On another note, Beyond Meat's founder was featured on "How I Built This", a favorite podcast for many HN'ers.
edit: a link to a news article from a year ago. http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2016/09/23/report-alleges-...
You'd have to basically almost be subsisting off of soy to start to see effects.
A newer study I came across this afternoon in an endocrinology journal came to the same conclusion about soy isoflavones.
It's a cursory BS test. If the evidence is hard to find, it's generally because there's no evidence available from credible sources. Belief that the truth is out there, is not sufficient anymore.
The Cochrane Collaboration has nothing.
A google search might lead to the NIH having an article citing "studies" about various related effects, but mostly says nothing and has 0 references.
But if you search the NIH databases via https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed using (soybean[Title/Abstract]) AND men[Title/Abstract] you'll come across a doctor who wrote this:
http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(11)60100-6/fullte... - admittedly, I don't think it's compelling as a standalone opinion.
This is a study, by a relatively small organization is better:
You might benefit from seeing the evidence in favor of Soy being a serious factor in reducing prostate cancer rates and other such ancillary benefits.
Some scientific studies on soy prep and pseudo estrogen effects would be fascinating.
- only some people
- along with all other types of food making tofu a very small portion of the diet
There was an inverse association between soy food intake and sperm concentration that remained significant after accounting for age, abstinence time, body mass index, caffeine and alcohol intake and smoking. In the multivariate-adjusted analyses, men in the highest category of soy food intake had 41 million sperm/ml less than men who did not consume soy foods.
The implicitly suggested volume measure might not be the wrong measure either since fertility depends on quite a few variables, several we don't even know about.
These unknowns are actually a bit concerning on their own since fertility has been falling rapidly, at least in most of the western hemisphere, and the cause is unknown.
At least it's several times bigger than European and USA consumption.
Citation required for what? The fact that they eat more soy?
Demonizing soy is just a fad. Like demonizing meat or dairy.
Most of USA and Europe eats female mammals like cows and chickens, are we going to make claims that female animal estrogen contained in that flesh makes men infertile? Seems like a much more probable cause than phytoestrogen from plants, not that I would be irresposible to make that argument without any evidence, as is the case for soy.
As long as its nutricous and preferrably somewhat edible, it should be at the very least not harmful for any sex, right ?
IDK if any of that is actually a problem, but that's the reference.
Good thing soy isnt the only good source of plant based protein.
That's going to be the good stuff. Further downscale are the processed soy products. These are Soy Extender 2.0; textured vegetable protein processed to make it taste more like meat. You can buy soy hamburger patties now, under the Beyond Meat brand. Whole Foods carries them. Anyone tried one?
Apparently the protein is mostly peas.
I think one of the simplest solutions would be to have a different line of products under a different brand name which had a mixture of plant based meat alternative (i.e. Boca or Impossible Burger) to actual meat in the burger. That way you get the taste of meat but the substrate is fiber based.
The level of actual meat could be adjusted like they do fat content for ground beef (i.e. I'm feeling sorta vegan today so I'm gonna go 75% plant based today).
The one thing I never understood is American vegetarian restaurants who serve tofu steaks as the entire dish. This looks awful:
Asian people always eat tofu blended in with a bunch of meat and vegetables for the actual flavor.
Here are some examples:
If the goal is to be healthier, why not just go with the highest quality beef you can find, but eat it less often?
A quality steak once a week sure must be healthier than a heavily processed veggie burger every day (tho i have no data to prove it).
Not saying humans aren't causing tons of ground level pollution, which we totally are and that's indisputable. Just don't confuse it with global warming.
"No proof that any" is just flat out wrong... on the level of "there's no proof that 1 + 1 always equals two".
A hypothesis must be falsifiable for it to be valid in the first place, and saying "the Sun did it" is a valid way to falsify the hypothesis; thus you now must also prove the Sun is not affecting climate change to the degree that we have measured.
No one has been able to prove this, and all evidence collected by NASA seems to indicate that the Sun is by far the largest driver of climate fluctuations on Earth, even during the modern age, not humans.
And now you crack out another absolute "all evidence collected by NASA" which is also just plain wrong. First NASA isn't the only group studying climate change, nor is it their primary mission. So whether or not NASA has or has not found evidence that the Sun is the largest driver is immaterial.
And again a simple Google search shows you are utterly wrong in regards the Sun being the primary driver.
Just go away.
Those same scientists produced the data that made this possible. The same predictions they've been making since the 70s, the same ones Al Gore et al. built a financial empire on... did not come true, and are woefully wrong.
Pay attention to both scales. Did humans have greater climate change ability than we have now, in the past, but then suddenly stopped? Notice the range labeled "mini ice age" covers a time period during an extended period of abnormally low solar activity (with the Spörer and Maunder minimums happening during this period).
Edit: Also, sorry, I couldn't find better URLs for these images, Google isn't cooperating today.
On a more personal note, if a scientific consensus is not it, what kind of information would be able to convince you that man made global warming is real?
But calling these companies Big Cow just sounds utterly ridiculous. It just doesn't work at all.
But, yeah, I'm over the Big $company monikers.