Every once and awhile, I go specifically hunting for snarky assholes so I can be a pesky little cunt. Am I proud of this? Well, that depends on the outcome, I suppose.
This was a rare instance where I will say that yes, I am proud of being a snarky little cunt, because I had a very pleasant conversation with someone that eats meat that, for whatever reason, left a shitty comment on one of my dumbdumb vegan instagram groups. Most of those have been unfollowed by me because they promote bad science and holistic hokum and man, it's fucking hard enough being a vegan without schlock like that out there, with airheaded vegans reading the bullshit and just disseminating it because why bother checking a fact when instagram says it's true??
Anyway, this person made it a point to seek out a vegan instagram community and comment to stop eating soy and start eating meat. Very original, obviously, vegans haven't heard that ever before ever. I told him he needed to stop being indignant and go read some science, he responded by mocking my statement (fair enough), and I must have been in a good mood, because I responded by apologizing for being a cunt to someone with as dazzling an intellect as he had (so I maybe wasn't wholly done being cunt-adjacent), and I would love to start a dialogue with him regarding the science of soy. I could send him studies, I could send him videos breaking studies down, I could send a meta analysis, whatever he wanted. And he said sure, he'd read whatever I sent.
So, assuming that I'd send something and he'd either brush it off with fart jokes or worse, he'd just ignore it completely, I found a meta analysis done in 2010 and sent that to him, and I just kind of want to put our entire conversation on the blog (I won't put his name, though, because that shit isn't cool), because it's my blog and I want to.
Me: Here's a meta analysis of the effects of phytoestrogens on men. I don't know if you have access to PubMed, so I sent you a screenshot of the abstract, the methods, and the outcomes for you.
Them: Thank you! I especially appreciate your use of a government website. I will read the article as soon as I have time.
(sidebar: I thought he was being obnoxious, and I was about to get an earful of government conspiracies, and BIG SOY propaganda)
Me: I'll read any studies you've got to the contrary, so send them along when you've got time. :) Happy to start a dialogue!
(sidebar: and I was, because his initial response made me cautiously optimistic he'd engage me thoughtfully)
Him: Related, but not on topic:
This is the article he sent me, assessed later.
Me: I'm on my way home right now, i'll check that out as soon as I'm there.
Him: Ok, I have this next one, and then I'll look on Google Scholar.
Him:
The article he sent me, addressed first.
Him: The only study involving human males is the one first mentioned, though I read a note that there was a major outlier that skewed the results a bit. I concluded that testosterone production is affected by soy, but the amounts can vary greatly, especially depending on the amount of consumption and regional genetics (Asians and those of Asian descent are less likely to see adverse side effects).
Me: I was really hoping I could open this message on the website so I could type! I just read the Men's Health article, I haven't read anything else yet, but I will. My issues with the Men's Health article are as follows: it is anecdotal, and even then, a singular case study doesn't really do much to prove (or disprove) a point. It doesn't account for variables outside of phytoestrogens, like low testosterone (which can account for drastic changes in hormone production), so that story is circumstantial at best, but realistically questionable as irrefutable evidence of phytoestrogens being radically dangerous for men. Moreover, I found the study the article references, just so I could give you the benefit of the doubt. The case study is older than the meta analysis I sent you, and with research, that matters. That case study is a factor in the meta analysis research findings, and the conclusions are still that soy is not a danger to men. Additionally, the language in the case study itself concludes that that gentleman's case was "a rare and unusual case of gynecomastia related to ingestion of soy products" (Martinez and Lewi, 2008). That his case was not the norm, and is not the norm. I'm going to look for the other studies the article references, because there are no actual references cited to back up the claims at the conclusion of the article.
Him: I agree that the Men's Health article was a bit...much. But it showed the result of an extreme consumption of soy products. And alright, I look forward to reading what you find. I had difficulty finding human specific studies.
Me: Yeah, what kind of sucks is the misinformation about how damaging soy is comes from a study done with lambs. And because their digestive structures are vastly different than ours, we can't really compare their reaction to (absolutely insane amounts of!) soy to how our bodies react. So like, people who say that soy is disruptive to the body aren't necessarily wrong, they're just....they're disruptive to the bodies of sheep.
Him: I know! And there are several with rats, too. I just avoid animal studies for human issues on principle so it won't affect my view of it. Though regional genetic difference in humans can widely effect how we process food, too.
Me: I know. Science is wacky that way. One of the things the article referenced was a study done with rats and phytoestrogens that I'm actually familiar with, and the article wildly misrepresents and mischaracterizes the data.
Me: Oh, for sure. And that could easily account for the man's sensitivity to soy and his onset of enlarged breast tissue and elevated estrogen levels.
Him: Exactly!
Me: However, regional differences are generally not SO deviated from the norm as to sway the overall findings that hard. There are exceptions to this, of course, but I'm not sure this is one of them.
Him: Of course, but typically enough to discourage blanket statements. I read another article on the ability for humans to digest animal milk, and it was found that people of northern European descent are much more suited to it than others. Asians, for example.
(I am curious about this study, I will be looking it up)
Me: I'm not sure I'll be able to find this JAMA 2001 study easily...they don't give the title or its authors. It should be noted again, though, that it pre-dates the meta analysis, so I'm wary of Men's Health skewing the data presentation. And yeah, actually, my husband told me about a study in a similar vein. Something about alcohol and that it's far more difficult for certain kinds of Asians to process alcohol efficiently. Their body has what is tantamount to an allergic reaction. It sounded wild. I should find that. I found a longitudinal study on soy formula published in 2001. This might be what the article is referencing.
Him: Ok, cool.
Me: Ok, so the full study text is fucking difficult to track down. I can only find two summations of it
(what follows is a set of two photos of the summations)
Me: Interestingly, the outcome is worse for women, but only vaguely, and only just barely.
Him: That's a similar point made by the Harvard article, as well.
Me: I found the 2005 study the article references, as well. The study isn't even about if soy is bad for you, just about what synthesizes more efficiently, soy or casein. They can quote the findings that soy is secondary to casein and be correct, but it's not even tangentially related to the question of soy's impact on hormonal health.
Him: That's just bad.
Me: I haven't gotten to the Harvard article yet. I didn't want to dismiss the Men's Health article out of hand without checking up on what it cites, because that's not really fair to you, or terribly respectful of you.
(sidebar: that is a fucking LIE. I SO wanted to dismiss that shit the second I saw the url)
Him: Ok, that's fine. And thank you! I really appreciate it, though I included it mostly to make note of an extreme case.
Me: No worries! I think there's only one more study they referenced, and I'm reading it right now. Right off the bat, this study is being done on males already experiencing fertility problems, and the data collection methods are questionable. Biology may not be my academic jam, but psychology is, and this study relies on self-reporting. Human memory is notoriously unreliable, as a general rule. Even giving THAT the benefit of the doubt, the estimates they collect for isoflavone measurements in the diets are guesstimates. Uh, I should probably give you the
study, sorry, I got ahead of myself.
Him: You're fine, and I completely agree with you. And they're average guesstimates, at that.
Me: So, of all the things I've read, this is the only study that presented data tables, and that's great. It's also the only one that accounts for variables outside of soy ingestion, and as it did find a difference, I'd say this is the closest thing to solid evidence I can understand the article using. That being said, the difference is not statistically significant. It's correlative, which may seem damming, but it isn't causitive. The study goes on to state instead that overall, soy and isoflavone intake increase sperm count rather than deplete it. Again, thought, correlative and not gospel.
Him: There's a lot of that in these studies. It's very frustrating.
Me: Well, there just isn't enough long term data for us to tell, unless you make the studies explicitly Asian, and that would obvious skew the results.
Him: I know, I've seen.
Me: I will fully concede that there is not enough long term data for me to say concretely that ingestion of soy is 100% safe forever and all eternity. But I would also say that about cell phone use, or computer use, or any number of relatively new things we use to excess without thinking about it. given the information we have now about soy and its effects on the human body, though, I personally feel fairly confident about it.
Him: Without conclusive evidence, it's hard to say one way or another, I agree with you. We're at an impasse, for lack of data.
(sidebar: I do want to say that I do not think we are at an impasse, I think the data is very fucking much in my favor, but I mean, the conversation is going to well, so rather than press and deny, or confirm and stay in his good graces, I switched topics)
Me: Can I ask you a question that I promise is not me being snarky or shitty, I am genuinely seeking out your thoughts because I'm interested in them.
Him: Of course! Ask away!
Me: Well wait, first. Am I correct in assuming you are not a vegetarian or a vegan?
Him: You are completely correct.
Me: Also, that Harvard write up seems pretty fair, barring what studies I can find from their article. I wish they had cited their sources, too, but it'll take me next to no time to dig those up.
Him: I thought so, too, especially because they didn't seem to have a bias and addressed both sides of the issue.
Me: Alright, so, does it concern you at all, regarding your particular concerns about soy ingestion as I understand them, that a very large percentage of soy production is fed to factory farm animals that you ingest? Particularly given how animals with digestive tracts similar to sheep have responded to soy?
Me: Again, I can't stress enough that I'm not trying to bait you, or trick you into something. I'm genuinely asking. And I will also say, in the interest of full disclosure, that I cannot find a single study showing how much phytoestrogens you are actually consuming as a byproduct of eating an animal that consumes it directly. The exposure could be minimal, but it could also be a great deal of accidental ingestion. I guess I'm just curious if the thought ever crossed your mind.
Him: Cows and sheep are very different animals, and while I'm sure there are similarities as they are both ruminants, they are different. Food intake takes several more digestive levels than ours, rendering soy or corn or whatever into an effectively new product. Though I do prefer grass fed to the average offering.
Me: I'd be interested in reading any definitive studies done on that, because I cannot find a single one regarding expression of phytoestrogens in cow milk, or any kind of animal meat (like pork. Pigs are monogastric, just like us, so it could spell trouble for latent expression). Without sounding insulting, I have to take your answer as a best guess, for now. And in fairness, my assumption that it's an issue at all is also a best guess. I have no idea if it is or not.
him: It is, and an educated guess at best, you're correct in assuming that. It comes from a small background in agricultural studies, an intense interest in everything science, and an in-depth love of food. Also, I considered the fact that when an animal digests food, the nutrients are synthesized to best fit its needs, changing original proteins, lipids, and other substances into different usable chemicals. A simple example of this is the fact that we don't get plant proteins when we eat beef.
(I...Ok. I'll just let that go)
Me: I think the thing that might be different with isoflavones is how they bond, though, and how that bond distributes itself through the body. Biochem isn't my area, though. Neither is biology.
Him: I can't say for sure, either. I'm also not one for chemistry.
Me: I will say that I didn't expect this conversation to last this long, and while I may not have thrown them in your face, I apologize for any preconceived notions I had on how this chat would play out.
Him: You have every right to have them, there are plenty of people who share my side that absolutely deserve them. In fairness, I had some similarly for you, too. There are far too many vegans that readily spew garbage and propaganda at the slightest nudge. I assume you're vegan?
Me: I am. And I will say that an alarming amount of the vegan community of instagram...man, that's shooting fish in a barrel. They'll believe anything a vegan page puts out there. I haven't met any of the vitriolic vegans that a lot of people talk about, but I'm on their side, so I guess I wouldn't.
And now, we are talking story and just chatting like normal humans, and this is the kind of shit that makes me pleased to engage people with different views than mine. It hasn't been often, in my limited experience, that someone is absolutely willing to ingest the info you give them and figure out what's going on without just blaring their opinion in your face with startling volume and background noise. This was definitely a surprise, and a welcome one, at that.
Thanks for being a decent bro, instagram stranger. I really fucking appreciated the ability to talk it out. Even though....I mean. I still feel like the data makes me the most right out of the two of us.