Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

glichez t1_iszip4w wrote

its been a real hoot listening to all the idiots whine about "soy boys" while they all go out and drink....

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh22-3/220.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0B3BpRJ8JeAcbVtlU37hwn5UE_-CovlC4Fr_4eHboD-tz3MpGYsWYffSY

109

Darwins_Dog t1_iszth3v wrote

I expect this level of nonsense in the vegan vs. omnivore diet threads, but this is just saying that soy is a good source of protein. It's like even the slightest acknowledgement that plant based diets are fine is somehow a threat.

84

selltheworld t1_it19rm0 wrote

Some people try to validate their own position by attacking another position.

Like trying to prove that god is real by attacking evolution.

Problem is that its possible that both a meat diet and a plant diet is suitable for humans. Or that evolution and god is true.

5

Fabulous_Archer4999 t1_it1x8p5 wrote

Alcohol in diet is suitable for humans but that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention how unhealthy and harmful alcohol is. Same applies to meat. There are significant downsides to meat consumption.

2

selltheworld t1_it1zvv2 wrote

Thats not the point Im making. Im saying that you cant validate your own diet by attacking another.

10

Fabulous_Archer4999 t1_it21hto wrote

You make no sense and you're incorrect. Unhealthy diets exist.

−10

Darwins_Dog t1_it26ort wrote

And if you eat an unhealthy diet, attacking a different diet won't make it better. That's the point they were making.

11

Fabulous_Archer4999 t1_it29w99 wrote

That's a completely illogical statement. Literally nobody has implied otherwise.

−10

jack1176 t1_it2udci wrote

TIL "literally nobody" is synonymous with a large proportion of people.

1

selltheworld t1_it21r2m wrote

The reason I make no sense to you is because you are trying to force your nonsense on me.

I didnt say unhealthy diets dont exist.

10

LyLyV t1_it3b89d wrote

There really is nothing "suitable" about ingesting alcohol. It's a literal poison. No judgement to be people who choose to put it in their bodies, but let's at least be clear about what it is.

5

Fabulous_Archer4999 t1_it3enua wrote

Alcohol and meat are healthier than cigarettes, therefore alcohol and meat are healthy.

OR

They're all proven to be unhealthy, therefore they do not belong to a healthy diet.

3

misandristkimwexler t1_it2629m wrote

And there's downsides to a vegan diet. Many people can't adopt one for a variety of reasons.

Meat isn't bad, it can be part of a healthy diet.

1

Fabulous_Archer4999 t1_it2ac0p wrote

>And there's downsides to a vegan diet.

False

>Many people can't adopt one for a variety of reasons.

False. Less than 1% of people would have long term difficulties, and vast majority of cases can be fixed. So we're looking at a ridiculously low % of people. There hasn't been a documented person who is completely unable to handle any vegan foods.

>Meat isn't bad,

False

> it can be part of a healthy diet.

So can tobacco, alcohol and cocaine.

3

nulliusansverba t1_it2jn6n wrote

4 out of 5 blue zones drink booze basically daily.

−3

18Apollo18 t1_it43nj8 wrote

That doesn't mean it's the alcohol causing the longevity.

2

nulliusansverba t1_it4apms wrote

Actually, studies show that moderate consumption of alcohol is beneficial. Inverted U-curve.

−1

18Apollo18 t1_it4m3dj wrote

The U shaped curve, ie reduction of mortality in light to moderate drinkers, is only found in study's which lump livelong abstainers, ex drinkers, ex binge drinkers, elderly ex drinkers and sick ex drinkers all into one category.

But when you control for these factors the curve disappears.

Many studies have same thing with smoking. For example, one study found that quiting smoking at 30 was associated with higher rates of early mortality than quitting at 50.

Does that mean smoking longer is beneficial? Of course not. The most probable justification for these results is simply that those quiting at age 30 were much more likely to be previous chainsmokers and/or have had some heath problem causing them to quit so much early

Moderate Alcohol Use and Reduced Mortality Risk: Systematic Error in Prospective Studies and New Hypotheses

Estimates of mortality risk from alcohol are significantly altered by study design and characteristics. Meta-analyses adjusting for these factors find that low-volume alcohol consumption has no net mortality benefit compared with lifetime abstention or occasional drinking. These findings have implications for public policy, the formulation of low-risk drinking guidelines, and future research on alcohol and health.

A substantial progressive decrease in the mortality rates among non-smokers over the past half century (due to prevention and improved treatment of disease) has been wholly outweighed, among cigarette smokers, by a progressive increase in the smoker nu non-smoker death rate ratio due to earlier and more intensive use of cigarettes. Among the men born around 1920, prolonged cigarette smoking from early adult life tripled age specific mortality rates, but cessation at age 50 halved the hazard, and cessation at age 30 avoided almost all of it.

Pooled analysis of all identified studies suggested an association between alcohol use and reduced CHD risk. However, this association was not observed in studies of those age 55 years or younger at baseline, in higher quality studies, or in studies that controlled for heart health. The appearance of cardio-protection among older people may reflect systematic selection biases that accumulate over the life course.

Alcohol's contribution to cancer is underestimated for exactly the same reason that its contribution to cardioprotection is overestimated

Alcohol—a universal preventive agent? A critical analysis. The evidence for the harmful effects of alcohol is undoubtedly stronger than the evidence for beneficial effects.

A sophisticated campaign by global alcohol corporations has promoted them as good corporate citizens and framed arguments with a focus on drinkers rather than the supply of alcohol. This has contributed to acceptance in the global governance arena dealing with policy development and implementation to an extent which is very different from tobacco. This approach, which obscures the contribution supply and marketing make to alcohol-related harm, has also contributed to failure by governments to adopt effective supply-side policies.

5

nulliusansverba t1_itcg6p3 wrote

I think you've been reading too many studies without practicing discernment.

You realize like half of studies have fundamental errors and that makes the conclusions meaningless, right?

Look at some higher quality studies.

0

MarvinLazer t1_it1a6ov wrote

Alcohol also increases cortisol levels over time, though, and anyone stupid enough to unironically use the term "soy boy" is probably also stupid enough to conflate anger, stress, and premature aging with masculinity.

12

TheRightening t1_it2ktjb wrote

As someone that does strong man lifting, I have to be conscious of my testosterone levels and soy threatens that. Soy is a great source of protein for women.

−9

18Apollo18 t1_it48my9 wrote

Data shows that vegan men have just as high if not higher testosterone levels while simultaneously having a low risk for prostate cancer

In a well characterized national database, the plant-based diet index is unable to predict testosterone levels. Plant-based food content in diet is not associated with serum testosterone levels.

There is little evidence from intervention studies that diet is related to serum androgen levels, with changes to both low-fat and high-fat diets having been reported to reduce testosterone, FT and DHT concentrations over the short-term. Data from observational studies do not support the hypothesis that a diet low in saturated fatty acids is associated with lower androgen concentrations. Indeed, there is a tendency for testosterone levels to be slightly higher among vegans than meat-eaters, most probably as a direct response to an elevated SHBG concentration. A vegetarian and/or low-fat diet also has not been shown to influence LH levels, further implying that effects on androgens are insufficient to provoke a gonadotropic response. Given the absence of clear effects of diet on androgens, the lack of dietary effect on oestrogens would be expected because circulating oestrone and oestradiol in men are largely derived from peripheral conversion of androgens. One explanation as to why diet does not appear to elicit substantial differences in circulating androgen levels is due to the body's natural feedback mechanism to maintain the internal environment. Indeed, the small increase in testosterone concentration observed among vegan men is almost certainly caused by the increase in SHBG, in order to maintain a constant level of FT. However, in a much larger study, vegetarian and vegan men who were known to consume soyabean regularly were not found to have lower A-diol-g levels than meat-eaters (Allen et al. 2000). It may be that soyabean consumption among Western vegetarians is not sufficient to exert physiological effects.

Mean serum insulin-like growth factor-I was 9% lower in 233 vegan men than in 226 meat-eaters and 237 vegetarians (P = 0.002). Vegans had higher testosterone levels than vegetarians and meat-eaters, but this was offset by higher sex hormone binding globulin, and there were no differences between diet groups in free testosterone, androstanediol glucuronide or luteinizing hormone.

Vegans had 13% higher T concentration than meat-eaters (P = 0.0001) and 8% higher than vegetarians (P = 0.001); adjustment for BMI reduced these differences to 6% (P = 0.07) and 7% (P = 0.02), respectively. The results did not support the hypothesis that meat-eaters have higher levels of bioavailable androgens than non meat-eaters. No differences in hormone levels were found between meat-eaters and lacto-ovo-vegetarians, suggesting that vegetarian diets may not alter prostate cancer risk, but the relatively low IGF-I levels in vegans might reduce their risk of prostate cancer

6

TheRightening t1_it5nxjp wrote

Vegan men, carnivorous men, pescatarian men that eat soy have higher levels of serum estrogen than those that avoid it altogether. https://www.montana.edu/hhd/graduate/dietetics/blog_posts/Soy_hormonal_health.html

0

18Apollo18 t1_it6bk86 wrote

The study referenced literally found reduced estrogen levels in the soy milk group.

Estrone concentration tended to decrease in the soymilk-supplemented group [regression parameter β (SE) = −0.003352 (0.00226)] and increase in the control group [β (SE) = 0.003228 (0.00223)] over the study period. None of the other hormones measured showed any statistical difference in changing patterns between the two groups.

Nagata, , Takatsuka, N., Shimizu, H. The effect of soymilk consumption on serum estrogen and androgen concentrations in Japanese men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers. March 1, 2001 10(3) 179-184.

6

TheRightening t1_it7t9lk wrote

Estrone and Serum Estrogen are not the same thing. The confirmation bias is cute though.

−2

18Apollo18 t1_it8489j wrote

>Estrone and Serum Estrogen are not the same thing

Are you missing the part where they said no difference was found in any other hormones measured??

Also estrone is one of the 3 types of estrogen commonly tested in the blood

There are many types of estrogen, but only three types are commonly tested: Estrone, Estradiol, and Estriol

https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/estrogen-levels-test/

>The confirmation bias is cute though.

How the hell is it conformation bias? That's literally the study cited by the source you sent to me

3

sdomtihstae t1_it3j08t wrote

> Soy is a great source of protein for women.

I enjoy how you lay out for all to ponder in an open reasoned scientific dialogue. Nice!

5

TheRightening t1_it5mvw3 wrote

I'm not trying to have a debate with people to lazy to do their own research.

0

State_Dear t1_iszxnn7 wrote

EVER NOTICE counter arguments by the Trolls NEVER involve verified scientific studies. It's always knuckle dragging and misrepresentation

33

King-Of-Rats t1_it2ture wrote

Watch out, the random dozen or so Meat Lobbyist accounts that patrol these subreddits won’t like this.

​

(Seriously. It sounds silly - but the Meat Industry has HUGE lobbying and endowments to universities to exert pressure. And they post here a lot!)

9

albokun t1_it1wje6 wrote

This is just great news overall. I guess we really shouldn't look at certain diets as supreme. Most offer a high enough animo acid and fatty profile with enough variation!

7

Guilty_Injury_2200 t1_it3ds0s wrote

In my personal opinion- just get off the empty calories and eat the veggies and s daily fruit, for most of us in this country that is similar to climbing Mount Everest ???

2

AutoModerator t1_isykrhu wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

[deleted] t1_isymfaw wrote

[deleted]

−3

crusoe t1_isyp767 wrote

https://beelitenutrition.com/2016/04/protein-bioavailability-what-you-should-know/

Marginally lower than beef. Not gonna matter unless you're preparing for a body building competition.

17

mrrobc97 t1_isyw2rs wrote

Doesn't necessarily has to be a bodybuilding competition. If you're over 45 (like me) and working out to keep a good amount of muscle tone then animal protein will be the better option.

−24

uninstallIE t1_isyy9q5 wrote

Even strength focused athletes seem to be doing just fine on vegan diets. In fact, studies are indicating they're doing equal to or better.

>Powerlifting is a weight-class strength sport where achieving low fat mass (FM) and high fat-free mass (FFM) is desirable to improve performance. Recent studies have evaluated the nutritional considerations of different eating patterns, such as vegan diets (VD), in athlete populations. VD are a challenge for athletes who want to attain body composition changes. The aim of this case study is to report on the body composition changes and subjective feelings of a male professional vegan powerlifter following VD for six weeks. The body mass of the powerlifter decreased from 79.3 to 77.4 kg (2.39%). Along with this, FM decreased from 15.0 to 11.4 kg (24%). Conversely, FFM increased from 64.3 to 66.0 kg (2.64%). Moreover, the powerlifter communicated no subjective feelings of low energy availability during training sessions. The VD might compromise adherence in a nutritional intervention which aims to improve body composition due to the nutritional requirements for fat loss. Therefore, more appropriate health assessments, including blood and psychological tests, are required for professional athletes. This short-term VD intervention was satisfactory for improving body composition and no adverse outcomes were reported.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/23/8675

​

>This study examined the effects of whey and pea protein supplementation on physiological adaptations following 8-weeks of high-intensity functional training (HIFT). Fifteen HIFT men (n = 8; 38.6 ± 12.7 y, 1.8 ± 0.1 m, 87.7 ± 15.8 kg) and women (n = 7; 38.9 ± 10.9 y, 1.7 ± 0.10 m, 73.3 ± 10.5 kg) participated in this study. Participants completed an 8-week HIFT program consisting of 4 training sessions per week. Participants consumed 24 g of either whey (n = 8) or pea (n = 7) protein before and after exercise on training days, and in-between meals on non-training days. Before and after training, participants underwent ultrasonography muscle thickness measurement, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), two benchmark WODs (workout of the day), 1-Repetition Maximum (1RM) squat and deadlift testing, and Isometric Mid-thigh Pull (IMTP) performance. Separate analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed on all measures collected at POST. Both groups experienced increased strength for 1RM back squat (p = 0.006) and deadlift (p = 0.008). No training effect (p > 0.05) was found for body composition, muscle thickness, IMTP peak force, IMTP rate of force development, or performance in either WOD. Using PRE values as the covariate, there were no group differences for any measured variable. We conclude that ingestion of whey and pea protein produce similar outcomes in measurements of body composition, muscle thickness, force production, WOD performance and strength following 8-weeks of HIFT. View Full-Text

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/1/12

>The vegan diet is becoming more and more popular among athletes, including professional ones. As the research and literature review described above show, it has a beneficial effect on many aspects of health. Also, many world-famous athletes admit its beneficial influence on the achieved results. However, as research shows, there are no significant differences in strength, anaerobicor aerobic strength, or endurance. A greater increase in performance after creatine loading was observed in activities based on the adenosine triphosphate / phosphocreatine system. This is explained by the lower starting concentration of creatine in vegans. Although much work has been done and much research has been done comparing vegan athletes to people who eat animal products, the differences in performance and strength remain an area of interest

https://apcz.umk.pl/JEHS/article/view/JEHS.2020.10.07.023/26142

​

​

At your age you should be more concerned with the risks of heart disease, diabetes, and cancers. All of which are worsened under a high meat diet.

35

GladstoneBrookes t1_isyz277 wrote

Plus, when you compare matched-protein vegan and omnivorous diets (with soy protein or whey protein supplementation respectively), the changes in muscle strength and mass following an exercise intervention are the same, at least in young men.

> A high-protein (~ 1.6 g kg−1 day−1), exclusively plant-based diet (plant-based whole foods + soy protein isolate supplementation) is not different than a protein-matched mixed diet (mixed whole foods + whey protein supplementation) in supporting muscle strength and mass accrual, suggesting that protein source does not affect resistance training-induced adaptations in untrained young men consuming adequate amounts of protein.

11

L7Death t1_iszfd8b wrote

That's a lot of protein!

Various studies have shown high-quality protein like whey maxes out MPS at a mere 20g in healthy young men. That's equivalent to about 3 large whole chicken eggs, including the yolk as it contains half of the aminos.

Whole eggs beat egg whites: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30133322/

Soy takes nearly twice that amount in some studies. Although if you mix plant proteins to get a better complete (aminos) protein then 30g of blended (one study used wheat, corn and pea protein isolates) isolated plant proteins can match 20g of isolated whey.

Whey also promotes prolonged post-exercise phosphorylation vs soy (4 vs 2 hours): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324640/

You're link is looking at a fairly high protein intake(like 25 percent). So MPS is going to be maxed either way. With only high-quality animal proteins we can likely get the same results with 10 percent protein, and avoid the extra oxidation and urea production from excessive protein consumption.

0

Fabulous_Archer4999 t1_it1xqao wrote

If you don't care about your long term health judging by the fact how you want to consume eggs, you should just start taking roids. Way less hassle, way less suffering, way more muscle, and possibly a healthier body too, unless you overdo the drugs.

−3

PlaneReaction8700 t1_isyzn31 wrote

Actually, it's better to get plant based proteins at all stages of life. And as you get older, your risk from cardiovascular diseases increases, which can be dramatically lowered by eating plant based. There is no known limit between increasing plant food and increased health benefits.

18

[deleted] t1_it12pt1 wrote

[removed]

1

crusoe t1_it12zao wrote

The biggest protein negative is red meat ( pork is considered red meat ) as it's inflammatory. The same isnt true of fish or poultry. Of course farming these has their own issues as well.

You can buy whey protein produced by modified bacteria now

0

tedplanks t1_it29der wrote

My diet consists solely of soy-based protein, seed oils, and corn-syrup and I've never felt better. Thanks Unilever!

−3

poppwaldo t1_it33tay wrote

Animal protein will always be the most nutritious.

−7

grandlewis OP t1_it3dtqc wrote

Hey, I mean here is a full study on the topic, but poppwaldo says animal protein is better, with no evidence. So we better all run away from soy.

6

Organic_Strategy05 t1_it23iph wrote

May be high protein but my concern would still be its excitotoxicity effects on the brain. Dr. Russell Blaylock has a book about it.

−11

atacapacheco t1_iszxg81 wrote

What was the name of David Wallace’s company after he left dunder mifflin, the one with his son

−19

Edgeyville t1_it0ptty wrote

backed by soience but not by the bodies of those who consume soy. LOOOL.

−39

Androklesthe90 t1_it09xe6 wrote

So, no man titties? I prefer hemp hearts and pine nuts. And a steak.

−51

realJanetSnakehole t1_isz975c wrote

Too bad many people have a slight soy allergy without realizing it.

−59

Darwins_Dog t1_iszsjpe wrote

How is that different from other foods? I have a slight onion allergy that I didn't realize until recently.

31

Fabulous_Archer4999 t1_it1xcoh wrote

How did you figure out the allergy?

4

Darwins_Dog t1_it26a00 wrote

Basically it got worse. I started getting what felt like sores in my mouth eating certain foods so I started paying close attention to ingredients. Eventually I found raw green onions were causing it and the internet filled in the rest. Any raw alium will set it off but cooked is fine.

4

nulliusansverba t1_it2kr34 wrote

Yea? Imagine that. Onions don't want us to eat them. That pungent flavor only comes about when the flesh is damaged.

0

Darwins_Dog t1_it2td4u wrote

Then the compounds that make the flavor and odor trigger my immune system and cause inflammation and irritation in my mouth.

1

realJanetSnakehole t1_iszsqmi wrote

I was just making conversation? I'm sorry if that's not allowed in this sub

−30

PotsAndPandas t1_it03rma wrote

And how are they not making conversation back? Sounds like you've come here looking to be offended

30

Darwins_Dog t1_it03yex wrote

Apologies, I misread your comment. There's a weird anti-vegan group in this sub that show up to try to demonize plant based diets (they've been in this thread already). Soy is a favorite target.

20

realJanetSnakehole t1_it08civ wrote

No problem, I apologize too, I wasn't intending to start a fight haha. I used to be vegetarian until I developed food sensitivities to basically everything, and I've bounced around in both the vegan and anti-vegan subs trying to dig up clues about the optimal diet for me. I've seen the arguments about soy from both sides and I know how inflammatory the debate can get. My personal experience is that I have reactions to eating even small amounts of soy, which takes that away as a protein option. I learned from my doctor that soy sensitivity is more common than people think saved often gets missed because there's soy oil in basically every processed food in the US, and people don't think of food that's supposed to be healthy like soy as something that could be causing their symptoms.

4

LenokanBuchanan t1_it09ken wrote

Can I ask what your symptoms are? Is tempeh an issue as well for you?

11

realJanetSnakehole t1_it0biyv wrote

Always starts with foggy headedness, then cramping, then bloating and "bathroom problems" for the next day or so. If I keep eating things with soy regularly I get eczema on my hands. And I'm actually not sure if I've ever had tempeh!

8

VeganSinnerVeganSain t1_it0tqpw wrote

out of curiosity, do you have this same reaction with other legumes or beans - or peas or split peas?
any peanut allergies?

seriously asking.

on another note:

the main reason these studies are even done (like the one in this review) is because so many anti-vegans think vegans don't get enough protein (which is very ignorant, on so many levels).
they also like to use terms like "soy boy" as a derogatory quip - which is also very ignorant, because the reasons they use that as a taunt has been proven wrong and can easily be countered with facts.

5

LenokanBuchanan t1_it0t83g wrote

Interesting! I frequently have foggy headed mess and I seem to get GI issues flaring up every time I go on a run. I’ve always thought the foggy head was from my medication, but I am vegan so I eat a lot of soy products. So this whole thing just has me wondering…

I ask about tempeh because it’s fermented soy, which many people report does not cause any of the intolerance reactions of regular soy. It would be interesting to compare the two.

2

Flowchart83 t1_it0aw32 wrote

If it wasn't allowed your comment wouldn't be here. You are completely allowed, you just don't like the reaction. Your comment, the reaction, and your dislike of the reaction are all allowed.

7

PyramidBusiness t1_it2rz89 wrote

People still eat foods with common allergies like celery and peanut butter

6

Fabulous_Archer4999 t1_it1xdum wrote

How would you be able to find out if you're allergic to soy if you don't notice it?

2

Key_Guide8475 t1_isz1bpy wrote

I love soy, especially grown in an old patch of ground where there used to be pristine rainforest. I also love monoculture.

−82

GladstoneBrookes t1_isz7q30 wrote

The leading driver of deforestation in both the Amazon and in general for tropical forests is beef, while 77% of soy is used as animal feed to the extent that, in the EU for example, it takes between 1 and 2 kilograms of soy protein to produce a kilogram of edible protein from beef, dairy, pork, or poultry. In other words, replacing all the meat people consume with soy products would reduce total soy consumption, and that's before you consider the other human-edible feed crops involved in livestock production and that other non-soy meat alternatives exist.

Soy consumed directly by humans is not the problem here; soy used as feed is.

153

deathhead_68 t1_iszttsd wrote

I'm kind of glad we get ill-informed comments like his, so we get ones like these to correct them.

55

nulliusansverba t1_it2kdit wrote

Who cares?

Looks like a red herring, sounds like a red herring, of course it's a red herring.

−5

LatterSea t1_iszkrtg wrote

Hopefully you realize the vast majority of soy (and corn) monocropping is to feed livestock?

47

zbbrox t1_isz5dq8 wrote

I mean, if you're using soy as an alternative to meat, that's straightforwardly good for the rainforests...

44

PyramidBusiness t1_it2ruh9 wrote

The midwest was in fact plains and not a rainforest although Ohio and part of Indiana is naturally a swamp.

1

[deleted] t1_isyqqua wrote

[deleted]

−95

uninstallIE t1_isywe8o wrote

Phytoestrogens in soy are actually beneficial to both men and women. They are far less potent than the mammalian estrogens already in your body, and bind to the same receptors. This reduces the incidence of estrogen dependent cancers. It doesn't cause men to grow breasts. This is a weird scaremongering tactic not backed up by any science

77

borntorunathon t1_it18y3m wrote

Same people that can’t understand that a vaccine can have dangerous sounding ingredients but be safe once the ingredients are combined.

10

uninstallIE t1_it2cmaj wrote

Ain't that the truth! I once had to explain to my father that elemental lithium in the water and lithium citrate the anti psychotic medication are not the same thing

4

18Apollo18 t1_it83idi wrote

>Ain't that the truth! I once had to explain to my father that elemental lithium in the water and lithium citrate the anti psychotic medication are not the same thing

Elemental lithium doesn't even naturally occur on Earth at all. Let alone in the water supply.

And I'm not sure why you're saying the lithium salts in water/food are different from those in medications.

The World Health Organization recognizes lithium as a nutritionally essential trace element which can be safely consumed through drinking water, plant-based foods, or very low-dose supplementation.

Naturally occurring lithium in water supplies is associated with low levels of suicide.

If you're referring to intoxication that can happen when there's high concentrations of lithium salts in water supplies and trying to suggest that that doesn't happen with medications then that's it correct either.

Lithium salts are used mainly for acute mania and prophylaxis of recurrent bipolar and unipolar affective disorders. Toxicity may occur either during maintenance therapy or following acute intoxication. Lithium salts may cause hypothyroidism, which may aggravate the ataxia. Acute intoxication may affect the cardiovascular, renal, and/or nervous system. The spectrum of neurological deficits is broad: coma, seizures, coarse tremor, hypokinesia, rigidity, hyperreflexia

Lithium is widely distributed on Earth but does not naturally occur in its elemental form due to its high reactivity. Trace amounts of lithium are found in virtually all rocks.

Nutritional lithium, consumed through drinking water, plant-based foods, or low-dose supplementation, is a well-tolerated naturally occurring nutrient. The World Health Organization recognizes lithium as a nutritionally essential trace element

This synthesis of ecological studies, which are subject to the ecological fallacy/bias, supports the hypothesis that there is a protective (or inverse) association between lithium intakes from public drinking water and suicide mortality at the population level. Naturally occurring lithium in drinking water may have the potential to reduce the risk of suicide and may possibly help in mood stabilisation, particularly in populations with relatively high suicide rates and geographical areas with a greater range of lithium concentration in the drinking water. All the available evidence suggests that randomised community trials of lithium supplementation of the water supply might be a means of testing the hypothesis, particularly in communities (or settings) with demonstrated high prevalence of mental health conditions, violent criminal behaviour, chronic substance misuse and risk of suicide.

Lithium salts are used mainly for acute mania and prophylaxis of recurrent bipolar and unipolar affective disorders. Toxicity may occur either during maintenance therapy or following acute intoxication. The most common side effect of chronic treatment is an enhanced physiological tremor affecting mainly the hands. Lithium salts may cause hypothyroidism, which may aggravate the ataxia (see also Amiodarone). Acute intoxication may affect the cardiovascular, renal, and/or nervous system (Simard et al., 1989). The spectrum of neurological deficits is broad: coma, seizures, coarse tremor, hypokinesia, rigidity, hyperreflexia. High fever is common during intoxication. A neuroleptic malignant syndrome is often suspected since neuroleptics and lithium salts are often administered in combination in psychiatric patients. Although neurological signs are usually reversible after acute intoxication, patients may exhibit a severe cerebellar syndrome with scanning speech, tremor, and ataxic gait (Manto et al., 1996). Intensive care monitoring is recommended to prevent irreversible sequelae

1

18Apollo18 t1_it4ab27 wrote

There actually are several adverse effects associated with certain ingredients in vaccines, such as Thinersol.

Vaccines can also be easily made without these ingredients so there's really no need in the first place.

The results of the present examination of the VAERS show a significant relationship between the Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines evaluated and childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. The data demonstrate that a significant risk factor for the development of neurodevelopmental disorders was the amount of mercury children received from Thimerosal-containing childhood immunizations. Taken collectively, the increased risk associated with all seven neurodevelopmental disorders examined, any of which could independently be an indicator of possible mercury toxicity, proffers significant evidence for an association between the Thimerosal-containing vaccines evaluated in the present study and neurodevelopmental disorders based on this controlled assessment of VAERS.

0

GladstoneBrookes t1_isytv8e wrote

Neither soy nor isoflavone intake affects male reproductive hormones: An expanded and updated meta-analysis of clinical studies

> Regardless of the statistical model, no significant effects of soy protein or isoflavone intake on any of the outcomes measured were found. Sub-analysis of the data according to isoflavone dose and study duration also showed no effect. This updated and expanded meta-analysis indicates that regardless of dose and study duration, neither soy protein nor isoflavone exposure affects TT [total testosterone], FT [free testosterone], E2 [estradiol], or E1 [estrone] levels in men.

55

glichez t1_iszienk wrote

then you should really avoid beer. soy isn't the issue.

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh22-3/220.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0B3BpRJ8JeAcbVtlU37hwn5UE_-CovlC4Fr_4eHboD-tz3MpGYsWYffSY

51

PlaneReaction8700 t1_isysuir wrote

There is nothing wrong with eating soy, and studies show vegetarians and vegans on average have higher testosterone levels than omnivores, not less. There is no downside to consuming soy, and huge benefits.

43

Alive_Technician_330 t1_isyv7tp wrote

>and studies show vegetarians and vegans on average have higher testosterone levels than omnivores, not less.

No they dont

−50

uninstallIE t1_isywg9i wrote

You're in the wrong place, we can all read scientific studies here

33

minirlz t1_iszzm27 wrote

Why aren't you responding to the studies presented? You are speaking with such confidence here, surely you must know something?

Weird.

26

cammmmmmmmmmmmmmmm t1_it1zdy1 wrote

The loudest and most confident are generally the ones who have no idea what they're talking about. I'm often amazed how they've managed to stay alive sometimes, you do have to give them credit where its due

6

radant25116 t1_iszmng2 wrote

Yeah they do and much more than carnivores who have the average test levels of an elderly woman

10

IPA___Fanatic t1_it0cdm2 wrote

They actually do. I know it hurts to be wrong sometimes.

10