You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
My views on Soybean/Soya Chunks
- Thread starter te15
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fitness food/nutrition 🥚🥦
@ngocthanh2015 Yes, but the question is to what extent?
We cannot compare overnight soaking of soya chunks to overnight soaking of chickpeas/dal. Because of the high amount of anti nutrients present in Soya chunks.
Also, soaking reduces the protein and vitamin mineral content of soy as well. (the amount may vary from type of soy product and how it is manufactured). An example of study conducted on soybean flour for effects of soaking. (source: Aurelie Solange Ntso Agume et al 2017)
https://preview.redd.it/cm0dm9j32g4...bp&s=825dcaaf6cf7f340d47d9a7a745d4a5a8c1f10a8
So to conclude, you want to have soy for the protein content, in order to make it more digestible and reduce the antinutrient load, you will soak, cook, roast it. If you don't soak/cook for long enough hours the antinutrients will not be reduced significantly. If you do it for long hours it will also take away the protein content and also harm the protein quality because on exposure to heat for longer duration, the amino acids get damaged.
And to top all of this, your body will absorb only 70% of that protein.
Not worth it.
Better to have less protein than soy protein. [Volek (PMID: 24015719) ]
We cannot compare overnight soaking of soya chunks to overnight soaking of chickpeas/dal. Because of the high amount of anti nutrients present in Soya chunks.
Also, soaking reduces the protein and vitamin mineral content of soy as well. (the amount may vary from type of soy product and how it is manufactured). An example of study conducted on soybean flour for effects of soaking. (source: Aurelie Solange Ntso Agume et al 2017)
https://preview.redd.it/cm0dm9j32g4...bp&s=825dcaaf6cf7f340d47d9a7a745d4a5a8c1f10a8
So to conclude, you want to have soy for the protein content, in order to make it more digestible and reduce the antinutrient load, you will soak, cook, roast it. If you don't soak/cook for long enough hours the antinutrients will not be reduced significantly. If you do it for long hours it will also take away the protein content and also harm the protein quality because on exposure to heat for longer duration, the amino acids get damaged.
And to top all of this, your body will absorb only 70% of that protein.
Not worth it.
Better to have less protein than soy protein. [Volek (PMID: 24015719) ]
@te15
>However in case of Soy, the isoflavones In fact become more potent, more bioavailable. Which in turn makes their goitrogenic and estrogenic effects more potent.
Plant estrogen has no negative effect on humans. You are a human.
>Have milk, low fat paneer, dahi, Greek yogurt.
Cow milk actually has estrogen. What about people who are lactose intolerant? Friend, never be overconfident. Are you a MOD in this subreddit? It's been 3 months of this post, have you learned anything new?
which not only affect the digestion of various micronutrients but also pose a negative effect on reproductive hormones and thyroid hormone.
False news
>However in case of Soy, the isoflavones In fact become more potent, more bioavailable. Which in turn makes their goitrogenic and estrogenic effects more potent.
Plant estrogen has no negative effect on humans. You are a human.
>Have milk, low fat paneer, dahi, Greek yogurt.
Cow milk actually has estrogen. What about people who are lactose intolerant? Friend, never be overconfident. Are you a MOD in this subreddit? It's been 3 months of this post, have you learned anything new?
@mercymaid Please provide evidence or point me towards limitations in the evidence I shared. I will be more than happy to have a civil discussion.
Yes it has estrogen and for some it might be problematic, the timing of when a cow is milked also influences the amount of estorgen it will have.
Those who are lactose intolerant need to have whey isolate or pea + rice protein powder.
Yes it has estrogen and for some it might be problematic, the timing of when a cow is milked also influences the amount of estorgen it will have.
Those who are lactose intolerant need to have whey isolate or pea + rice protein powder.
@te15 There are much evidence. Please google. Here is one
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383165/
>Neither soy nor isoflavone intake affects male reproductive hormones: An expanded and updated meta-analysis of clinical studies
On youtube
https://youtu.be/C8dfiDeJeDU?feature=shared
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383165/
>Neither soy nor isoflavone intake affects male reproductive hormones: An expanded and updated meta-analysis of clinical studies
On youtube
https://youtu.be/C8dfiDeJeDU?feature=shared
@te15 Problems with this view.
Firstly, the Avilés-Gaxiola Sara et al article initially gives a table on the TI content on the raw beans/legumes. Yes it is high for soya. But if you read through it talks in great detail about a process called extrusion which is a process known to reduce anti-nutrient content as well as maintain the nutritional profile. This process has helped even "hard-to-cook" legumes to be consumed as a snack. The process which is an essential step in the manufacturing of soya chunks. So by the process itself, soya chunks have significantly less amount of anti-nutrients by virtue of the process by which it is made. So to bracket soy beans and soya chunks together and making a case for high Trypsin inhibitors by citing an article that actually talks about reviewing the methods for reducing anti-nutrient content was uncalled for.
Secondly, the other studies cited with a one sentence heading lifted from the abstract that is freely available in
PubMed or Scopus or wherever they are indexed is just bad search strategy.
Volek et al article had a high drop out rate which is termed attrition bias when critically reviewing RCTs. The final list of participants who completed the actually test was just 19 to 22 people in each group. The derivation of statistical significance from such a small sample size is in of itself faulty. The gains in lean body mass which they derived here were in the context of body fat and the authors themselves are saying it in the article. Even for the correlation with maximal strength, the authors claim it could also be partly attributed to neural adaptations
Again the Kraemer et al article the authors themselves give a disclaimer as to the majority of evidence from previous research which points to no consensus on the role of isoflavones in reducing testosterone. Then the following articles like Goodin et al and Thorpe et al were done in the context of prostate cancer and to see if soy supplementation can reduce serum testosterone which is a biomarker for prostate cancer. The Goodin et al study themselves mention the Thorpe et al study to have used a significantly high isoflavone content for their study purpose. They also cite several studies which did not find any correlation between serum testosterone and soy isoflavones.
And citing very ancient literature just because they were an RCT which would have been subsequently proved/disproved through later systematic reviews is to, quote Deadpool, just lazy writing. Seriously a 1991 Ishizuki article on the goitrogenic effect of soy???
Which brings me to, finally Free Androgen Index is an obsolete measurement which has now been disowned by the Endocrine Society.
I am not advocating for soya or against it. Nor am I against whey or any animal protein source. I just want to let everyone know that backing your view with terrible research to forward your own, for lack of a better word, agenda, is bad.
So please do better research.
And for the audience always go with your doctor's advice. They know better.
PS: I am a pathology resident and review journal articles periodically.
Firstly, the Avilés-Gaxiola Sara et al article initially gives a table on the TI content on the raw beans/legumes. Yes it is high for soya. But if you read through it talks in great detail about a process called extrusion which is a process known to reduce anti-nutrient content as well as maintain the nutritional profile. This process has helped even "hard-to-cook" legumes to be consumed as a snack. The process which is an essential step in the manufacturing of soya chunks. So by the process itself, soya chunks have significantly less amount of anti-nutrients by virtue of the process by which it is made. So to bracket soy beans and soya chunks together and making a case for high Trypsin inhibitors by citing an article that actually talks about reviewing the methods for reducing anti-nutrient content was uncalled for.
Secondly, the other studies cited with a one sentence heading lifted from the abstract that is freely available in
PubMed or Scopus or wherever they are indexed is just bad search strategy.
Volek et al article had a high drop out rate which is termed attrition bias when critically reviewing RCTs. The final list of participants who completed the actually test was just 19 to 22 people in each group. The derivation of statistical significance from such a small sample size is in of itself faulty. The gains in lean body mass which they derived here were in the context of body fat and the authors themselves are saying it in the article. Even for the correlation with maximal strength, the authors claim it could also be partly attributed to neural adaptations
Again the Kraemer et al article the authors themselves give a disclaimer as to the majority of evidence from previous research which points to no consensus on the role of isoflavones in reducing testosterone. Then the following articles like Goodin et al and Thorpe et al were done in the context of prostate cancer and to see if soy supplementation can reduce serum testosterone which is a biomarker for prostate cancer. The Goodin et al study themselves mention the Thorpe et al study to have used a significantly high isoflavone content for their study purpose. They also cite several studies which did not find any correlation between serum testosterone and soy isoflavones.
And citing very ancient literature just because they were an RCT which would have been subsequently proved/disproved through later systematic reviews is to, quote Deadpool, just lazy writing. Seriously a 1991 Ishizuki article on the goitrogenic effect of soy???
Which brings me to, finally Free Androgen Index is an obsolete measurement which has now been disowned by the Endocrine Society.
I am not advocating for soya or against it. Nor am I against whey or any animal protein source. I just want to let everyone know that backing your view with terrible research to forward your own, for lack of a better word, agenda, is bad.
So please do better research.
And for the audience always go with your doctor's advice. They know better.
PS: I am a pathology resident and review journal articles periodically.
icantthinkofausername
New member
@te15 So should i avoid it or eating it moderation makes a difference? As a vegetarian it's hard to complete protein profile of 1.5x/day.
Also if you have time, can you look into seitan/vital wheat gluten? It's cheap about 600/kg and protein content is also 70g per 100g of weight. I've bought it a week ago didn't really notice anything weird.
Also if you have time, can you look into seitan/vital wheat gluten? It's cheap about 600/kg and protein content is also 70g per 100g of weight. I've bought it a week ago didn't really notice anything weird.
@icantthinkofausername What is your body weight and goal?
icantthinkofausername
New member
@icantthinkofausername Currently I'm trying to loose weight cr :- 119kgs started at 135khs
icantthinkofausername
New member
@icantthinkofausername Thanks and same to you too
@icantthinkofausername Bro then I guess you'll need 125-140gm protein. I'm vegetarian too so I have a 100gm panner , 250gm curd and 2 scoops of whey, dinner:-2 slices of cheese or dal
All the sums me up to 125-135 gm protein here I included protein from rice/wheat/oats
Don't complicate things and take it easy also if you are not lactose intolerant you can try skimmed milk powder which will give you 330 cals 50 gm carbs and 37 gms .
Note :- all of these carbs in skimmed milk powder are lactose so start with a small quantity like 20-30gms up to 50gms.
Like if you can get 15 gm protein for 200 cals (50gm powder and 10gm sugar) cold/ hot coffee it'll help you to complete daily protein intake.
Also skimmed milk is high quality protein source.
Hope this helps
All the sums me up to 125-135 gm protein here I included protein from rice/wheat/oats
Don't complicate things and take it easy also if you are not lactose intolerant you can try skimmed milk powder which will give you 330 cals 50 gm carbs and 37 gms .
Note :- all of these carbs in skimmed milk powder are lactose so start with a small quantity like 20-30gms up to 50gms.
Like if you can get 15 gm protein for 200 cals (50gm powder and 10gm sugar) cold/ hot coffee it'll help you to complete daily protein intake.
Also skimmed milk is high quality protein source.
Hope this helps
icantthinkofausername
New member
@thdev Budget my friend. I can't afford another scoop of whey.
How much does that skimmed milk cost tho? Safe to use?
Paneer costs 1500month for me so i thought I'll just consumer whey.
My diet goes like this:
1.Three different kinds of legumes 50g each= 27g protein
2. Oats+milk+whey+2spoons ground flax seed= 47g(approx)
3. Seitan(30g) = 23g protein
4. Whey protein shake post workout= 24g
Total: 121g protein
How much does that skimmed milk cost tho? Safe to use?
Paneer costs 1500month for me so i thought I'll just consumer whey.
My diet goes like this:
1.Three different kinds of legumes 50g each= 27g protein
2. Oats+milk+whey+2spoons ground flax seed= 47g(approx)
3. Seitan(30g) = 23g protein
4. Whey protein shake post workout= 24g
Total: 121g protein
@icantthinkofausername Koi na I can understand the budget issue. I was just giving an alternative/addition.
Skimmed milk powder cost 480-550 per kg
Also try to include curd, will help in digestion
Skimmed milk powder cost 480-550 per kg
Also try to include curd, will help in digestion