This is a critique of possibly the worst article demonizing soy that I have ever read. I can’t help but point out that the article starts with, “The chemical industry perpetually uses devious tactics to con health-seeking people into poisoning themselves”, and then turns around and uses devious tactics to con health-seeking people into believing that something healthy is poisonous. I’d like to also point out that the author of this article chose to remain anonymous (gee, I wonder why), but that’s not “shoddy” at all.
The article is filled with unsubstantiated claims, such as, “Thus began another lucrative partnership between the food industry and the petrochemical industry, which are conveniently owned by the same people”., and it's comical that while they try to suggest that there was a conspiracy, or collusion between vegetable oil companies and big oil companies, that they ignore the past and current collusion and devious tactics used by the dairy industry; because the dairy industry hasn’t spent any money on lobbying or on publishing erroneous studies to support their special interest and narratives. Also, proof of collusion isn't proof that it's unfit for human consumption, just saying; if it was, then it'd apply to animal products too. Milk is unfit for human consumption because there is proof of lobbying, regulatory capture and collusion, right?
“The epidemic of heart disease began in the mid-twentieth century, after butter and traditional oils were replaced in our diets by the new “healthier” vegetable oils.”
Correlations do not prove causation, and a lot more happened between 1950 and 2018 than people replacing butter with margarine. Not to mention, the data shows that butter consumption per capita has gone UP since the 1950s, NOT down. Perhaps it’s the higher prevalence of obesity and intake of saturated fats, animal fats, cholesterol, and heme-iron that is responsible; as the actual evidence suggest?
“Keys cherry-picked statistics to create an international study of heart disease, and presented it to medical publications to prove that natural saturated fats cause heart disease.”
More dishonesty. There have been hundreds of studies researching the adverse effects of animal fats and cholesterol in the human diet. This author is trying to make it seem like there is a shortage of evidence and or studies; or that refuting a single cherry-picked epidemiological study regarding saturated fat intake is sufficient refutation of the totality of evidence, and it’s not. There are a myriad of studies. I love how they like to ignore the work of David Mark Hegsted and the Hegsted equation, as if there isn't a formula to calculate the probability of developing heart disease in relation to saturated fat intake. They also ignore the work of Dr. Campbell, Dr. Esselstyn, Dr. Mcdougall, Dr. Ornish, Dr. Kempner, Dr. Kim Williams, etc.
“The data from the other dozen countries was stricken, because the data from everywhere else disproved the Lipid Hypothesis.”
That is untrue. There were only two outliers, Finland and France, and there have been studies that didn’t exclude any countries.
“Most of the data actually showed that there was no relationship between saturated fat and cholesterol, or even cholesterol and heart disease.”
Again, untrue; the data actually shows a linear relationship between saturated fat and cholesterol intake, and hearth disease, and the consensus is that cholesterol level is THE biomarker for heart disease; although it has also been shown that ingestion of heme iron exasperates the adverse effects of exogenous cholesterol consumption.
“The processes of obtaining naturally-occurring foods, such as butter, cannot be patented.”
This really shouldn’t need to be said, but the article is filled with such semantical nonsense such as this that I feel that it does; butter is not naturally-occurring; butter is a processed food, which makes it, by definition, artificial. Butter must be made; it isn’t merely harvested, and people actually can patent unique processes, which makes this also another erroneous claim, or lie. Here is a link to a patent for producing butter…
“In reality, butter contains a uniquely beneficial spread of nutrients and fats that are critical to heart, brain, dental, bone, and nervous system health.”
In reality, butter is one of the most nutritionally incomplete foods, and it is filled with saturated fat and cholesterol that has been linked to heart disease and prostate cancer. While it is true that butter contains upwards of 400 types of fatty acids, it is also true that there is no evidence proving that humans need to ingest animal products to meet their essential fatty acid intake, and that only a minority of fatty acids are considered essential because your body endogenously produces the rest of the fatty acids that are needed.
Butter also contains retinol, which is toxic, and many bio-identical female hormones, such as estrogen and progesterone, which this article seems to have a problem with when found in soy; keep in mind that phyto-sterols do not affect the body the same way bio-identical ones do, such as the ones found in animal products. I wonder if the author is aware of the highest sources of phyto-estrogens and dietary estrogen that there are; beer and dairy… Nutritiondata.self.com rates Kerigold grass-fed butter as a 9 on the nutritional completeness score, while Butternut squash gets 69; sirloin steak got a 36. You’re being lied to, and it isn’t by the Vegans.
"All soy sold is genetically engineered and highly processed."
That is 100% a bald-faced lie! Not even sure how to respond to such a dishonest and or erroneous assertion. Non-gmo whole soybeans are sold and eaten… This is just a completely nonsensical claim. Soy oil and mega doses of genistein are not the same as whole soybeans and or tempeh, etc, and to act like the effects of ingesting an extraction is comparable to the act of ingesting the whole food version is asinine.
“Pesticides are rarely used on soybean or canola plants, because both plants are so toxic that insects avoid them.”
This another 100% bald-faced lie. A simple google search for “soybean pest” will reveal endless examples of soy plants being eaten by pest…
“Canola oil is officially an E.P.A. registered pesticide”
Yeah, so? The author is using fear mongering tactics. Canola oil being a registered pesticide doesn’t prove anything regarding soy or soy oil. Garlic oil, rosemary oil, peppermint, oregano, clove, etc are all insecticides too… Should humans stop ingesting rosemary and garlic now because they can be used as insecticide? I guess that means vinegar is unfit for human consumption.
This article claims to be about how soy is unfit for human consumption, and yet it seems to be focusing on soy oil and canola oil…
"Soy contains compounds that are designed specifically to disrupt hormones."
Who designed soy to do that? Is the author a creationist who believes that God designed soy to disrupt human hormones? I mean, excuse me for considering that to be a comical assertion. In reality, the research shows that the phyto-estrogens in soy have anti-cancer properties... Beer and dairy are the true physiological disruptors, not organic soybeans.
“The amount of phytoestrogens that are in a day’s worth of soy infant formula equals 5 birth control pills”
More fear-mongering and deceit; birth control pills do not contain phyto-estrogens, and phyto-estrogens are not the same as bio-identical estrogen. Also, babies shouldn’t be fed formulas filled with refined oils and sugars, and that includes butter; they should be fed breast milk. Replacing the soy oil in a soy-based baby formula with dairy would not result in a healthier product; that product would still be unfit for human consumption.
“There is no such thing as an all-natural soy-based food, because soybeans are toxic in their natural state.”
There is no such thing an all-natural butter, because butter is processed by humans and thus is, by definition, artificial. Also, as for the claim that soybeans are toxic and inedible in their natural state, tell that to Japan and all of the people who eat Edamame, which are raw soybeans… Erroneous claim after erroneous claim. I should be dead, because I've eaten plenty of edamame, and yet here I am able to deadlift over 500lbs.
The author then decides to double down on the previous claim by asserting that, “Processing is essential for soy foods, because soy is poisonous in its natural organic state (containing natural insecticides), so there are never truly organic soy products for human consumption.”, and then even reiterates by stating that, “Soy must be processed in some manner for it to be safe for human consumption, and even then, it is not truly safe.”
Processing is essential to produce butter too… Butter also contains sterols that disrupt natural physiological processes and hormone regulation, in addition to the toxic form of vitamin a called retinol, and copious amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol that have been proven to have a linear relationship with heart disease. Soy isn’t poisonous to humans in whole-food form, as edamame is a staple in the diets of several cultures, and there absolutely are organic soy products. This author is either extremely stupid and poor at researching, or they’re being dishonest.
“The fermentation processes that were historically used by Asian nations are no longer used today”
Another lie; tempeh and natto are still made and eaten, and in fact, you can probably find tempeh right at your local grocery store…
“Women are especially prone to experiencing horrific hormonal disorders like endometriosis from soy intake.”
This is another fear-mongering unsubstantiated claim that scientific evidence indicates is erroneous. Here is a study that concludes "Despite endometriosis being an estrogen-dependent disease, we found no evidence that urinary phytoestrogens were associated with a higher risk of an endometriosis diagnosis in either a sample of premenopausal women or in a surgical sample.”
The majority of anti-soy propaganda can be traced down to either the Weston A Price Foundation, or to the dairy industry. The article quotes Mike Fitzpatrick and John MacArthur. John MacArthur is nothing more than a Christian pastor, and here is an article regarding Mike Fitzpatrick.
The 2003 Department of Health's committee on toxicity report, which is 400 pages long, acknowledged that there was no evidence that people who regularly eat high quantities of soya, such as the Chinese and Japanese, have altered sexual development or impaired fertility. It should be remembered that China is the world's most populous nation, with over 1.3 billion citizens, and who have been consuming soya for over 3,000 years. You can read the report here All mammals do not metabolize isoflavones the same, so studying the effects of soy consumption on parrots and mice is not proof of the effects that soy consumption has on humans.
The article then presents a giant list of unsubstantiated positive claims regarding the adverse effects of soy consumption. I will address each claim.
“250% increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease”
There is zero scientific evidence to support this assertion.
Here is a study called, Cognitive Effects of Soy Isoflavones in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease. and they didn’t find any adverse effects.
Here is another study titled Molecular and Therapeutic Targets of Genistein in Alzheimer's Disease. that states that “Genistein has been mainly focused because of its potential on amelioration of Aβ-induced impairment and its antioxidant capacity to scavenge the free radicals produced in AD. It can also directly interact with the targeted signaling proteins and stabilize their activity to prevent AD. An improved understanding of the direct interactions between genistein and target proteins would contribute to the further development of AD treatment. This review mainly focuses on molecular targets and the therapeutic effects regulated by genistein, which has the ability to directly target the Aβ peptide and to control its activity involved in intracellular signaling pathways, which otherwise would lead to neuronal death in the hippocampal region of the AD brain.”
Another study titled Neuroprotective effects of fermented soybean products (Cheonggukjang) manufactured by mixed culture of Bacillus subtilis MC31 and Lactobacillus sakei 383 on trimethyltin-induced cognitive defects mice. concluded that “These results demonstrate that CGK fermented by mixed culture of B. subtilis and L. sakei could exert a wide range of beneficial activities for neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer, Parkinson, and Huntington disease.”
Another study titled Positive effects of soy lecithin-derived phosphatidylserine plus phosphatidic acid on memory, cognition, daily functioning, and mood in elderly patients with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Concluded that “A positive influence of PS+PA on memory, mood, and cognition was demonstrated among elderly test subjects. Short-term supplementation with PS+PA in patients with AD showed a stabilizing effect on daily functioning, emotional state and self-reported general condition. The data encourage long-term studies with PS+PA in AD patients and other elderly with memory or cognition problems.”
“Cognitive impairment / Brain shrinkage and premature deterioration”
There is zero scientific evidence to support that claim.
This study showed that, “genistein supplementation reduced tau hyperphosphorylation in both WT and ApoE-/- mice. Consistent with this result, we also observed that genistein alleviated activity of c-Jun N-terminal kinase and glycogen synthase kinase 3β, which are involved in tau hyperphosphorylation. Taken together, these results demonstrate that genistein alleviated neuroinflammation, Aβ deposition, and hyperphosphorylation in ApoE-/- mice fed an HFD”
Another study titled, Estrogen and the brain: does estrogen treatment improve cognitive function?” concluded that “Estradiol with or without a progestogen was three times more likely to have positive effects on cognition than conjugated equine estrogens. However, two-thirds of studies showed no associations at all which may be an underestimate given the possibility of publication bias. We briefly review alternative treatments, such as testosterone and soy-derived supplements, but currently insufficient data are available for conclusive comments.”
“Produces steroidal hormones” &”Produces estrogen-like compounds”
Your body is what produces hormones, not soy. Soy contains some phyto-hormones and influences hormonal interactions, but this is not even close to exclusive to soy. Animal products contain bio-identical steroids and estrogen, and they have been shown to disrupt homeostasis and your body’s ability to regulate certain hormonal activities. If soy is bad because it contains and or begets the production of steroidal hormones and estrogen-like compounds, then dairy, eggs, and meat are also bad for the same reasons. There is no evidence to support the claim that moderate soy consumption will negatively impact your hormones and or estrogen levels.
“Vascular dementia”
There is zero evidence to support this claim…
A study titled “Vascular action of polyphenols” states that “Several epidemiological studies suggest that the regular consumption of foods and beverages rich in flavonoids is associated with a reduction in the risk of several pathological conditions ranging from hypertension to coronary heart disease, stroke and dementia.”, and, “The major polyphenols shown to have some of these effects in humans are primarily from cocoa, wine, grape seed, berries, tea, tomatoes (polyphenolics and nonpolyphenolics), soy and pomegranate.”
Another study titled "Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum TWK10-Fermented Soymilk on Deoxycorticosterone Acetate-Salt-Induced Hypertension and Associated Dementia in Rats." concluded that “these results demonstrated that TWK10-fermented soymilk extract could improve learning and memory in DOCA-salt hypertension-induced VaD rats by acting as a blood pressure-lowering and neuroprotective agent.”
“Decreases brain calcium-binding proteins”
There is no evidence to support that claim…
A study titled "Calbindin D-28k immunoreactivity increases in the hippocampus after long-term treatment of soy isoflavones in middle-aged ovariectomized and male rats.” concluded that “Soybean Isoflavone (ISO) treatment enhances the expression of CB immunoreactivity in the hippocampus in the middle-aged rats.”
“Early puberty in girls and retarded physical maturation in boys”
No evidence for that claim either…
Although here is an study titled ”Soy protein supplement intake for 12 months has no effect on sexual maturation and may improve nutritional status in pre-pubertal children.” That concludes that “Consumption of SPS for 12 months did not affect sexual maturation or the onset of puberty in prepubertal boys and girls; however, it may have induced an increase in height, BMI/age, height/age and weight/age of the girls, associated with variations in fat-free mass.”
Another titled “Consumption of soy-based infant formula is not associated with early onset of puberty.” asserts that “Consumption of soy-based infant formula is not associated with early onset of puberty.”
And another one titled “Health impact of childhood and adolescent soy consumption.” Concluded that, “While the data are limited, evidence suggests that soy does not exert adverse hormonal effects in children or affect pubertal development. On the other hand, there is intriguing evidence indicating that when soy is consumed during childhood and/or adolescence, risk of developing breast cancer is markedly reduced. Relatively few children are allergic to soy protein, and most of those who initially are outgrow their soy allergy by 10 years of age. The totality of the available evidence indicates that soyfoods can be healthful additions to the diets of children, but more research is required to allow definitive conclusions to be made.”
“Unnatural menstrual patterns in women”
The word unnatural here is misleading, and no significant influences on menstrual cycles of a detrimental nature have been discovered.
A meta-analysis titled "Effects of soy protein and isoflavones on circulating hormone concentrations in pre- and post-menopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis." analyzed Forty-seven studies and found that “In premenopausal women, meta-analysis suggested that soy or isoflavone consumption did not affect primary outcomes estradiol, estrone or SHBG concentrations, but significantly reduced secondary outcomes FSH and LH [by approximately 20% using standardized mean difference (SMD), P = 0.01 and 0.05, respectively]. Menstrual cycle length was increased by 1.05 days (95% CI 0.13, 1.97, 10 studies). In post-menopausal women, there were no statistically significant effects on estradiol, estrone, SHBG, FSH or LH, although there was a small statistically non-significant increase in total estradiol with soy or isoflavones .”
Another study titled “Short-term changes in endogenous estrogen levels and consumption of soy isoflavones affect working and verbal memory in young adult females.” states in the abstract that “Soy foods contain isoflavones, phytoestrogens structurally similar to estrogen that weakly bind to estrogen receptors. We investigated the effects of natural variations in estrogen levels and short-term dietary supplementation with soy isoflavones on cognitive function in 28 young women. Performance was examined across a range of cognitive tasks on three occasions during separate menstrual cycles: during a menses phase (low estrogen), during a luteal phase (highest estrogen), and once during a menses phase after a 3-day phytoestrogen-rich dietary intervention. Soy supplementation during menses led to an improvement in working memory and verbal memory. The menstrual cycle effects were mixed, with high estrogen improving performance on a verbal memory task but not on working memory. Our results suggest that soy phytoestrogens may improve working memory through estrogen-independent mechanisms.”
An abstract of a study titled “Associations of menstrual cycle length with intake of soy, fat, and dietary fiber in Japanese women.” states that, “A decreased risk of breast cancer has been reported among women who have longer menstrual cycles or anovulatory cycles. The present study examined the relationships between intake of fat, soy, and dietary fiber and length of menstrual cycle among 341 Japanese women aged 18 to 29 yr old at two colleges and three nursing schools. Intake of nutrients and foods including fats, dietary fiber, and soy products was estimated through the use of a validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. The mean cycle length was determined for each women based on a prospective record of menstruation. Polyunsaturated fat intake was significantly inversely associated with cycle length; the means of cycle length were 33.2 and 31.0 days for the lowest and the highest quintiles of intake, respectively, after controlling for covariates (trend = 0.03). The odds ratio of a long cycle (> 35 days) for the highest vs. lowest quintile of dietary fiber intake was 2.12 (95% confidence interval 1.00-4.47), although the trend was not statistically significant. The data suggest that polyunsaturated fat and dietary fiber intake are associated with the parameters of menstrual cycle length, but further studies are required to better characterize these associations.”
“Malnutrition” & Inhibits zinc absorption
Just stating, "malnutrition", isn’t an actual claim… Are they suggesting that eating soy inevitably results in someone being malnourished? That would render the majority of the population of Japan malnourished...
A study designed to determine the nutritional value, verify the food safety, and identify metabolite profiles of 3 legume-based complementary foods: common bean (CB), cowpea (CP), and traditional corn-soy blend (CSB), titled ”The Nutrient and Metabolite Profile of 3 Complementary Legume Foods with Potential to Improve Gut Health in Rural Malawian Children.” found that “All foods provided similar energy; CB and CP foods contained higher protein and dietary fiber contents than did the CSB(corn-soy blend) food. Iron and zinc were highest in the CSB and CP foods, whereas CB and CP foods contained higher amounts of magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium.”
A study titled “Preferred delivery method and acceptability of Wheat-Soy Blend (WSB) as a daily complementary food supplement in northwest Bangladesh.” concluded that “WSB (wheat soy blend) is an acceptable CFS (complementary food supplement) in rural Bangladesh.”
Another study titled, “Influence of exogenous iron, calcium, protein and common salt on the bioaccessibility of zinc from cereals and legumes." found that “soy protein isolate added at amounts to result in a total protein content of 20% produced contrasting effects on zinc and iron bioaccessibility from cereals - rice and sorghum. While soy protein had a negative effect on iron bioaccessibility from these food grains, the same produced an enhancing effect on zinc bioaccessibility (an increase of 50% and 90% increase) from raw and cooked grain, respectively). Exogenous sodium chloride (at 5% level) potentiated the positive effect of soy protein on zinc bioaccessibility, and effectively countered its negative effect on iron bioaccessibility.”
Another study titled, “Is iron and zinc nutrition a concern for vegetarian infants and young children in industrialized countries?”, states that “Existing data indicate no differences in serum zinc or growth between young vegetarian and omnivorous children, although there is some evidence of low serum zinc concentrations in vegetarian adolescents. Some vegetarian immigrants from underprivileged households may be predisposed to iron and zinc deficiency because of nondietary factors such as chronic inflammation, parasitic infections, overweight, and genetic hemoglobin disorders”, and “Additional recommended practices include using fermented soy foods and sprouting at least some of the legumes consumed.”
Another study titled, “Usual Dietary Intakes of Selected Trace Elements (Zn, Cu, Mn, I, Se, Cr, and Mo) and Biotin Revealed by a Survey of Four-Season 7-Consecutive Day Weighed Dietary Records in Middle-Aged Japanese Dietitians” concluded that “Dietary intakes of selected trace elements (Zn, Cu, MN, I, Se, Cr, and Mo), and biotin among middle-aged Japanese were estimated by four-season consecutive 7-d WDRs. Major contributors to the selected trace elements and biotin were not only meat and milk, but also traditional Japanese food items, including rice, tofu, and tofu products.”
“Reduced protein digestion”
I think the author meant to use the term assimilation here rather than digestion, or perhaps bio-availability, bio-accessibility or absorption? Claiming that soy consumption inevitably results in a “reduction of protein digestion” doesn’t make sense, and it makes me question the competence of the author (as does the entirety of the article). I’m going to presume that they meant that soy protein is less bioavailable and or assimilated, and I’ll preface by saying that more is not always better, especially in regards to protein consumption. An average human only needs approximately 0.8g of protein per KG of bodyweight (presuming that they are not obese).
As for the protein bio-availability of soy, there is a difference between studying the effects of ingesting isolated soy protein and studying the effects of ingesting whole food forms of soy. It’s like doing studies on whey protein and then applying whatever conclusions that were made to whole milk… Whole milk is not the same as whey protein isolate, similarly, tempeh and tofu are not the same thing as soy protein isolate. Any time that you start isolating, extracting, and administering whole food constituents you risk the potential of witnessing and or experiencing adverse effects.
Here is a study titled, ”Nutritional evaluation of rapeseed protein compared to soy protein for quality, plasma amino acids, and nitrogen balance--a randomized cross-over intervention study in humans.” that found that “In humans, consumption of either 30.0 g canola protein or soy protein mixed in a drink led to significant increases in plasma amino acids after 62.3 and 83.6 min, respectively”.
Here is a study about soy protein isolate titled, “Casein and soy protein isolate in experimental atherosclerosis: influence on hyperlipidemia and lipoprotein oxidation.” that concluded that, “Soy protein isolate, in comparison with casein, promoted a decrease of lipid peroxides, cholesterol and triglyceride content of atherogenic lipoproteins (beta-VLDL and LDL), which had beneficial effects over atherosclerosis progression in cholesterol-fed rabbits.”
“Interference with tyrosine kinase-dependent mechanisms required for optimal hippocampal function, structure and plasticity”
A study done on rats titled, “Low dietary soy isoflavonoids increase hippocampal spine synapse density in ovariectomized rats.” found that “Animals maintained on Teklad 2016 exhibited an approximately 60% lower CA1 spine synapse density than animals consuming Teklad 2018. Replacing genistein and daidzein in Teklad 2016 returned synapse density to levels indistinguishable from those in animals on Teklad 2018. These results indicate that the isoflavonoids in a standard laboratory rat diet exert significant effects on spine synapse density in the CA1 region of the hippocampus. Since changes in spine synapse density in this region of the hippocampus have been linked to cognitive performance and mood state, these data suggest that even relatively low daily consumption of soy phytoestrogens may be sufficient to influence hippocampal function.”
And another study titled, “Aging of hippocampal neurogenesis and soy isoflavone”, concluded, “Together, these results indicate that region-specific effects of daidzein may be associated with the dorsoventral difference in daidzein receptors (ERs and/or non-ERs), and also suggest that daidzein may be beneficial in rescuing cognitive deficits, but less effective for treatment of emotional disturbances. Our observations provide a new insight into how soy isoflavone daidzein can counteract cognitive menopausal symptoms via enhancement of adult hippocampal neurogenesis.”
“Inhibits dopamine”
Well here is a study done on fruit flies titled “Soy undecapeptide induces Drosophila hind leg grooming via dopamine receptor.” that fed fruit flies a soy protein constituent and concluded that, “These results suggest that βCGα(323-333) induces hind leg grooming via activating the DopR. This is the first report showing that exogenously administered peptide changes fly behaviors.”
Another study, titled “Characterization of soy-deprestatin, a novel orally active decapeptide that exerts antidepressant-like effects via gut-brain communication.” found that “orally administered soy-deprestatin exhibited antidepressant-like activity in sham-treated, but not vagotomized, mice. Oral administration of soy-deprestatin also increased the c-Fos expression in the nucleus of the solitary tract, which receives inputs from the vagus nerve. These results suggested that the antidepressant-like effects were mediated by the vagus nerve. Thermolysin digest- and soy-deprestatin-induced antidepressant-like effects were also blocked by antagonists of serotonin 5-HT1A, dopamine D1, or GABAA receptors. We also clarified the order of receptor activation as 5-HT1A, D1, and GABAA, using selective agonists and antagonists. Taken together, soy-deprestatin may exhibit antidepressant-like effects after oral administration via a novel pathway mediated by 5-HT1A, followed by D1 and GABAA systems.”
“Movement difficulties characteristic of Parkinson’s disease”
Here is a study titled, “Estrogen agonist genistein differentially influences the cognitive and motor disorders in an ovariectomized animal model of Parkinsonism.” found that “Parkinsonism leads to the cognitive and motor disabilities; ovariectomy intensified these disorders. Whereas genistein treatment improved the maze performances in both P and OP animals it failed to influence the kinetic problems. Genistein displayed a neuroprotective effect on dopaminergic neurons. Positive impact of genistein on the spatial learning and memory may reflect its effects on the nigrostriatal pathway and striatum. Nevertheless, ineffectiveness of genistein on the motor disorders, despite its neuroprotective impacts, led us to conclude that the cognitive improvement by genistein may also contribute to its effects in other areas of brain”, so that means that it didn’t contribute to (or help) motor disorders, but instead, it did provide neuroprotection.
This study titled, “Effects of soybean ingestion on pharmacokinetics of levodopa and motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease--In relation to the effects of Mucuna pruriens.”, concluded that, “These results indicate that soy partly increased the bioavailability of levodopa and suppressed levodopa degradation through COMT. Soybeans may have favorable effects on the motor complications occurring under current levodopa therapy.”
“Depressed thyroid function”
A study titled, ”The Effect of Phytoestrogen on Thyroid in Subclinical Hypothyroidism: Randomized, Double Blind, Crossover Study.“, concluded, “A pharmacological dose of 66 mg of soy phytoestrogens did not increase the overt thyroid failure rate or alter thyroid function tests in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism.”
Another study titled, "Soy Protein Improves Cardiovascular Risk in Subclinical Hypothyroidism: A Randomized Double-Blinded Crossover Study", concluded that “Soy protein alone had no effect on thyroid function in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism and resulted in a significant reduction in fasting glucose, insulin resistance, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and hsCRP compared with CP.”
Another study titled, “Soy Isoflavones for Reducing Bone Loss Study: effects of a 3-year trial on hormones, adverse events, and endometrial thickness in postmenopausal women.”, concluded “Our randomized controlled trial verifies the long-term overall safety of soy isoflavone tablet intake by postmenopausal women who display excellent compliance. We find no evidence of treatment effects on endometrial thickness, adverse events, or circulating hormone concentrations, most notably thyroid function, across a 3-year period.”
“Infants who receive soy formula are 200% more likely to develop diabetes”
Infants who receive formula full of refined oils and sugars are more likely to develop diabetes… well, yeah, of course… That doesn’t mean that soybeans are unfit for human consumption; so, uhh, try again.
“Birth defects”
The culprit is glyphosphates, not soy.
The only study I can find showing the potential influence of birth outcomes (other than the huge one I already linked about Japan) is a study titled, “Preconception exposure to dietary levels of genistein affects female reproductive outcomes”, that was done on mice, and it concluded that genistein had a protective effect on fertility rate, despite some other seemingly odd and concerning effects. The problem with the study though is that they used an unrealistic dose of isolated genistein to produce the results. According to the study titled, “Quantification of genistein and genistein in soybeans and soybean products”, “daily intake of genistein and genistein by the Japanese is calculated to be 1.5-4.1 and 6.3–8.3 mg/person, respectively. These levels are much higher than those for Americans or Western Europeans, whose mortality rates for breast, colon and prostate cancers are greater than the Japanese”. The study that showed concerning adverse effects, such as an increase in infanticide, used doses of 300mg, 500mg, and 1000mg, for a tiny mouse... When humans in Japan are only eating 8mg per day on the high side… So they gave mice 3,000-12,000% more genistein than what is typically eaten by individuals who are part of the culture who eat the most soy on the planet. Only a moron would think that those effects would be expected in a human who is 300x larger and ingesting potentially 12,000% less…
As the article goes on it runs out of straws to grab and starts grasping desperately for mud to sling. Foolishly the author decides to talk about mayonnaise production; as if proving that mayonnaise is unhealthy proves that soy is unfit for human consumption… :::Face-Palm::: The article then makes the absolute assertion that, “Vegetarian and vegan diets leave individuals lacking in key nutrients, proteins, fats, and amino acids”. Take notice of the absence of the word can in that sentence; not, “Vegan diets can leave individuals lacking”, but instead it’s phrased as an absolute claim; as if a vegan diet inevitably results in being malnourished. This is being said while trying to prescribe people to eat hemp in place of soy. Hemp seeds are a great thing to eat, but nothing said within the section about hemp is anything remotely resembling proof that soy is unfit for human consumption. The next straw grasped is the fact that Whole Foods Market promotes the consumption of soy; which of course is proof that it’s unfit for human consumption? Right?