Soy isn't affecting men's hormone levels...but something is
A new analysis seems to put to rest concerns that eating too much soy could affect testosterone levels in men. Soy contains weak plant estrogens and many have worried that the increasing popularity of soy products (and the ubiquitous use of soy-based additives and ingredients) could be de-masculinizing our men.
After analyzing the pooled results of 15 different studies, including two which concluded that soy DID affect testosterone levels, researchers say "No significant effects of soy protein or isoflavone intake on testosterone or SHBG [sex hormone-binding globulin] were detected."
Perhaps we were focused on the wrong culprit.
In an opinion piece for the New York Times on Sunday, Nicholas Kristoff warns that endocrine disruptors widely used in agriculture and industry are being linked to "evidence of increasing abnormalities among humans, particularly large increases in numbers of genital deformities among newborn boys."
Kristoff cites a statement released by the Endocrine Society as a "wake-up call." According to the paper, endocrine disruptors are affecting both men and women, causing reproductive problems, deformities, cancer, and may even be related to rising obesity rates.
You can avoid soy. You can eat only organic produce. Yet these chemicals are so widely used and so poorly contained that, as Kristoff notes, "everyone is exposed."
The chemical companies are crying foul, claiming that it's all unproven conjecture. What do you think? Should the chemicals be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Or have we seen enough to take action to limit the use of these chemicals?
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| New devices measure your metabolism, but how accurate are they? | | Nutrition Data Blog | | So, CRP doesn't cause heart disease. I never thought it did. |
Posted by: Winfield | Jul 22, 2009 2:08:26 PM
Want to know what's causing infertility and sudden and sharp increases in diseases like Type-2 diabetes that began in the mid-90s?
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/doctors-warn-avoid-genetically-modified-food/
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Jim Kent | Jul 19, 2009 3:21:45 AM
BPA might be half the cause of the feminization we're seeing lately. I think BPA is just _part_ of the cause of the feminization. Still BPA is about 2 years past due being banned. There's a lot of ways to make drinking glasses and can linings without BPA that are only fractionally more expensive than the ways using BPA. The medical costs related to feminization are orders of magnitude greater than the industrial savings, and this is not even considering the _human_ costs of feminization.
What people don't seem to realize is that the same agents that reduce fertility _typically_ promote birth defects. This isn't proven specifically with BPA, but it's the case with so many other fertility reducing things that we should assume it until proven otherwise.
Posted by: Eureka | Jul 16, 2009 10:04:18 AM
What about this suggestion that estrogen mimmicking compounds in soy products, biosphenal A, etc. are causing more boys to develop man-boobs and serving to enhance the bust lines of guys who already have them? What say thee, doctors?
Posted by: Dayna, 16 yrs old | Jul 15, 2009 3:40:41 PM
Concerning the contamination of our tap water, the water utilities should make greater efforts in providing healthier water. Water is the basis of life, everything relies on water and if the water we drink is not pure and is slowly but surely killing us along with all the other ill-fates,then we can't look forward to a brighter world. Thank u. GOD BLESS U.
Posted by: Andrea | Jul 14, 2009 9:58:59 AM
Woah! Stop the chemicals already. Like Jack Lalane says, "If man made it, don't eat (or drink) it."
I personally think All artifical substances should be avoided whenever posible. This includes pharmasudicals too. Just look at what the overuse of antibiotics has done.
But back to chemicals; those of us that wish to avoid them should be able too. This is impossible if our soil and water are totally contaminated.
Posted by: shaudinata | Jul 14, 2009 3:13:42 AM
clearly to see that some doctors and medicine producers say herbal proteins are inferior than animal,because they can collect less money from the healthy herbal protein people
Posted by: Gerilyn | Jul 14, 2009 2:13:21 AM
No, I did not proof read my comment but that's okay, right? Great points were made in previous comments, though.
Posted by: Gerilyn | Jul 14, 2009 2:10:30 AM
Even if the companies are to blame it is only in part. Considering how our waste is managed in this country, the biproducts are in our soil and in our air thus creating disparities in our vegetables, fruit, and drinking water (this is a tap water focus). Our septic systems dump into nature and from our bodies, we are expelling processed, broken foods and enzymes that are only filtered back into the earth. Prime example: birth control pills effect female hormones; are filtered through the body; and then expelled via septic systems which are then released into our water and soil. I would argue that this could be a possible problem (albeit small) that isn't assessed. Yes, what we eat and produce is an issue in infertility but looking at the overall picture, there isn't just one culprit. We all
contribute throw our waste production and removal processes. That's just my two cents on the matter.
Posted by: Julie | Jul 13, 2009 11:37:39 PM
I used to drink soy milk and eat tofu all the time. Now I drink hempseed milk and eat tofu every now and then. Why? Because I found that when I consume a bunch of soy I VERY, VERY heavy periods!!! My dr. also did hormone tests and found my estrogen level was nearly 3 times what it was supposed to be, while my progesterone barely registered. Just moderating my soy intake and using a progesterone cream 21 days a month has made all the difference in the world. I am 46 years old and perimenopausal, so periods can get a little wacky anyway. But when you have to change a tampon and pad, both, every hour or so, it's totally out of control! So, I don't consume as much soy and the problem nearly took care of itself.
Posted by: Kellie - My Health Software | Jul 13, 2009 7:53:34 PM
Food additives are put in foods to prolong shelf life or make the product cheaper to make. But, a lot of these chemicals are harmful.
I'll take one example, additive E320 - butylated hydroxy-anisole (BHA), a petroleum derivative. Its found in biscuits, cakes, cereals, sweets, chewing gum, margarine, nuts. Lots of things! Studies have shown it to be carcinogenic and to cause estrogenic effects. Because of this it was banned in Japan in 1958. Committees of experts recommended that it be banned in the UK, however due to industry pressure it was not McDonald's removed 320 from their US food in 1986. I live in Australia and am ignored by McDonald Australia when I ask why they are still selling food with 320 in Australia when they know it is harmful. The reason is, they don't have to. The Australian regulatory body is weak and lets the food manufacturers dominate.
Sorry for the rant guys! This is the first time I've posted here and loved the discussion.
Posted by: dots | Jul 13, 2009 6:54:51 PM
Soy is overused and abused, just like wheat in No. America. I know a man who grew "bubbies" with soy protein powder, and my MIL's "bubbies" became hard as rock while taking soy protein powder to gain weight after her celiac diagnosis. I steer clear because of autoimmune hypothyroidism. Lectins aren't everyBODY's friend. Think about food allergies, too, which can be masked or delayed up to four days: bit.ly/3lvRUK .
Posted by: Dr Sheila Panda | Jul 13, 2009 6:37:21 PM
As a doctor that specializes in fertility and natural medicine, I have seen first hand the effects some of these chemicals have on fertility. High levels of lead, mercury and parabens are common in many of my fertility patients. These are all coming from the environment. It is scary to think about how much we don't know. The key is identfying high levels, detoxing, avoidance and a more conscious effort to get these things out our produce, homes, air and water.
Dr Sheila Panda
San Diego Naturopathic Health Center
Posted by: cocobean | Jul 13, 2009 4:23:09 PM
Soy has been around along time. It's a more enviromentally friendly protein then eating protein derived from animals. As far as plastic, I'm for the other commentor, use glass.
Posted by: Ryan | Jul 13, 2009 2:16:03 PM
"...could be de-masculinizing our men."
Do you mean *emasculating* our men?
Monica's Response: Actually, "emasculating" has psycho-social connotations that I didn't really intend so I took the liberty of inventing a word.
Posted by: Taren | Jul 13, 2009 2:07:51 PM
I think if there is even the slightest possibility that
this is true(I believe that it is) there should be some serious investigations conducted to
preserve the future of the earths inhabitants.
Posted by: Pattie | Jul 13, 2009 12:59:17 PM
I have up to 25 grams of soy daily, love it, lost weight with it, feel great with it, maintained for over 2 years with it, I recommend it, see others amazing results with it, know others that have done this for nearly 30 years and they are some of the healthiest people I know. I love soy protein. It has changed my life by improving my overall heatlh.
Posted by: vikas | Jul 13, 2009 12:49:53 PM
Can we purify these water deformaties with today's conventional methods of purifying water e.g. using water purifiers , reverse osmosis techniques etc.
Posted by: MI | Jul 13, 2009 12:47:00 PM
Even if EPA plans to impose the ban on such chemicals (if it happens), their efforts will be stopped at every step by these lobbying groups because this will impede enormous profits which the chemical industries have enjoyed over the decades.
Posted by: Alicia | Jul 13, 2009 12:36:31 PM
There's a book called the "Ecology of Commerce" where the author gives many examples of how industrialization interfere with the body's hormonal balance. There is a significant coorelation between higher pollution and higher rates of genetic birth defects. Just as phosphates in lake water eventually consume all oxygen the fish and other organisms need to live, our continued pollution of our air, drinking water and food will cast a dark shadow over the human population.
Posted by: Karen | Jul 13, 2009 11:57:47 AM
Plastics! everything comes in plastic and endocrine disruptors are leaching out into your food....use GLASS, don't heat food in microwave in plastic, stop eating foods in plastic! Endocrine disruptors cause infertility among other things. AND Soy? Bad for you...not meant to be eaten. The soy companies got in and are getting big bucks when they promote soy products....do your research folks. The USA hides harmful studies and promotes products for BUCKS, $$$$$. READ! Study and decide for yourself. Stay healthy and avoid plastics and soy!
Posted by: Marji K. | Jul 13, 2009 11:43:54 AM
I am concerned about all of the chemicals that are dumped into our water sources. Either stop the dumping or come up with super filters that will deliver pure water to our rivers and streams - thus to our homes.
Posted by: Judy | Jul 13, 2009 11:35:58 AM
Try looking at corn. Virtually all corn grown in the USA is genetically modified and reports that I have read confirm infertility not only in developing countries (exports), but (and this is the real concern for large corporate farms)infertility is common among bovines eating the corn.
Posted by: sharons | Jul 13, 2009 11:17:24 AM
big companies that market pesticides and fertilizers for professional and consumer use need to focus more on developing organic products. the amount of chemicals that are being poured, sprayed and dumped on our earth is astonishing, and all of this runs-off into our water supply. doesn't anyone find it a little alarming that when their neighbors lawn is sprayed, that little flags get posted warning people to keep pets and children off of the lawn for days? this will be a difficult battle to win - chemical companies are against the obama's organic garden because it sends a clear message that pesticides are unhealthy. if they are arrogant enough to take on the first lady we are all going to have to become vigilantes to stop pesticide use.
Posted by: Maryann | Jul 13, 2009 11:12:55 AM
as a leukemia survivor i've done a bit of investigating on chemicals and the environment. i've decided that if it kills a bug or a weed (or a frog...) it will eventually harm a human.
Posted by: Caroline | Jul 13, 2009 11:12:22 AM
What about Bisphenol A (BPA)? It's in a lot of the plastics that we are exposed to every day whether knowingly or unknowingly (the lining of tin cans)...
It mimics estrogen in the body and there are higher than normal estrogen levels in men, women, children, even pets! It can have a great affect on endocrine system.
I say ban BPA.
Posted by: Eugenia | Jul 2, 2009 1:39:29 PM
just when I mention Thalidomide, the Consumerist comes up with this great little article about 10 ironic ads from history - items that used to be seemed safe, and even desirable.
http://consumerist.com/5306170/top-10-ironic-ads-from-history
Besides my already mentioned Thalidomide, we've got asbestos, Dutch Boy lead paint, Bayer heroin, and Camel cigarettes.
And we're *still* willing to let profit-driven companies dictate what is safe without reliable testing?
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Jul 2, 2009 11:40:25 AM
Gracie, life expectancy might not be the right statistic to watch. If these chemicals are affecting fertility, then we'll end up with a bunch or really old people but no-one to take care of them!
Posted by: Gracie | Jul 2, 2009 7:49:30 AM
This is the reason people don't live as long as they used to.
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Alecu | Jul 1, 2009 4:11:26 PM
Soy is good for health. I have read on http://www.projectweightloss.com lots of proteins, no cholesterol and fewer fats we’ll find in legumes like lentils, beans, peas, and soy.Be careful what you eat because it might have side effects on the health of your heart. A healthy diet can help you lose weight and prevent heart disease.
Posted by: Allison | Jul 1, 2009 11:29:55 AM
Innocent until proven guilty would imply that companies are free to conduct widespread experiments on consumers until a large number of people have been killed or made ill. Clearly, this is wrong.
Posted by: Eugenia | Jun 30, 2009 10:10:01 PM
People should be presumed innocent until guilty.
Chemicals that have had no reliable, unbiased testing, that cannot be detected without sophisticated testing, and have had hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of dollars invested in them by companies expecting to reap a handsome profit should never be presumed innocent.
Thalidomide anybody?
Although, terrible as it was, at least Thalidomide proved itself to be awful in such a spectacularly visible way that it was easy to ban. Today's chemicals deform and murder us in tiny, muddy little steps that are frequently impossible to trace back to the source.
