/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>13415753
Another excellent rebuttal.
You planning on backing that up with anything?
N=35 is fine.

It's a small cross-sectional study suggesting a link between isoflavones and sperm quality in humans, yes, but it exists as part of the wider literature, with myriad supporting animal studies, which help to confirm the link between reproductive performance and soy isoflavone intake (including but not limited to decreased testicular weight or size, decreased spermatogenesis, lower testosterone, and decreased testicular expression of steroid hormone receptors).

Sure, a bigger sample size is always better, but N=35 is fine for suggesting people cut soy out of their diets as much as possible.
We don't really need it in our diets, and the current literature suggests it's harmful to our reproductive health.

Why would anyone take the risk by eating soy?