| Forum Index > Sports |
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 27 2016 07:58 IgnE wrote: You promise based on what? And what do you mean by "supplements"? Based on a review of available scientific literature of course. Supplements as in steroids, testosterone and other hormones, etc. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
Soy isn't just bad because it will potentially disrupt your hormonal balance. It's just shit protein. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On January 26 2016 03:35 IgnE wrote: Before you start going to the gym you have to shop around for the body you like best. That way you don't accidentally end up looking like a ridiculous bodybuilder. I know, I did that once. Luckily I just watched Garden State a bunch of times to work off the muscle. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 27 2016 10:34 zulu_nation8 wrote: I added 15% soy protein isolate in my latest truenutrition mix cuz it said the protein is slower digesting so I thought it would be better for when I take 75 grams a day during cutting. Is that bad? It's nothing to freak out about but I personally wouldn't do it. See e.g. http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2015/02/no-soy-for-your-grand-parents-soy.html | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
also, this is if you're asian and mildly lactose intolerant like me, substituting things other than milk are good because they keep me from blowing it up later.  | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
a couple points i pulled from what i have: - the study started off with 179 total participants, only 83 actually completed the regimen properly (HP-D = 34, HP-S = 26, UP = 23). a bunch were excluded for non compliance and other reasons, would be curious to know why exactly -(HP-D 1.41 ± 0.14 g/kg/d, HP-S 1.42 ± 0.61 g/kg/d, UP 1.10 ± 0.10 g/kg/d: notice the really big variation in protein intake for the soy protein group, 0.61 compared to 0.14 and 0.1 for the other 2 groups -quote from the blog: "So far the bad news: The only good news is that the effects on lean mass, physical function and mental health scores as well as the decrease in fat mass was identical for all three training groups."-- unsure what this means, but it almost seems to contradict the point the author's trying to make -looking at the exercises, seems like the really significant difference in strength gain is leg press with knee extension and leg curls showing some difference. chest press and lat pull downs have trends contrary to the overall results. i really wish there were error bars on this graph. my point has always been if you don't want soy and have alternative ways to get your protein, then that's fine. based on available research though, including the study emphasized, there isn't anything super conclusive about it being significantly better or worse than whey or other sources. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
There's one that looks at metabolic stuff. absence of increases in protein synthesis in the soy groups http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/09/only-whey-not-soy-works-wheytloss.html There's another one. Bottom line: The study at hand is only one out of many experimental trials which refute the notion that plant proteins are healthier and eating plant instead of protein from animal sources would help you lose weight and improve your body composition. The latter is a myth that's based on questionable epidemiological data, where confounding factors such as the "pizza salami = meat" factor (i.e. the way the meat intake is estimate) are hard to control. Since I hope that we all put more faith in hard experimental vs. "soft" epidemiological data, it should be obvious that anyone (including your vegan friends) who is planning to lose body fat and improve his / her body composition is much better off with whey vs. soy protein; and that not just as a replacement for a complete meal, but rather as an addition that increases the total protein content of the diet and reduces the food and energy intake on ad-libitum meals, when the shake is consumed 30 minutes before a meal http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-protein-less-fat-additional-whey.html Or another one. Look, you are free to have an "expert" opinion on the effectiveness of soy based on looking at a review of a bunch of shitty trials conducted by god knows who, but I call it wishful thinking. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 28 2016 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: id postulate the study's results are due to the fact that the people are, well, old. that can explain a lot of things like lower T levels and poorer receptor binding/ activation which would be impacted to a higher degree, more difficulty absorbing protein, etc. basically unsure if these results can be generalized to a younger population also, this is if you're asian and mildly lactose intolerant like me, substituting things other than milk are good because they keep me from blowing it up later. You know if the primary reason you are taking soy instead of milk-based proteins is because of "mild lactose intolerance" then you are doing it wrong. There are plenty of whey-based proteins that remove most of the lactose (and fat) that remains in a "whey concentrate." Also, i just pulled up your study cited earlier because now I have access to the full text. It's a review of studies looking at T levels of short term soy-consuming prostate cancer patients or at risk populations. Get the fuck outta here. You are looking for stuff that says its ok to eat soy because that's what you want to do. Show me a review or study showing soy's effectiveness in trained or even training individuals. Soy's endocrine effects have been shown across a wide range of animal studies and models. I don't think you would dispute that. The only review of soy in the diets of even normal individuals that I found in a short search was from 2012 and indicated that there are no large-scale comprehensive prospective studies in humans concerning reproductive health. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence that soy is a shit protein that is not worth supplementing with or that might even be detrimental. Consume at your peril. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 28 2016 05:55 IgnE wrote: You know if the primary reason you are taking soy instead of milk-based proteins is because of "mild lactose intolerance" then you are doing it wrong. There are plenty of whey-based proteins that remove most of the lactose (and fat) that remains in a "whey concentrate." I meant that mostly as a side note/ joke. Also, i just pulled up your study cited earlier because now I have access to the full text. It's a review of studies looking at T levels of short term soy-consuming prostate cancer patients or at risk populations. Get the fuck outta here. You are looking for stuff that says its ok to eat soy because that's what you want to do. Show me a review or study showing soy's effectiveness in trained or even training individuals. Soy's endocrine effects have been shown across a wide range of animal studies and models. I don't think you would dispute that. The only review of soy in the diets of even normal individuals that I found in a short search was from 2012 and indicated that there are no large-scale comprehensive prospective studies in humans concerning reproductive health. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence that soy is a shit protein that is not worth supplementing with or that might even be detrimental. Consume at your peril. Cancer status was just a variable that was included since a lot of research has gone into the effect of soy on cancer. From the conclusion of the meta analysis: The results of this meta-analysis indicate that neither soy protein nor isoflavones affect reproductive hormone concentrations in men regardless of age or cancer status. Although the duration of most trials was <6 months, soy protein and isoflavone intake greatly exceeded typical dietary Japanese intake (2). These results suggest that consumption of soy foods or isoflavone supplements would not result in the adverse effects associated with lower T levels (31–33). Conversely, these data also suggest that lowering either free T or T is not a likely mechanism for the proposed role of soy in reducing prostate cancer risk. You're doing the opposite-- you're looking for reasons not to eat soy. I'll freely admit to enjoying edamame, tofu (but not tempeh, that stuff creeps me out) but I'm not going to lie to myself or others if there are problems with it. What kind of motive would I have for that? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
You just ignored the part where they say the studies are all short term. The studies are based on a wide distribution of "normal" T levels. The studies are based on non-lifting populations which typically already have lower T than lifting/trained individuals or athletes. I'm not looking for a reason not to eat soy. The evidence is overwhelming in animal studies. And as the only review in the last 5 years I could find that was relevant to this particular aspect of soy (isoflavones) says, there are no large comprehensive long term studies. That ignores all the myriad reasons that most comprehensive long term population studies are shit to begin with. You also haven't addressed my main point, which is that soy protein and supplements are absolute shit, as indicated by numerous relevant studies concerned with training and body composition. Not to mention that soy's shitness is abundantly clear to anyone who has tried the stuff as a replacement for proper whey and has sufficient training experience and physical capital to make such a call. Edit: and wtf "cancer was accounted for as a variable"?? you have got to be kidding are you a scientist or a number manipulating statistician who likes to argue without accounting for the unknown unknown? anyone with half a brain should know that hormonal systems are extremely complex and multivariate systems. an old, untrained prostate cancer patient's response to small soy supplementation for 4-6 weeks had almost nothing to do w me or you. next thing i know you are going to tell me too much protein is bad for me based on studies in patients w kidney damage you argue in bad faith as a comparison of your nitpicking of the soy supplementation study in older trainees to your apologism for a review of studies on prostate cancer patients shows | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Responding to a few points: 1. Short-term studies: the one in the blog you linked was 12 weeks. The ones included in the meta analysis: a couple short ones, but the table on page 4 shows studies a variety-- a few are in weeks, most are in months, a few are in years. 2. You linked a single study about how you gain less strength while on a high soy diet. I don't have the full text, but its 12 weeks long and with old people demonstrating a correlation between soy and less strength, but only speculates on the actual mechanism-- I've voiced some questions based on what I have available to me. 3. Far as that goes, other research suggests there are two candidates: a reduction T levels (which there is little to no scientific evidence of) and soy protein being more difficult to metabolize (I'm less sure on this point). You haven't linked numerous relevant studies. There exists a big body of research on the topic. Based on what I've read nothing is particularly conclusive, which would mean the effect is likely very small. 4. People "feeling worse" worse on soy isn't science. You can't complain that there is no long term study then cite anecdotal evidence. EDIT: some studies were focused on cancer. it was a characteristic noted in the meta analysis. i'm done. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
Noting that it was on cancer patients means what? That's not an argument for the soundness of the data. It's an admission of fact. You can be skeptical all you like but there is more real science that could be done in cricitically evaluating the sum knowledge total of athletes and bodybuilders in targeted studies with training protocols than there is in large statistical analysis of populations with no controls. That said, this is why I put more weight on studies done on carefully controlled populations with theorized mechanisms of action and protocols relevant to the question at hand. Evidence of that in models based on (animal is better than nothing) data is supplementary and more informative than the shitty studies in the review you posted. Comparing the "short term" 12 week study on strength gains and the short term studies of a few weeks to a few months on hormonal levels is comparing apples to oranges. Strength gains show up within a 12 week timeframe. Endocrine damage from environmental toxins in large uncontrolled populations maybe to probably not. Good luck teasing it out of the garbage data most studies collect. But your argument here is another example of one based in bad faith or ignorance. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
Good talk, glad we could get through this scientific debate without resorting to childish namecalling. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20063 Posts
| ||
|
phyre112
United States3090 Posts
5g creatine in the morning, 2 tsp of fish oil and 10k iu vit d with the first fat containing meal of the day. All the supplements I've ever noticed a difference with. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
