Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

#21

Post by 0xff00ffee »

snapetom wrote: post #16
0xff00ffee wrote: post #10

On one hand: YAY SCIENCE AND DATA! On the other hand: Ahhhh, figs. The sample size is incredibly small (n=35), but it appears to be a well-constructed & controlled study. This merits further investigation. And that's exactly what the abstract ends with. My husband and I switched to soy milk about 15 years ago. Anecdote, he had his testosterone tested recently and it was fairly high [he's completely bald], I have not…

Larger sample sizes increase the possibility of Type II errors. Too small versus too large is a common line researchers walk. n=35 is completely reasonable and common in this type of study.

Really? Huh. I thought confidence interval mattered which is proportional to sample size, e.g. bigger is always better.

So more samples is worse for a study like this?

Seems counter-intuitive, but I'm not a stats guy.

Re: Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

#22

Post by rjzzleep »

jknoepfler wrote: post #11

Please use the actual title, you hype-mongering bullshit-scare-mongering assholes. Also here's the abstract for anyone so stupid as to comment before reading: Inverse associations between soy and prostate cancer and the contribution of hormones to prostate cancer prompted the current study to determine whether soy protein could alter serum hormones in men. Thirty-five men consumed milk protein isolate (MPI), low-isof…

I'm puzzled at how your comment is not flagged with the words you chose.

What effects reduced DHT may or may not have on the body doesn't actually invalidate the title does it?

To quote you:

> In conclusion, soy protein, regardless of isoflavone content, decreased DHT and DHT/testosterone

And then the conclusion about effects being unclear:

> The relevance of the magnitude of these effects ... requires further investigation

So as long as a person is on the right side of the spectrum they can insult and namecall anyone they like? That can't possibly be news.ycombinator.com's policy or justifiable in any way.

There's another person talking about meta analysis invalidating this, but instead of posting the meta analysis there's just two ad hominem attacks. Seriously?

Re: Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

#23

Post by [deleted] »

rjzzleep wrote: post #22
jknoepfler wrote: post #11

Please use the actual title, you hype-mongering bullshit-scare-mongering assholes. Also here's the abstract for anyone so stupid as to comment before reading: Inverse associations between soy and prostate cancer and the contribution of hormones to prostate cancer prompted the current study to determine whether soy protein could alter serum hormones in men. Thirty-five men consumed milk protein isolate (MPI), low-isof…

I'm puzzled at how your comment is not flagged with the words you chose. What effects reduced DHT may or may not have on the body doesn't actually invalidate the title does it? To quote you: > In conclusion, soy protein, regardless of isoflavone content, decreased DHT and DHT/testosterone And then the conclusion about effects being unclear: > The relevance of the magnitude of these effects ... requires further invest…

[deleted]

Re: Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

#24

Post by jknoepfler »

rjzzleep wrote: post #22
jknoepfler wrote: post #11

Please use the actual title, you hype-mongering bullshit-scare-mongering assholes. Also here's the abstract for anyone so stupid as to comment before reading: Inverse associations between soy and prostate cancer and the contribution of hormones to prostate cancer prompted the current study to determine whether soy protein could alter serum hormones in men. Thirty-five men consumed milk protein isolate (MPI), low-isof…

I'm puzzled at how your comment is not flagged with the words you chose. What effects reduced DHT may or may not have on the body doesn't actually invalidate the title does it? To quote you: > In conclusion, soy protein, regardless of isoflavone content, decreased DHT and DHT/testosterone And then the conclusion about effects being unclear: > The relevance of the magnitude of these effects ... requires further invest…

This forum has an unambiguous policy on post titles that link to research articles. Do you object to that policy? Do you think the peer-reviewed journal's editors were somehow inaccurate in the choice of article titles they used, or do you think (just maybe?) that the strengthening of the title's conclusions was done to generate sensational click-bait?

Re: Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

#25

Post by jknoepfler »

vertig0h wrote: post #17
geofft wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This user, 'vertig0h, has submitted three articles to HN since joining five days ago. One is an article from conservative site National Review against racial quotas. Their first comment on this site was arguing that the US should have Huawei-style backdoors into network equipment manufactured in the US because the US is good. They are a radical conservative pushing an agenda and should not be trusted.

Just because you don't like the content I post doesn't invalidate it. If you have specific disagreements with the content you should post some comments and I'm sure we can have a respectful discussion. I'm concerned about underappreciated effects of soy consumption, so I've posted a link to a legitimate study on the subject. I'm not sure why that's causing some people so much distress.

you're a fucking shill, abide by forum policy or go home.

Re: Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

#26

Post by pulisse »

For what it's worth, the finding in TFA doesn't seem to have held up: "Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis"[1].

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001502820...

Re: Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

#28

Post by diab0lic »

ArcVRArthur wrote: post #27

Why was this flagged?

I would also like to know why. I suspect because it has strong potential for controversial tangents. That said I and I suspect others am highly interested in the effects of proteins I consume. I know I avoided soy for a long time because of this study but have now suspected for years (and the current research seems to support this) that there is little concern with soy as a protein source with regards to testosterone levels.

Re: Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

#29

Post by vertig0h »

geofft wrote: post #20
vertig0h wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you don't like the content I post doesn't invalidate it. If you have specific disagreements with the content you should post some comments and I'm sure we can have a respectful discussion. I'm concerned about underappreciated effects of soy consumption, so I've posted a link to a legitimate study on the subject. I'm not sure why that's causing some people so much distress.

By the way, here's a scientific study (the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health) showing a correlation between IQ and political ideology: https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/Kana... It's a legitimate study, so I hope you have no distress over it.

[flagged]

Re: Soy protein exerts minor effects on reproductive hormones in young men (2005)

#30

Post by snapetom »

0xff00ffee wrote: post #21
snapetom wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Larger sample sizes increase the possibility of Type II errors. Too small versus too large is a common line researchers walk. n=35 is completely reasonable and common in this type of study.

Really? Huh. I thought confidence interval mattered which is proportional to sample size, e.g. bigger is always better. So more samples is worse for a study like this? Seems counter-intuitive, but I'm not a stats guy.

For things like polling, yes. Bigger is better. But scientific studies deal with the question "does this have an effect." In that aspect, you introduce Type I and Type II errors, and sample sizes play into the chances of making them.
Post reply on HN