Soy is Detrimental to the Development of Young Men

In this debate, my opponent has not shown any correlations. He has not understood what phytoestrogen even does, contradicting himself three times in three rounds. He is no longer making a big case out of the notion that if a lot of a food is bad for you, then eating that food in moderation must be bad for you. Apparently he's "not conceding the other points", which is problematic since he refuses to engage with them. Instead, he wants this to be all about the science, even if he cannot provide a coherent mechanism to explain it, and if he cannot show any other data to correlate it with.I find it amazing that my opponent can bring up 18 all-new pieces of evidence and about a dozen entirely new arguments in the final round, but I'll roll with it. Please don't penalize me if I bring up new evidence in response to totally new evidence.Scotland studyThis is where I proved that soy milk presents zero harm to adult men. When my opponent agreed with this, I extended that by saying the receptors in children are no different from adults. My opponent has failed to show why kids would react differently from adults.I also provided an excellent study showing that if anything, kids react BETTER to soy because they cannot metabolize phytoestrogen so well. This has been where my opponent has directed his attention. To "counter" this study, he cites a different study conducted around a decade earlier, saying that they are "more susceptible" to the sex hormones. First, that relies on them actually metabolising them, which they cannot do so well. And second, we now have empirical evidence that they are not "more susceptible", because just like adults, kids who drink soy don't turn out any different than kids who drink milk [1]. The differing results come about because pro's study looks at concentration, mine total absorption. Moreover, there is convincing evidence collected at the same time as my opponent's study that the isoflavones have the opposite effect in children's estrogen levels [2].The authors of that study concluded:"In the absence of practical examples to support adverse effects of soy-based infant formulas, despite their use for > 30 y, it could be argued that long-term benefits may ensue from infant exposure to soy-based formulas containing isoflavones because this could confer protection later in life against hormone-dependent diseases. In this regard, we speculate that the low incidence of hormone-dependent diseases in China and Japan, where soy is a staple, may in part be a consequence of a lifetime exposure to phytoestrogens from the traditional diet." [2]Oh, and Fallon's article? She doesn't have any credentials at all (anyone can legally call themselves a "nutritionist"), other than that she wrote a book which presents more or less the same evidence as pro has in this debate. She's never done any primary research herself.Ultimately the question is whether studies on human adults or lab rats are better suited to determine the effects of soy on youth. Remember that I've also shown a number of meta-analyses that show where the preponderance of evidence really lies.Ohio Studyaka #9. Pro says it doesn't measure hormone stats. True, but that's not the only aspect of sexual development. The Ohio study basically proves that they did not have stunted growth or any other outward signs of retarded development.If "during puberty" is the only time my opponent thinks it's bad to eat soy, then that's a huge limitation on when it's apparently "detrimental" in some way that we haven't seen before. However, this also disproves my opponent's animal studies being relevant to humans, such as the one about muscle protein in pigs pro cited two rounds ago, since humans did NOT have the same effects.Italy studyaka #10. My opponent is right that it didn't measure hormone levels. What it measured was SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT independent of hormone levels, and it found that it's the same with and without soy. While it did not relate to soy consumption in adolescence, it proves that childhood consumption has no effect on adolescence. That's probably because adult hormone levels don't set in until after adolescence. If anything, hormones usually get stuffed up in adolescence, so hormone regulators like soy can help keep them under control.While a survey, it also checked their medical records [4] so the participants couldn't exactly lie..77 correlation is not huge, it's tiny. Lower is better for p-values, and anything above 0.05 is not normally considered significant [3]. Although this conclusion my opponent draws about T-levels is wrong, my opponent has yet to show ANY harm of a low T-value outside of sexual development (which soy does NOT affect), nor can he explain why soy would even affect T-values, since it only regulates estrogen.Italy study #2aka #11. I do have access to this study, and it's pretty good. However, my opponent concedes what it proves: young boys are not feminized. If he thinks the SERMs will stick around until puberty and then magically activate, he better provide some evidence. So far he has provided none.He claims "the evidence we do have in infant soy feedings suggests negative effects." Not even his source claims that - in fact, his source ends by suggesting soy isn't even bioactive. This study directly contradicts that.Infant Marmoset StudyAfter I proved that infants develop normally and my opponent tried to restrict the debate to just adolescents, he cites a study about the infant development of chimps. If human babies fed soy develop normally at least until adolescence and monkey babies do not, then that proves what I've been saying all along - different species interact differently with SERMs.Dr MercolaDr Mercola is the very same guy who relies on "slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics" to make "unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations" [6]. My opponent speaks of this guy like he's ever done any research into soy at all. He has not - even Dr Phil is more qualified to speak about soy. He published this article right before promoting his own artificial breastmilk alternative.EliteFTSThis meta-analysis found that soy is no worse than whey at building muscle. While it did make some conclusions about T-levels, since soy doesn't hurt an athlete's ability to build muscle, this isn't detrimental either.Pro also does not show why not being a top athlete is "detrimental." Taking vitamins won't build muscle, but that doesn't mean they're detrimental.SummaryThis debate is not all about the research, although it's the only thing pro has anything on at the end of the debate. But let me explain why I think the research supports me.I gave you six independent, peer-reviewed studies, including two meta-analyses of over 30 other studies, proving that soy is safe in people. Pro has given no reason why this should not be true for children.Pro gave you many studies that soy is harmful to animals. I showed in depth WHY these studies cannot be applied to humans.The question we should be asking is - what animal is a human child most close to? A human of course! Which is why despite the fact that we've had soy for 50+ years, soy-fed kids are developing normally. And it's why all the studies on human children support my position.And teens? That's a crazy hypothesis my opponent had. He presented no research to back it up, and not even a reason why it might be true.The actual science is still very much on my side.If that's what matters, then I think it's clear where the evidence is. If not, then pro has essentially conceded.Vote con.Sources1 - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...2 - http://ajcn.nutrition.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://jama.jamanetwork.com...5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...