
behaviour will ultimately be proven wrong. The sequence of events usually goes
something like this: x provides essential nutrients -> x is added to every
product on the market -> scientists claim x causes cancer! -> scientists
discover a way to emulate x with y, a healthy alternative! -> y is added to
every product on the market -> scientists claim y causes cancer! -> ...

Those claim are generally true, technically. Everything you eat kills you; the
trick is balance and moderation.

~~~
SwellJoe
_That's a dangerous statement._

Really? Dangerous? Like loaded gun in the hands of an angry monkey dangerous,
or just riding a bike while wearing flip flops dangerous?

 _Your lifestyle is different to the lifestyle of the Chinese over the past
few millennia._

I dunno, is it? China is a big place with lots of lifestyles represented. Most
climates are represented on mainland China (because it is so big), so that
factor is less important than contrasting constantly frozen Russia to
constantly hot Australia. China and the US aren't all that different
climatically speaking. I've been a vegetarian for 14 years...which is pretty
common in China, due the large Buddhist population, but not all, or even most,
Buddhists are vegetarian. America has had Chinese restaurants for three
generations now. How different are my eating habits, really?

I sit around more than the Chinese did in the past...but I sit around more
than my American parents and grandparents did at my age, too. We're a much
more sedentary culture than prior generations. But, on the whole we don't eat
anything like our parents or grandparents, either.

If the option is: Eat like an average American, because it is what we're
accustomed to (where "accustomed" equals "roughly one generation of eating
corn in every processed nugget of fatty sugar-laced goodness the mass-market
food industry serves up"); or eat like folks did in some other culture 100,
500, or 1000 years ago, because it seems to be a healthier diet based on what
we _do_ know, then I'll take the latter option.

The average American diet is, to use your inflammatory language, "outright
suicidal for an average middle-American". It's high fat, high sugar, low
fiber, and low in nutrients (unless "fortified" with artificial concentrations
of vitamins and minerals), and it is nothing like previous American
generations diet. Dramatic change is probably exactly what Americans need.

Anyway, you've taken an extreme example of epicurean culture clash and
compared it to a quite mild example. Extremely high fat, high salt, foods are
not good for anybody. They _may_ be the lesser evil of limited options, but
they aren't healthy and no one is claiming they are (at least no one who
limits their claims to that which has scientific backing).

Tofu has quite a lot of good science behind it, in addition to thousands or
hundreds of years of consumption in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Hong Kong,
etc.

Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying I think maybe you're
conflating two very different things, and I've certainly never suggested
anyone take up bizarre eating habits of other cultures merely because those
other cultures have been doing it for years...just that it probably won't hurt
you, if a nation of a billion people has been eating that way for dozens of
generations. And, if we take a bit more moderate view on things, even the
things I avoid (corn/HFCS, soy in non-tofu or fermented forms, heavily
processed foods of any sort, etc.) aren't going to kill you tomorrow.

Everything on the shelf at a modern American grocery is roughly "safe". We
live in a time when we have the privilege of dying of historically bizarre
age-related diseases, even if we eat like crap most of our lives. So, you can
shave ten years off of your life by eating lots of meat...but, putting it into
perspective there was a time, just a couple hundred years ago even in modern
cultures, when eating one piece of not-quite-fresh or not-quite-cooked meat
could kill you within hours or days (assuming you're already weakened by poor
nutrition, illness, etc.). Starvation can take you out in a few days to a
couple of weeks. Parasites certainly contributed to many an early demise
before modern medicine.

We now have the opportunity to see what long-term effects of foods are--
something most of our ancestors didn't have the privilege of doing. Though, it
is interesting that some things that were considered good for longevity based
purely on anecdotal evidence (green tea, for example) have turned out to
actually be good for longevity, as far as we can tell. Then again, many other
such anecdotal longevity solutions will probably turn out to be unhealthy.
Wives tales are funny that way.

~~~
sratner
> Really? Dangerous? Like loaded gun in the hands of an angry monkey
> dangerous, or just riding a bike while wearing flip flops dangerous?

Neither. More like making generalisations dangerous (Although I am sure you
will be able to pick apart my post to find plenty of generalisations, too).

> The average American diet is, to use your inflammatory language, "outright
> suicidal for an average middle-American". It's high fat, high sugar, low
> fiber, and low in nutrients (unless "fortified" with artificial
> concentrations of vitamins and minerals), and it is nothing like previous
> American generations diet.

I did not at any point advocate that Americans eat the average American diet.
Nor did I mean any offense to America, merely to the diet. I don't eat such a
diet, nor do I eat the average Russian diet since leaving that region. The
point I am making is that accepting any extreme view on dietary requirements
is a strange thing to do considering how little we understand about the
workings of our metabolism, regardless of how many cultures have enjoyed such
a diet for countless millennia. [edit: I realise you did not advocate such a
position, either. But plenty of people misinterpret statements like the one I
quoted to do just that.]

I am sure tofu is great, and has lots of science behind it. So does consuming
red meat. Or milk. They also have lots of science pointing to the contrary.
But most of those scientific arguments apply to extreme cases. In the right
environment, eating an occasional steak will not give you a heart attack or
colon cancer, just as eating a few soy beans will not make you impotent. But
excluding foods on the basis of current scientific understanding strikes me as
more damaging, if it turns out that those foods carried nutrients we
previously did not understand. Of course, dietary requirements based on
religious or moral principles are something else entirely.

Seems like we agree on the general principles, the devil is in the
implementation details, and one's risk profile.

------
MoeDrippins
I have an odd sense of Schadenfreude here, but I can't quite figure out why.

------
mooneater
OT

