Soy is Detrimental to the Development of Young Men

I'm very strapped for time so I'm condensing this debate into its most vital point: Do soy isoflavones given to males before and during sexual development detrimentally effect their sexual development and result in feminization once development is complete. All other points in this debate are secondary as they are predicated on the answer to this question. If the evidence suggests that soy intake negatively effects male development, then the resolution is affirmed and I win the debate. If the evidence suggests no relationship, then the resolution is negated and Con wins the debate. I'm not conceding the other points, it's just the case that what Con is arguing against is largely different from what I'm arguing for, with the exception of this point. I will work in responses to as many of Con's arguments as possible here. Con brings 3 studies to the table on this point (sources 9, 10, and 11 in his list). Let's examine these studies. Study 9 This study measured length, weight, and head circumference. NOT T-levels, testes size, estrogen levels, etc. [1] This was NOT a long-term study. This study concluded after 110 days, meaning none of the subjects were even close to starting puberty, let alone finishing it. We have no idea what the effects will be on their sexual development, and since this study wasn't meant to measure such a thing, we never will. Conclusion: For the purposes of this debate, this study proves nothing Study 10 This is the only long-term study done on humans. This is not a good thing, because Results were self-reported via a phone survey, not from actual testing on hormone levels During the study “The actual photoestrogen content of the infant formulas was not measured.” The study caught up with them at age 8, but not again until around age 30, meaning the subjects had their entire teenage (developing) years to not consume soy, and all sorts of other things that could skew the results that we will never know of. The study itself admits that it found “a tendency for sedentary activities (P=.77 for men...)” [2] -- which is a strong indicator of low-T [3][4] [5]. A .77 correlation is HUGE by the way. The correlation between arm size and isometric arm strength is only 0.23 [6]. No real numbers immediately dash this study's credibility. A reliance on self-reporting over the phone allows for ego-based lying and poor memory to skew the results, and this study actually gives strong reason to believe that the soy-fed group did go on to have lower T levels. In fact, with a correlation of .77 for sedentary lifestyles, it is virtually certain that real numbers would show this. Conclusion: For Con, this study is at best inconclusive and a worst in support of my position, not Con's. Study 11 This study is only available after purchase ($42), so this study can't say much in this debate. We don't know how much isoflavone was given This study went for about 6 months, not long enough for us to see the effects on development (since puberty would still over a decade off from starting) The only measures of high-estrogen in males used where breast-tissue growth and bone age. This study showed that after roughly six months, baby boys didn't grow breast tissue and their “bone age” was within the norm [7]. That's good, but it misses that mark this debate is meant to hit. Conclusion: Not enough information on this study for a real analysis, but assuming the abstract is an accurate representation, this study also doesn't prove either side here one way or the other. I'm not the only one who has brought up these issues. Many other scientists have noted that there's very few studies on the effects of soy on humans, especially long-term (there's only 1 that's actually long-term enough to be relevant here), however “Given the limited evidence for the health effects of soy isoflavones in infants, pediatric and health organizations in several countries suggest caution in feeding soy to infants and young children.” [8]. This is because the evidence we do have in infant soy feedings suggests negative effects. Infant Marmoset Study This study (done on monkeys) showed that subjects fed milk formula as infants had “mean testosterone levels of 2.8-3.1 ng/ml, typical of the 'neonatal testosterone rise” [9]. The soy-fed marmosets clocked in at 1.2-2.6., upwards of a 70% reduction in free testosterone [10]. It's worth mentioning that it is, in fact, the case that infants are more susceptible to phytoestrogens than adults: “Exposure to estrogenic compounds may pose a developmental hazard to infants... Since the available evidence suggests that infants can digest and absorb dietary phytoestrogens in active forms and since neonates are generally more susceptible than adults to perturbations of the sex steroid milieu...” [11] It's also worth mentioning that it is necessary to keep tabs on your subjects during and post puberty, as Sally Fallon (nutrition journalist and food historian) noted in “The Ploy of Soy”: “You don't see the results or the effects until he reaches puberty.” [12]. This article in particular is a wealth of information on the dangers of soy, including: “The use of soy formula has caused zinc deficiency in infants” “a recent study of infants fed soy formula found that these infants had concentrations of estrogen compounds in their blood 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than babies on milk-based formula or breast milk.” “soy foods block calcium and cause vitamin D deficiencies” etc. She's not a face-less e-doctor, either. She's an outspoken critic of soy [13]. I would also like to direct your attention to a recent video [14] made outlining the more recent findings in the soy controversy, including statics like how, according to Dr. Mercola in his 2011 article: “infants fed soy formula take in an estimated three to five birth control pills’ worth of estrogen every day...” [15]. Funny enough, it looks like processed soy is actually more potent, in contradiction to what Con's been insinuating. I'd like to point out that soy consumption (specifically via tofu) has recently shown that “in men, high levels of tofu were associated with low cognition scores.” [16] EliteFTS Finally, elitefts.com (home to several world-record holders in feats of strength [17]) did an extensive annotated bibliography on a dozen studies comparing the effects of soy protein and whey protein. The bibliography concludes, “My research has definitely shown me to never recommend soy protein supplementation to a male athlete who wants to increase muscle mass. Even if soy were superior for hypertrophy, it would not be worth significantly lowering serum testosterone levels. Soy did not even exhibit the anti-oxidant properties of whey on trained animals. The choice seems simple.” [18] Bringing it all Together In every animal study ever done, we've seen that soy is detrimental to the development of males. The studies Con brought up are famously considered inadequete for the reasons I've listed. You'll notive that nearly all the sources given in this debate, every scientist is urging for more human studies with more percise controls and better follow-up procedure. This is because the latest and most accurate data we have strongly suggests that soy is detrimental, while none of the studies suggesting the opposite have had a satifying enough methodology for scientists to comfortably say soy is safe. Therefore, at this point it is clear that soy is detrimental to the development of young men. The resolution is affirmed.VOTE PRO Sources http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://www.youtube.com... [video] http://www.youtube.com... [video] http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...