. You're getting way more estrogen and hormones in that milk and cheese you're consuming, just a heads up. Soy doesn't contain estrogen, it contains phytoestrogens. Our bodies can handle consuming a bit of estrogen (see below - literally no measurable effect) - they can't really deal with phytoestrogens. likely due to elevated levels of estrogen Do you even have any idea what "likely due to" in this context means? It means they didn't actually test that hypothesis. They're just guessing. (And they are almost certainly wrong. Other studies - see below - provide actual evidence that their guess is wrong.) These kinds of superficial correlation studies (i.e. ones that don't actually understand and test the underlying mechanisms at work) may be a stepping stone in scientific progress
Tyler Durden considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Wolf Richter writes Now Even a Fed Dove Homes in on the “Everything Bubble”
Robert Murphy writes I’m Genuinely Asking
David Bier writes The /Day Standard & Other Problems with DHS’s Public Charge Rule
Daniel Wong writes Congrats! Canadians Just Set a New Record for Borrowing Against their Homes
You're getting way more estrogen and hormones in that milk and cheese you're consuming, just a heads up.
Soy doesn't contain estrogen, it contains phytoestrogens. Our bodies can handle consuming a bit of estrogen (see below - literally no measurable effect) - they can't really deal with phytoestrogens.
likely due to elevated levels of estrogen
Do you even have any idea what "likely due to" in this context means? It means they didn't actually test that hypothesis. They're just guessing. (And they are almost certainly wrong. Other studies - see below - provide actual evidence that their guess is wrong.)
These kinds of superficial correlation studies (i.e. ones that don't actually understand and test the underlying mechanisms at work) may be a stepping stone in scientific progress (i.e. point out some ideas for what studies should be done next), but in terms of being a source of nutrition advice they are worse than useless - they are frequently used to deceive people into bad dietary choices that fuck up their health.
For example, there are plenty of studies that say "too much" vitamin D3 will cause all kinds of problems - atherosclerosis, kidney stones, etc. And every one of them measured a real-world correlation, and every one of them is worse than useless for nutrition advice because they do not point out that the problem they are actually seeing is not "too much D3" but "not enough K2". (D3 helps transport calcium from the digestive tract to the bloodstream. K2 helps transport it from there to places like bones and teeth. If you just dump the calcium in the bloodstream and then leave it hanging, it builds up on arterial walls and in your kidneys among other places. Unfortunately, meats which used to be great sources of K2 are now lacking in it because of the unnatural diets typically used to feed livestock.)
The same thing happens with iodine. People who start taking iodine supplements can run into serious problems, even when taking modest amounts. The problem isn't too much iodine though, it's typically too little selenium. (The body uses selenium to process iodine. In people who previously had an iodine deficiency, their bodies try to process every bit of iodine they consume until their levels are back to normal. If inadequate amounts of selenium are left over after processing the iodine, then you start suffering the effects of selenium deficiency.)
There are multitudes of other examples of these kinds of interactions. (E.g., I previously made a post in this thread [comment is on 2nd page] about a similar relation between sodium and potassium. There's also zinc and copper... omega-3 oils and omega-6 oils... etc.) There are even ones involving meat and cancer... and chlorophyll. (I don't recall the type of cancer off hand, but the deal was eating more red meat increased the odds of getting a certain type of cancer... unless you were also eating sufficient green-leafy things containing chlorophyll, in which case the correlation vanished.)
So just because they measured a correlation between meat (and milk and cheese) and some types of cancer, that means very little for an individual whose diet doesn't correlate well with that of the subjects in the study. (In a well done study with diets representative of a population the study can have statistical meaning for representative groups, but just like the D3 supplement studies which mean jack shit to someone getting adequate K2, such studies may be an absolutely unsound basis for making dietary choices for a lot of individuals.) And of course, that's all just an aside because their comment about estrogen's involvement was an (uneducated and almost certainly wrong) guess.
As this study points out, "estrogen levels in prostate fluid are also correlated very well with...prostate cancer."
Which means absolutely nothing unless there is also a correlation between consumed estrogen and estrogen levels in the prostate. Just assuming there is such a correlation is not valid.
Unlike the much more problematic phytoestrogens found in soy, true estrogen, even at fairly high concentrations (high compared to nature, including compared to milk from pregnant cows, not compared to something like birth-control pills) is easily removed by the body so it never hits the bloodstream. Now how could I possibly know that? Oh yeah, someone actually did the science: "In experiments on mice, even at concentrations 100 times higher than milk from pregnant cows, blood hormone levels and reproductive organs were unaffected by dietary estrogens"
Can the same be said about soy? Can you consume 100 times the amount of phytoestrogens found in, say, soy milk and still have it have no measurable impact? No. In fact, even at its normal 1x amount of phytoestrogens, soy milk is effectively toxic: "Tests further revealed that estrogen levels in his bloodstream were eight times higher than the normal limits for men, higher even than the levels typically seen in healthy women."
Now that guy was drinking a lot of soy milk (about 3 quarts a day by his estimation), but that is also a really huge impact. (And yes, cutting soy from his diet dropped his levels down to normal.) It's possible that one guy was impacted more than the average person would be, but there is plenty of scientific evidence out there relating soy consumption to, for instance, reduced reproductive capacity.
Of course, the FDA is still extolling the virtues of soy saying that it can extend your life. Well, of course it can! Women live longer than men, and soy turns men into women!*
*Not real women.