NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7519459.stm

Soy foods 'reduce sperm numbers'

A regular diet of even modest amounts of food containing soy may halve sperm concentrations, suggest scientists.

The study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, found 41 million fewer sperm per millilitre of semen after just one portion every two days.

The authors said plant oestrogens in foods such as tofu, soy mince or milk may interfere with hormonal signals.

However, a UK expert stressed that most men in Asia eat more soy-based products with no fertility problems.

Oestrogenic compounds in food or the environment have been of concern for a number of years, but we have mostly thought that it was boys exposed in the uterus before birth who were most at risk
Dr Allan Pacey
Sheffield University

Animal studies have suggested that large quantities of soy chemicals in food could affect fertility, but other studies looking at consumption in humans have had contradictory findings.

The Harvard School of Public Health study looked at the diets of 99 men who had attended a fertility clinic with their partners and provided a semen sample.

The men were divided into four groups depending on how much soy they ate, and when the sperm concentration of men eating the most soy was compared with those eating the least, there was a significant difference.

The "normal" sperm concentration for a man is between 80 and 120 million per millilitre, and the average of men who ate on average a portion of soy-based food every other day was 41 million fewer.

Dr Jorge Chavarro, who led the study, said that chemicals called isoflavones in the soy might be affecting sperm production.

These chemicals can have similar effects to the human hormone oestrogen.

Dr Chavarro noticed that overweight or obese men seemed even more prone to this effect, which may reflect the fact that higher levels of body fat can also lead to increased oestrogen production in men.

Worried men

However, the study pointed out that soy consumption in many parts of Asia was significantly higher than even the maximum found in these volunteers.

Dr Allan Pacey, a senior lecturer in andrology from the University of Sheffield, said that if soy genuinely had a detrimental effect on sperm production, fertility might well be affected in those regions, and there was no evidence that this was the case.

"Many men are obviously worried about whether their lifestyle or diet could affect their fertility by lowering their sperm count.

"Oestrogenic compounds in food or the environment have been of concern for a number of years, but we have mostly thought that it was boys exposed in the uterus before birth who were most at risk.

"We will have to look at adult diet more closely, although the fact that such large parts of the world have soy food as a major part of their diet and don't appear to suffer any greater infertility rates than those on western diets suggests that any effect is quite small."

Now this is interesting. Won't be long before certain soy food producers start marketing them as good for birth control, of course. :rolleyes:

This is why everyone hates soy.

Maybe now Vegans will stop whining about unhealthy meat.

No, to much to ask for.

That's why there's only 1.3 billion Chinese people.

I eat quite a bit of soy and I have a zero sperm count. Consider it proven :p

Eating sperm drastically reduces your soy count.

My wife has plenty of soy.

Eating sperm drastically reduces your soy count.

My wife has plenty of soy.

Eating sperm is actually a good way to get Zinc. It's lovely nutritious stuff, high in protein and with a delicate flavour rather like oysters and oatmeal. The smell does rather linger on the breath though, and only guys should really eat semen because of the androgens in it.

Don't get me wrong, I like androgynous people. But if you accept "guys shouldn't eat soy because it will diminish their fertility" then you should also accept "girls shouldn't eat semen because it will diminish their fertility."

anything that reduces human fertility is GOOD!

=^^=
.../\...

Well I think another important factor is the weight. People in many other parts of the world are a lot thinner then Americans, especially in parts of Asia. So that could easily account for the more drastic amounts of Soy they eat. Maybe.

Now this is interesting. Won't be long before certain soy food producers start marketing them as good for birth control, of course. :rolleyes:

I was about to come out with something that the Americans might call 'Nugentine' but its slipped....

Oh, everything reduces your sperm these days... meat, soy, eating, sleeping, breathing, living...

I am reminded of something here.
That when people (a people) are exposed to something, be it through food or environment,
that is hazardous to their health, then only those who can tolerate it the best lives on.
And in the end, they will have no problem, where there once was one.
If only I could remember what it was called.. ,)

I am reminded of something here.
That when people (a people) are exposed to something, be it through food or environment,
that is hazardous to their health, then only those who can tolerate it the best lives on.
And in the end, they will have no problem, where there once was one.
If only I could remember what it was called.. ,)

"Satans Deceit"?
"Foolish Science"?

IIRC, there was an earlier study that attributed this to unfermented soy. Since soy is primarily consumed in fermented form in Asia (and in far smaller portions than you'd expect(daily consumption is about half that of a glass of soy milk, IIRC)), that would explain the lack of fertility problems.

Oh, everything reduces your sperm these days... meat, soy, eating, sleeping, breathing, living...

Having sex...

Having sex...

Oh absolutely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7519459.stm
Now this is interesting. Won't be long before certain soy food producers start marketing them as good for birth control, of course. :rolleyes:

So where did all these Chinese come from?

So where did all these Chinese come from?They're mass produced in China.

Besides, half the effectiveness only means you need to go at it twice as often. Not to mention they're only allowed to have 1 kid, rather than 2.4; so even at half effectiveness they'd overshoot the target. (God, that sounds nasty)

I think the problem of fertility becomes more obvious in the western society, where it is promoted to wait until you are 30+ years old with a stable income. We definitely do not promote having children when our physical body are ready for it.

I am reminded of something here.
That when people (a people) are exposed to something, be it through food or environment,
that is hazardous to their health, then only those who can tolerate it the best lives on.
And in the end, they will have no problem, where there once was one.
If only I could remember what it was called.. ,)

Knackeral Selektion.

Proposing it as policy within individual lifetimes, however, kinda intersects with the definition of murder or criminal negligence at the very least. Plus people compare your testicle count to that of Goebbels.

Suppose we just allow peanuts to be put in everything without labelling the product. Suppose we further refuse treatment to anyone with a fatal allergic reaction to peanuts (you know, to bolster up the human genome, get 'em out of the pool.) So a few thousand people would die, it's worth it to have a stronger, healthier human race which can look a peanut in the face without flinching.

Isn't it?

Yep. That's why I never eat soy products.

:flexes:

:D

Knackeral Selektion.

Proposing it as policy within individual lifetimes, however, kinda intersects with the definition of murder or criminal negligence at the very least. Plus people compare your testicle count to that of Goebbels.

Suppose we just allow peanuts to be put in everything without labelling the product. Suppose we further refuse treatment to anyone with a fatal allergic reaction to peanuts (you know, to bolster up the human genome, get 'em out of the pool.) So a few thousand people would die, it's worth it to have a stronger, healthier human race which can look a peanut in the face without flinching.

Isn't it?


That is not at all what I meant.
Soy has however, been used since before written times in Asia,
and I don't think they had access to the kind of knowledge and technology we have today,do you?

So it is not unthinkable that it has occurred.
Or do you believe that humans are no longer "in" the evolutionary process?
Or never has been perhaps?

Grandad was right, eating soy really DOES make you a woman :eek:

This is just another reason not to eat vegan food.

*adds to the already long list*

Fools. You have only just begun to discover the effects of soy. Sperm count is the least of your worries. We here at Gay Agenda HQ have added special chemicals we call "fabulosatides" to all soy products. They'll make you feel like a new man within the week, and due to the special pheromones our chemical makes the body produce, you'll most definitely be able to get one, my darlings.

I am reminded of something here.
That when people (a people) are exposed to something, be it through food or environment,
that is hazardous to their health, then only those who can tolerate it the best lives on.
And in the end, they will have no problem, where there once was one.
If only I could remember what it was called.. ,)

I believe that is call mass murder.

I believe that is call mass murder.

Actually, mass murder is what you call it when someone brings a grenade launcher to a celebration of the Eucharist. On that topic, if they want to increase attendance they should just employ one of those cheesy gameshow announcers to go 'and herrrrrrrre's your host, Jesus Christ. And remember, whether you really believe or not, Jesus says "bite me and drink my fluids"'.

This is why I am banned from every stand-up venue in the country

Now this is interesting. Won't be long before certain soy food producers start marketing them as good for birth control, of course. :rolleyes:

You say that like it's a bad thing.

They're mass produced in China.

Besides, half the effectiveness only means you need to go at it twice as often. Not to mention they're only allowed to have 1 kid, rather than 2.4; so even at half effectiveness they'd overshoot the target. (God, that sounds nasty)

considering how many chinese there are? I'd say they were NOT overshooting their target, but being dead on each and every time!

That is not at all what I meant.
Soy has however, been used since before written times in Asia,
and I don't think they had access to the kind of knowledge and technology we have today,do you?

So it is not unthinkable that it has occurred.
Or do you believe that humans are no longer "in" the evolutionary process?
Or never has been perhaps?

So do you think that by this time the sperm count of the Chinese men is no longer affected by consumption of soy?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well, according to the article, it may very not actually be all that effective on the sperm count(hence the may in the thread title) and so I was rolling my eyes at how it'll be trumped up anyway. Just look at what's been done with the new stuff like lycopene discovered. As soon as it was identified as doing whatever useful thing it did, companies leaped upon it, and I'll bet you they'll do it for this too.

I believe that is call mass murder.
No, I believe it is called evolution,natural selection,survival of the fittest.
If we were talking about any other kind of animals anyway, but it seems that humans are somehow exempt from those basic underlying premises.:rolleyes:


So do you think that by this time the sperm count of the Chinese men is no longer affected by consumption of soy?

Yes,thank you, that is one possible hypothesis.
That is what I was trying to get across.
I suppose I could have made it clearer in the beginning, but where was the fun in that.

No, I believe it is called evolution,natural selection,survival of the fittest.
If we were talking about any other kind of animals anyway, but it seems that humans are somehow exempt from those basic underlying premises.:rolleyes:

Biological evolution is not

"That when people (a people) are exposed to something, be it through food or environment,
that is hazardous to their health, then only those who can tolerate it the best lives on."

When you consider a race like human, where we are biologically equip with a large enough brain to reason. You can't blame evolution for refusing to use our brain to adopt, because our brain is also a feature of our biology.

Things like "allergic to soy" isn't a trait that cause death because of the limited environment. To die by eating hazardous food it accidentally is random and does not contribute to any specific evolutionary trait. To die by being forced to eat it is clearly murder. As far as a natural disaster like earthquake, the cause of death is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn't not lead to any specific evolutionary traits. Also unless it is a global catastrophe, it simply does not create a large enough impact to contribute to evolution.

Even if we are to ignore the obvious, evolution happens at evolutionary time. Mass die off, such as the black plague for example, though it does contribute to evolution to some extend, is generally not consider as evolution itself. And if our brain and knowledge are capable of curing such a phenomenon, then the refusal to do so is not "natural" selection, but "selective" neglect.

Darwinism and Social Darwinism is not the same thing.

How on earth do you account for the populations of Asia, then????

Couldn't resist. Did you pilfer this from Fark?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7519459.stm



Now this is interesting. Won't be long before certain soy food producers start marketing them as good for birth control, of course. :rolleyes:


Hmm.

Makes sense. The people I know who eat soy (and no meat) are very skinny, sickly, wimpy looking people.

Makes sense. The people I know who eat soy (and no meat) are very skinny, sickly, wimpy looking people.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

:fluffle:

Just saying from personal experience.

anything that reduces human fertility is GOOD!

=^^=
.../\...

Would that include chemical castration?