Meal replacement.
- Thread starter ftr
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Drew
Forum MVP
As an unbiased observer, you know what would go a long way here? Some sort of peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating, to a reasonably small p-value, that there is a relationship between soy consumption and estrogen issues. Science is pretty good when it comes to confirming this stuff, after all.
Drew
Forum MVP
marcwormjim, I hear you, man.
I work out and eat a fairly decent diet because I enjoy food. The idea of someone just wanting to get the day's eating out of the way and focus on other things seems totally alien to me.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
As an unbiased observer, you know what would go a long way here? Some sort of peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating, to a reasonably small p-value, that there is a relationship between soy consumption and estrogen issues. Science is pretty good when it comes to confirming this stuff, after all.
Already posted two to the contrary (plus one that's more of a white-paper/essay). I still have not heard a reasonable explanation from anyone as to why eating something the body might mistakenly treat like estrogen if it isn't metabolized properly causes huge problems, yet eating something that actually contains estrogen itself would not cause a similar problem. My personal opinion is that neither one is a problem. I think that's a pretty safe assertion, based on the simple logic linking the two and the studies I had already posted.
The main reason I'm jumping on this, is these guys come into a thread about a dude thinking of going vegetarian and try to scare him away from it by parroting rumours started by the dairy industry ages ago to spook people away from soy milk, that have been debunked time and time again, but don't even really want to engage in the discussion once it comes down to evidence, logic, or scientific studies published in, well, anything. That's just sort of the age we live in, though. I'm sure @Ebony doesn't mean anything by it, and this user probably firmly believes the anecdotes that have been told, but doesn't want to discuss the validity of the assertion, even if it's given as health advice.
https://www.westonaprice.org/health...ing-adverse-effects-of-dietary-soy-1939-2008/
http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/downside-soybean-consumption0
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/04/soy-dangers-summarized.aspx
Here are some papers of varying degrees of credibility (like yours) that suggest soy can be a bad thing.
Take it how you like, like I've alluded to many times now neither you or I have the answers as this is not an exact science yet.
And please refrain from assuming that I believe in "anecdotes" or that I'm "parroting" what I've heard anymore than you do.
I do not hesitate to be involved in meaningful debate, but you and me going at this is not a meaningful debate given how neither of us (presumably) are experts in this field and all we can do is throw contradictory studies in each others face.
Like you, I simply share my opinion based on what I believe to be closest to the truth.
http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/downside-soybean-consumption0
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/04/soy-dangers-summarized.aspx
Here are some papers of varying degrees of credibility (like yours) that suggest soy can be a bad thing.
Take it how you like, like I've alluded to many times now neither you or I have the answers as this is not an exact science yet.
And please refrain from assuming that I believe in "anecdotes" or that I'm "parroting" what I've heard anymore than you do.
I do not hesitate to be involved in meaningful debate, but you and me going at this is not a meaningful debate given how neither of us (presumably) are experts in this field and all we can do is throw contradictory studies in each others face.
Like you, I simply share my opinion based on what I believe to be closest to the truth.
The first link is a tabulation of other data about soy, some of it is very very old, some of the newer data is positive.
The source is Weston Price, a non-profit organization that has firmly supported the dairy industry for decades. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation ) The 1983 study that pertains to the phytoestrogen you mentioned was actually done by testing real estrogen on animals, and then inferring that the same thing happens with soy milk in human babies. That's the kind of science this organization is concerned with bolstering. That's fine, but read the data there and then go to the actual primary sources they cited, and see if you can still support your conclusion from earlier.
The second link is completely irrelevant. Click on it and search for "soy" zero results. I even searched the site using the search box and got nothing.
Your third source is extremely controversial among nutritionists and among the medical community in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola. His "myths" section of his page is full of contradictions.
So, no, not a single thing there that supports your argument. Do you want to try again? Maybe this time, make sure the links take me where I am supposed to go, or, if they did work properly, maybe read the article you posted to make sure it contains the words "soy" and "estrogen."
I say you use anecdotes, based off of your own posts.
Did you look at the links I posted at all?
And why can't we have a meaningful debate by reading each other's articles? I never mentioned any credentials nor the lack thereof. I've studied nutrition science at the college level, and I have a BS in Physics and Mathematics with minors in Biology and Chemistry, MS in Solid State Physics and an ABD is Physics. I have not published any papers about the metabolites of soy in any scholarly journals, but I have written papers about it for undergraduate courses in nutrition. I assure you that secondary research like that is still plenty valid enough for a discussion, assuming that there is some discern used in understanding the credentials of the sources.
The source is Weston Price, a non-profit organization that has firmly supported the dairy industry for decades. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation ) The 1983 study that pertains to the phytoestrogen you mentioned was actually done by testing real estrogen on animals, and then inferring that the same thing happens with soy milk in human babies. That's the kind of science this organization is concerned with bolstering. That's fine, but read the data there and then go to the actual primary sources they cited, and see if you can still support your conclusion from earlier.
The second link is completely irrelevant. Click on it and search for "soy" zero results. I even searched the site using the search box and got nothing.
Your third source is extremely controversial among nutritionists and among the medical community in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola. His "myths" section of his page is full of contradictions.
So, no, not a single thing there that supports your argument. Do you want to try again? Maybe this time, make sure the links take me where I am supposed to go, or, if they did work properly, maybe read the article you posted to make sure it contains the words "soy" and "estrogen."
I say you use anecdotes, based off of your own posts.
Did you look at the links I posted at all?
And why can't we have a meaningful debate by reading each other's articles? I never mentioned any credentials nor the lack thereof. I've studied nutrition science at the college level, and I have a BS in Physics and Mathematics with minors in Biology and Chemistry, MS in Solid State Physics and an ABD is Physics. I have not published any papers about the metabolites of soy in any scholarly journals, but I have written papers about it for undergraduate courses in nutrition. I assure you that secondary research like that is still plenty valid enough for a discussion, assuming that there is some discern used in understanding the credentials of the sources.
Drew
Forum MVP
So, again, no horse in this race....
...but bostjan is posting links to scientific journals, where articles are first submitted to peer review, and studies are held to very robust standards.
Yours? The former is basically a list of summaries, no links to the underlying studies, posted by an alternative diet advocacy source that's run afoul of the FDA for advocating (with no scientific basis) a raw milk diet, according to Wikipedia. The second seems to just go to the association's official website, but despite the formal sounding name has no association with any of the US government nutritional science organizations, and little net presence to begin with (I don't see anything on wikipedia). The third bostjan has already addressed.
So, if none of us are experts, shouldn't we defer to the experts? I.e. - the ones actually doing hard science on the subject? You describe this as a matter of "sharing your opinion of what you believe to be closest to the truth." It isn't. It's neither a matter of opinion, nor is it one of belief. It's one of what can be empirically proven.
tl;dr - science works. Maybe we should listen to it.
marcwormjim
Well-Known Member
CrazyDean
Well-Known Member
Well, i am guilty of passing along information from what I've "heard", mainly from bodybuilding and strength training circles. While I do still believe soy has low biological value (BV) and should not be used as a primary source of protein, I retract my previous statement about soy raising estrogen levels.
While I hold a BS in physics, I find biology to be quite tedious and difficult to read when it comes to scientific articles. There's simply too much being referenced that I already don't understand. Anyway, I did read an article which is relevant to my own interests.
https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/willbrink4.htm
While I hold a BS in physics, I find biology to be quite tedious and difficult to read when it comes to scientific articles. There's simply too much being referenced that I already don't understand. Anyway, I did read an article which is relevant to my own interests.
https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/willbrink4.htm
Drew
Forum MVP
How science is SUPPOSED to work.
My main problem with soy is this - unless it's fermented into something I can dip my sushi into or use as the base for a marinade or glaze for steak tips, I just don't like it all that much.
CrazyDean
Well-Known Member
How science is SUPPOSED to work.
My main problem with soy is this - unless it's fermented into something I can dip my sushi into or use as the base for a marinade or glaze for steak tips, I just don't like it all that much.
Again, I've never intentionally shied away from soy. It's biggest problem for me is the low BV. Basically, I have a protein goal to meet every day. One gram of soy is not worth as much as one gram of whey. So, I need more of it which leaves me fewer calories overall to work with. Also, soy protein doesn't mix as well in a shake. At least, not the ones I've had.
I have noticed that when I'm in the grocery store and see some product shouting at me "8G OF PROTEIN!!!", it's usually soy because soy protein is cheap.
Drew
Forum MVP
I just work out so I can eat for taste, so I don't even really pay much attention to that stuff. Which is why I found the OP so dumbfounding.
MFB
Banned
I just work out so I can eat for taste, so I don't even really pay much attention to that stuff. Which is why I found the OP so dumbfounding.
The problem with cooking is 20 mins of prep/cooking, and another 10 for clean-up for 5-10 mins of delicious eating. It's one of the worst returns for your efforts
Drew
Forum MVP
Dude, I enjoy the shit out of cooking. The OPPORTUNITY of cooking is the 60 minutes of prep cooking and dicing shit up and searing and sautéing and cranking some tunes while your kitchen smells delicious.The problem with cooking is 20 mins of prep/cooking, and another 10 for clean-up for 5-10 mins of delicious eating. It's one of the worst returns for your efforts
mongey
Well-Known Member
FWIW
I had a mate who was about 135kg drop about 30kg just doing a meal replacement, shake thing .lasted a few months then he missed eating real food and put it all back
I had a mate who was about 135kg drop about 30kg just doing a meal replacement, shake thing .lasted a few months then he missed eating real food and put it all back
mongey
Well-Known Member
don't forget the beer to drink while doing itDude, I enjoy the shit out of cooking. The OPPORTUNITY of cooking is the 60 minutes of prep cooking and dicing shit up and searing and sautéing and cranking some tunes while your kitchen smells delicious.
bpprox22
String Breaker
I feel the same way about prepping/cooking as I do with mowing the lawn: If I have time to do it, I enjoy the hell out of the experience and "me" time. If I'm on a time crunch to get other things done it's just another inconvenience.
@Drew The only thing I don't like about the amazing smells while cooking (and eating immediately after) is that it usually makes my taste buds less sensitive to the flavor of the food that I'm working hard to prepare
@Drew The only thing I don't like about the amazing smells while cooking (and eating immediately after) is that it usually makes my taste buds less sensitive to the flavor of the food that I'm working hard to prepare
To my knowledge, soy has no estrogen issues; however, using soy products to replace most anything in the so-called ordinary diet will result in a too one-sided diet, and this could be why some/many jumps off the soy-replacing-meat diet.
I had a totally clean-living yogish/tantrish GF (yumyum) back in the days, who used soy as a meat replacer. While I'm mostly a vegan/vegetarian thingy, this totally knocked me off, taste/feel wise.
I believe this diet thing is mainly a matter of studying what we really need, and when composing a diet, refrain from adhering to the foods advertizement the food industry tries to put into our heads, in order to sell their, often, crap products.
(I'll stand by my former statement about humans not designed as a meat eater. Peace)
I had a totally clean-living yogish/tantrish GF (yumyum
) back in the days, who used soy as a meat replacer. While I'm mostly a vegan/vegetarian thingy, this totally knocked me off, taste/feel wise.I believe this diet thing is mainly a matter of studying what we really need, and when composing a diet, refrain from adhering to the foods advertizement the food industry tries to put into our heads, in order to sell their, often, crap products.
(I'll stand by my former statement about humans not designed as a meat eater. Peace)
marcwormjim
Well-Known Member
Not all of us were designed, Frankenstein.
odibrom
.
Science is not a repository of knowledge, Science is an idea of methodology, therefore it contains no truth because knowledge is constantly evolving and growing. Men use the word science to justify their inner agenda in both ways, that's why one finds contradictory papers on this or that subject, specially where there is big money involved... it's the new religion!... Food, energy (oil and the shit) and health (pharms, mostly) are the 3 most controversial subjects because of the money they move daily.
Meal replacements as a daily base is a bad idea because of the limited source of nutrients. In the end, one will get sick of the same tastes and textures day after day, and then will jump back to whatever was doing before. It will create an emptiness in your body/soul system that then must be fulfilled violently.
One should study how his/hers own body reacts to what food one eats and that's where some physical and mental activity comes into play. One should also know what are the bases of a balanced diet (generally speaking the more sources of food, the better) and then experiment with attention to cause and effect. A healthy body is a better food lab than an unhealthy one, so get some exercise going.
This so say that there is no better diet than the one CONSCIENTIOUSLY made by each individual. Conscience is KEY to what we eat, not blind beliefs on some paper. Please also note that most results of independent studies made with the science methodology deliver pretty reliable results. but in the end, it is not science per se, it is a man made study, with all the faults it has.
Then, after one finds how food works on his/hers body there is another chapter which is to know deeply where each food comes from, how it is produced and how its production affects the surrounding areas, from a small to a larger scale, global in the end. This is to enlarge our conscience about food, as it will deepens how one interacts with it and therefore how one's body will absorb/process it (which is the most important part of this).
Unfortunately, most of us, humans, do not have single clue about this needed consciousness on food. It is a learned reflex by copying what others do and not asking why. Those who not think by themselves, will choose fast food as a daily source of energy. Nothing wrong with it, but please do your thing on another planet, ok?
Meal replacements as a daily base is a bad idea because of the limited source of nutrients. In the end, one will get sick of the same tastes and textures day after day, and then will jump back to whatever was doing before. It will create an emptiness in your body/soul system that then must be fulfilled violently.
One should study how his/hers own body reacts to what food one eats and that's where some physical and mental activity comes into play. One should also know what are the bases of a balanced diet (generally speaking the more sources of food, the better) and then experiment with attention to cause and effect. A healthy body is a better food lab than an unhealthy one, so get some exercise going.
This so say that there is no better diet than the one CONSCIENTIOUSLY made by each individual. Conscience is KEY to what we eat, not blind beliefs on some paper. Please also note that most results of independent studies made with the science methodology deliver pretty reliable results. but in the end, it is not science per se, it is a man made study, with all the faults it has.
Then, after one finds how food works on his/hers body there is another chapter which is to know deeply where each food comes from, how it is produced and how its production affects the surrounding areas, from a small to a larger scale, global in the end. This is to enlarge our conscience about food, as it will deepens how one interacts with it and therefore how one's body will absorb/process it (which is the most important part of this).
Unfortunately, most of us, humans, do not have single clue about this needed consciousness on food. It is a learned reflex by copying what others do and not asking why. Those who not think by themselves, will choose fast food as a daily source of energy. Nothing wrong with it, but please do your thing on another planet, ok?
