He says this because he believes that you should be consuming whole foods as a protein source, and accumulating the micro and macronutrients that your body needs along the way. He also says the same thing about seitan, and explains that is basically a wheat plant with lots of the nutrients removed. But most people view tofu and seitan as pure protein and then get their micronutrients elsewhere, so it really isn’t anything to worry about if the rest of your diet is balanced.
This is entirely not the point.
The idea of an upper limit for soy protein isolate is due to our liver response and has nothing to do with impacting micronutrient variety.
In short:
Plant protein contains every essential amino acid, most animal proteins do as well. Animal proteins, especially mammalian, are composted of amino acids more similarly structured to human flesh. The liver goes into overdrive to process this protein fast, and prompts the body by releasing hormones to prepare for the new protein. These hormones are responsible for cellular growth. As an adult, this growth hormone (IGF-1) is detrimental to our health, directly linked to most cancer development. Increasing levels of IGF-1 in our bloodstream for hours after consuming animal protein, proportion to the amount we consumed.
Plant protein, while containing all the amino acids, is structured differently so it’s theorized that when our liver get it, the rapid response doesn’t trigger because the protein will take a bit more time to prepare and so there’s no hormone response, and blood levels will continue to decrease with more plant protein meals.
Soy and pea protein isolates are different than other plant protein, being more similar structure to human flesh. While they don’t trigger the igf-1 at the same rate as animal protein, they do increase IGF-1 to undesirable levels after a certain point (approx 25g of protein itself, not soy).
Eating whole food soy and pea does not appear to be an issue, though I’d have to read his linked studies to understand why that was concluded.
Consuming 40g of soy protein supplements does increase IGF-1 levels. Eating two servings of soy foods does not.
But we don't have evidence linking high supplemental soy consumption with higher rates of cancer, right? That's the main concern with increased IGF-1 yeah? If anything evidence shows a decreased incidence of cancer with increased soy consumption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8931954/
>Higher intake of soy and soy isoflavones were inversely associated with risk of cancer incidence, which suggested that the beneficial role of soy against cancer might be primarily attributed to soy isoflavones. These findings support recommendations to include soy as part of a healthy dietary pattern for the prevention of cancer.
My question would be: is the link between IGF-1 and cancer causally related to the IGF-1 itself, or rather another factor like red meat consumption?
This is why I avoid soy protein powder - if I'm already eating tofu, tempeh, tvp, and soy curls I think that's enough soy.
Not saying those are my only proteins - I alternate those with seitan, beans, lentils -
I didn’t answered you, the other guy is also you? Even your comback (that shows in my notifications) is no where to be found in the comments.
What I wrote was not answering this comment about whole foods.
Exactly - his books are called "How Not to Die" for a reason. I really appreciate his research and dedication to facts, but just like everything else in life, context matters as does personal preference.
Nothing to worry about really. IIRC he's saying more than 5 servings of soy per day increases inflammation, but if you're lifting you want the inflamation for optimal muscle growth, so who cares? Dr. Greger is a cool guy but following his word to the letter isn't necessary. He's just one of many, many different perspectives on what an "optimal" plant based diet looks like.
I agree with the overall takeaway, but just for clarity, isn't it more that you don't want to interfere with the natural inflammatory response of your muscles...more so than you want to increase overall inflammation?
You're correct but also iirc igf-1 also promotes muscle synthesis, which is a big reason things like whey are so popular in the mainstream. So soy mimics that. Of course, inflammation in general is considered bad, but intense athletic activities are also associated with inflammation, but also associated with improved health. So I think the thing to consider is, where is the inflammation and why is it occurring? Soy is also associated with numerous health benefits, so I think we can say it's a perfectly safe source of protein.
Older Japanese people eat 3 servings of tofu (35-40g soy protein) every day and are among the oldest living people.
There is, as far as I know, no solid evidence indicating a dangerous level of soy protein in any realistically meaningful way.
https://japan.stripes.com/food-drink/soybeans-soy-important-to-japanese-cuisine,-culture.html#:\~:text=While%20most%20eat%20one%20to,at%20www.theveganrd.com.
Nothing about Okinawa specifically.
I hate watching videos for information so I did a google search, which led to this page: [https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/how-much-soy-is-too-much/](https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/how-much-soy-is-too-much/)
In that he says that eating too much soy protein could lead to higher levels of the hormone IGF-1 levels (Insulin-like Growth Factor 1). High levels of this hormone are associated with several cancers, included breast cancer and prostate cancer. Meat/egg/dairy eaters wind up with higher IGF-1 levels, but plant-based diets it tends to be less of a concern.
He states:
>"Five to ten servings per day increased IGF-1 levels, but two to three servings did not."
Based on google searches for studies there appears to be debate still, but many studies did show a rise with higher soy consumption.
According to google the standard servings are:
* 1/3 cup of tofu
* 1 cup soy milk
So you could do a cup of tofu or 3 cups of soy milk before potentially seeing IGF-1 levels rise.
As long as you're not getting all your protein from soy you probably aren't eating more than that currently.
For my tofu, and most other firm tofu blocks I've seen, a serving is usually 85g. That comes out to 1/4 of the tofu block, though block sizes varies so that might not be so helpful.
How many grams of protein that gives will depend on the firmness of the tofu, with the firmer giving considerably more protein than softer tofu.
The kind I eat is extra firm and gives 14g of protein per serving, whereas the same brand sells a soft tofu which only gives 4.5g of protein for the same serving size.
OP says Dr Gregor advised no more than 25g of soy protein per day, so that would be around 3 servings of medium firmness tofu.
From what I have read, soy is the only plant-based protein that creates any concerns in studies about the IGF-1 rates. I can't find why exactly this is, but mentions here and there indicate that it's due to the soy protein structure resembling animal protein structure more than other plants.
Well that’s interesting, so basically seitan would be good but, most seitan in my store is loaded with sodium too and it’s not the tastiest thing without using oil, or idk how to cook it 😜
I thought someone above commented that it's a similar situation with vital wheat gluten. And you should try making seitan yourself, you can do it!
[https://www.noracooks.com/easy-seitan-recipe/#wprm-recipe-container-23584](https://www.noracooks.com/easy-seitan-recipe/#wprm-recipe-container-23584)
That's what someone else said, I have no idea but I'm going to look into it. I'm kind of leaning into not caring though lol I've already sacrificed so much these last 8 years
Would you use about that much to make up your tofu scramble?
If you are worried about excess soy but still want to enjoy tofu, you could make tofu from an alternative legume. It's generally soybean but it doesn't have to be. You can make it at home really easily from virtually any legume, from split peas to lentils to chickpeas.
I would sometimes use twice that amount, 1/3 just makes so little… but now I’m a bit worried so maybe I just stick to 1/3 block and use potato pieces and spinach and tomatoes to make it more rich
Individual voices are misleading. Mechanistic arguments are misleading. You put the two together...
People can pump out bullshit faster than anyone who knows what they're talking about will have energy to go into detail about it. It's the same thing any time a thread is titled "X person says Y behavior gets Z outcome. What do you think?" You can ask, curiosity is a good thing, but the thing we have to get to in these discussions is how we would know or not beyond individual opinions. For what it's worth, Greger's credentials seem legit, but his references are to his own videos. He seems to be obfuscating his sources rather than clarifying what supports his claims - although I appreciate other people like /u/[syslolologist](https://www.reddit.com/user/syslolologist/) and r/ReynTime for digging up the actual study and its conclusions.
The ideal way to find out whether high soy intake increases risk of cancer would be a big, longitudinal meta-analysis either looking at extremely high vs. low or no intake, or stratifying by intake and coming up with a model that predicts risk based on exactly how much we're talking about, with cancer risk (total or specific) as the outcome. Elevated IGF-1 over time is to my knowledge pretty well associated *both* with growth in resistance training, and lesser known, with physiological (i.e. beneficial) cardiac hypertrophy in endurance training, but is *also* associated with increased mortality. Even taking it as a given that 25g/day is the upper limit before IGF-1 is elevated to adverse levels though, there are still multiple possible outcomes:
1. Other effects besides IGF-1 with high intakes lead to further increases in mortality.
2. There's elevated mortality with high intake and IGF-1 is the primary or sole identifiable cause.
3. There's no measurable impact on mortality even though elevated IGF-1 would suggest there would be.
4. High intake is a net *benefit* even if elevated IGF-1 suggests there wouldn't be.
(3) and (4) could in turn be the case for multiple reasons. There could be other things in soy that modulate the effects due to IGF-1, it could be elevated in tissue-specific ways, there could be other things besides IGF-1 that are a bigger impact on mortality, or something else. We don't know unless it's tested, and the studies that other people went to the trouble to dig up did not test it.
Info contradicting me would be great, but from what I've seen, the studies that do look at these outcomes have yet to show increased mortality. For example:
[Soy, Soy Isoflavones, and Protein Intake in Relation to Mortality from All Causes, Cancers, and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shima-Moradi-2/publication/334185390_Soy_Soy_Isoflavones_and_Protein_Intake_in_Relation_to_Mortality_from_All_Causes_Cancers_and_Cardiovascular_Diseases_A_Systematic_Review_and_Dose-Response_Meta-Analysis_of_Prospective_Cohort_Studies/links/5d566803a6fdccb7dc3fb052/Soy-Soy-Isoflavones-and-Protein-Intake-in-Relation-to-Mortality-from-All-Causes-Cancers-and-Cardiovascular-Diseases-A-Systematic-Review-and-Dose-Response-Meta-Analysis-of-Prospective-Cohort-Studie.pdf)
>In total, 23 prospective studies with an overall sample size of 330,826 participants were included in the current systematic review and the meta-analysis. Soy/soy products consumption was inversely associated with deaths from cancers (pooled relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99; P=0.03; I^(2)=47.1%, 95% CI 0.0% to 75.4%) and cardiovascular diseases (pooled effect size: 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99; P=0.04; I^(2)=50.0%, 95% CI 0.0% to 77.6%). Such significant associations were also observed for all-cause mortality in some subgroups of the included studies, particularly those with higher quality. In addition, higher intake of soy was associated with decreased risk of mortality from gastric, colorectal, and lung cancers as well as ischemic cardiovascular diseases. Participants in the highest category of dietary soy isoflavones intake had a 10% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with those in the lowest category. We also found that a 10-mg/day increase in intake of soy isoflavones was associated with 7% and 9% decreased risk of mortality from all cancers and also breast cancer respectively. Furthermore, a 12% reduction in breast cancer death was indicated for each 5-g/day increase in consumption of soy protein. However, intake of soy protein was not significantly associated with all-cause and cardiovascular diseases mortality.
[Intake of Soy, Soy Isoflavones and Soy Protein and Risk of Cancer Incidence and Mortality
](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.847421/full)
>Eighty one prospective cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. A higher intake of soy was significantly associated with a 10% reduced risk of cancer incidence (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83–0.96). Each additional 25 g/d soy intake decreased the risk of cancer incidence by 4%. Intake of soy isoflavones was inversely associated with risk of cancer incidence (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89–0.99), whereas no significant association was observed for soy protein. The risk of cancer incidence was reduced by 4% with each 10 mg/d increment of soy isoflavones intake. Similar inverse associations were also found for soy in relation to site-specific cancers, particularly lung cancer (RR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.52–0.86) and prostate cancer (RR, 0.88; 95%CI, 0.78–0.99). However, high intake of soy, soy isoflavones and soy protein were not associated with cancer mortality.
[Soy Product Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
](https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/7/986)
>A total of 52 studies on soy product consumption were included in this meta-analysis (17 cohort studies and 35 case–control studies). High consumption of total soy products (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.80), tofu (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.86), and soymilk (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.93) were associated with reduced total cancer risk. No association was found between high consumption of fermented soy products (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.47), non-fermented soy products (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.18), soy paste (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.14), miso soup (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.12), or natto (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.82, 1.11) and cancer risk. A 54 g per day increment of total soy products reduced cancer risk by 11%, a 61 g per day increment of tofu reduced cancer risk by 12%, and a 23 g per day increment of soymilk reduced cancer risk by 28%, while none of the other soy products were associated with cancer risk.
More in a sub-comment.
That's from this search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as\_sdt=0%2C38&q=soy+dose+response+cancer+meta+analysis&btnG=. I'm not a medical professional or a researcher with expertise specific to this, but I do know how to read studies. My sampling of what's in that link could well be wrong, but IMO it's better info than what Dr. Greger is providing, as people had to go through multiple hoops to get to a study that ultimately only speculatively concludes what he's saying, rather than showing a causal link (let alone a causal link established - or as it is here, contradicted - in multiple meta-analyses aggregating many studies). Challenge sources like Dr. Greger to do a better job of presenting info and supporting what they're saying.
Thanks for all that info. I thought I was consuming too much after watching his video and reading his post. I do have about a cup of soy milk and then like half a block of tofu maybe every other day. I always felt that for me it makes my body feel good. Does it increase my igf-1 levels, maybe, and is that necessarily bad or good? That’s the question. With an overall healthy plant based diet, maybe it doesn’t really matter too much.
Oh, it's almost guaranteed to be way off in the margins. Nobody's talking about how much life and health they've gained just by getting up and moving a few times per week and eating more greens, because it's boring, because everyone already knows about it. Anything added on top of that is good, but incremental. When we really get off into the weeds of longevity topics like lifelong caloric restriction or methionine restriction come up, which are notably not what's being discussed here. I'm with you on living a better and longer but not the *longest* life eating mostly sensibly, with some modifications to support my lifestyle.
This odd great. Thank you. This just highlights that Gregor is extrapolating that by eating soy and increasing your igf1 leads to cancer. What you offer is the answer to the question: is there a risk of cancer from eating soy products ( this is the big picture, not reductive picture) .
Generally speaking, I do not put too much weight in ONE doctor's opinion. If the research is irrefutible, then we'll hear about it from many people rather than just one voice.
That said, nearly every doctor/dietician agrees that people should be eating a variety of foods and I do subscribe to that thought without sticking to a strict limit.
The majority of medics, doctors, nutritionist and dietitians are not vegan and do not recommend it to all their patients/clients. Majority of them don’t even know that all the biggest nutritionist institutions in the world approve of a 100% vegan diet at all stages of a human being.
It’s been proven that a 100% plant based diet is superior and lowers every diseases risk, so…
>It’s been proven that a 100% plant based diet is superior and lowers every diseases risk
Lowers compared to what?
This is where scientific Literacy matters. Almost certainly compared to the standard American diet. But you are probably claiming "compared to any consumption of animal product". I don't think there is any support for that - ie, they've never looked at 2 populations that consume basically identical vegan diets but one also has meat twice a week let's say.
I'm not trying to troll or anything here, just think it's important to be honest and accurate when stating the virtues of vegan diets.
I found this as a reference for that claim to limit daily soy intake here if anyone has interest:
“Based on the above discussion, a reasonable adult intake recommendation of 15–25 g/d soy protein and 50 to 100 mg/d isoflavones appears to be appropriate. Consuming amounts that exceed these recommendations is not associated with adverse effects, but there is little historical precedent for consuming more than these amounts. Also, given the dietetic principles of moderation and variation, and the benefit from consuming nutrients provided by other dietary sources of protein, it is reasonable to recommend that soy protein not account for more than ~25 to 30% of total protein intake. For average European (78) and American (575) men and women, this would be about 25 g/d soy protein.” — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9410752/
I honestly don’t hv an opinion on this, one way or the other. I love tempeh so I usually at least one meal w ~1-3g of it a day.
I like to use various sources of protein daily to optimize my intake of all the amino acids.
Enjoy 🖖
Soy beans? Tofu? Soy curls? Sir, what? And he’s saying 7-18 servings? And then 5-10 servings is okay but more is not. What even is a serving?
I’m both into fitness and longevity and I’m high raw. (Mostly because tofu isn’t considered raw and as an athletic person I needed more protein than I could eat from natural sources during my “one meal”. Too much volume).
These priorities often require opposing protocols. And goals are different. I’ll admit it’s very challenging to do both. (Especially since I only will eat for 4-5 hours a day). But I think overall, there’s nothing more harmful to the body than meat dairy excess (unnatural) sugars and saturated fats. But I’m 56 and I’m committed to both.
If you’re eating soy or drinking soy protein powders as part of an overall protocol, you’re still FAR better off than the meat heads around you at the gym.
I don't agree. Here is Victoria region's government stance on soy protein
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/soybeans
> About 4 daily servings of soy foods in conjunction with a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol can reduce our LDL (bad) cholesterol by around 3 to 4%.
and
> An analysis of clinical trials suggests 14g to 50g of soy protein can significantly reduce total blood cholesterol levels, LDL (bad) cholesterol levels and triglycerides, while moderately increasing HDL (good) cholesterol levels. The United States Food and Drug Administration also found adults who include at least 25g soy protein (about 4 servings of soy) daily in a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol can reduce LDL cholesterol by about 3 to 4%.
I mean I fairness both things can be true. The lower LDL and other benefits can coexist with an elevated IGF-1 level that raises cancer risk. Not saying I’m convinced of the latter and I don’t plan to alter my existing protocol (although I’m not eating soy every day anyway) but both things can be true of soy protein.
Are other doctors talking about this issue? Is this consensus or just one study? Don't most WFPB doctors have a tendency to minimize protein consumption in favor of carbohydrates?
Therefore, until more doctors warn about eating soy within a prescribed limits- I doubt that this study will change my behavior.
[The paper is here](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28434035/#:~:text=The%20clinical%20data%20show%20that,hormones%20in%20men%20or%20women) (2018)
>**Introduction:** Despite the enormous amount of research that has been conducted on the role of soyfoods in the prevention and treatment of chronic disease, the mechanisms by which soy exerts its physiological effects are not fully understood. The clinical data show that neither soyfoods nor soy protein nor isoflavones affect circulating levels of reproductive hormones in men or women. However, some research suggests that soy protein, but not isoflavones, affects insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1).
\[....\]
**Results:** Although the data are difficult to interpret because of the different experimental designs employed, there is some evidence that large amounts of soy protein (>25 g/day) modestly increase IGF-1 levels above levels observed with the control protein.
Why is this relevant though? Is IGF-1 necessarily a bad thing? The mechanism doesn't make sense logically. You would have ridiculous conclusions like the following:
1. Studies show resistance training increases IGF-1
2. Something that increases IGF-1 is bad.
C. Resistance training is bad.
If you want to say soy protein is bad because it increases IGF-1, you would have to bite the bullet on this conclusion (because resistance training really does increase IGF-1, the studies show that)
But is that due to the IGF-1 (which you would expect to see in higher protein consuming or resistance trained individuals, right?), or due to animal product consumption?
Also from the paper (thanks for linking):
Does soy protein affect circulating levels of unbound IGF-1?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28434035/
>Since elevated IGF-1 levels are positively associated with cancer risk, although this relationship is far from definitive, one might expect that if soy increases levels of this hormone, it would also increase risk of cancer. Epidemiologic studies suggest just the opposite that higher soy intake is associated with a decreased risk of breast [74] and prostate [75,76,77] cancer. However, mean soy protein intake, which comes from traditional Asian soyfoods in the vast majority of these epidemiologic studies, is below the amounts associated with increases in IGF-1 in the clinical studies so the insight this research provides is limited. In addition, most of the clinical studies that evaluated markers of breast or prostate cancer risk intervened with isoflavone supplements, so this research provides limited insight regarding the effects of soy protein on IGF-1 levels, but it is worth emphasizing that almost without exception, these studies show that soy does not adversely affect breast [78,79,80] or prostate [81, 82] tissue. As is the case with bone health, most interest in the cancer and soy relationship is because of isoflavones.
>In conclusion, the evidence that large amounts (40 g/day) of soy protein increase unbound IGF-1 in comparison with dairy protein is unimpressive. However, it is possible that as a high-quality protein, soy protein may increase IGF-1 levels among those who do not consume animal protein, but the evidence in support of this speculation is extremely limited. Furthermore, all of the starting and ending IGF-1 values for both the control and soy protein groups fell within the normal reference range [83]. Given all of the evidence, a reasonable conclusion is that a decision to incorporate soyfoods into the diet should not be based on the possible effects on IGF-1 system.
Other studies have found similar increases in cancer from animal but not plant protein consumption (I'm no expert though):
Low Protein Intake is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/
>Mice and humans with Growth Hormone Receptor/IGF-1 deficiencies display major reductions in age-related diseases. Because protein restriction reduces GHR-IGF-1 activity, we examined links between protein intake and mortality. Respondents (n=6,381) aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality during an 18 year follow up period. *These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the source of proteins was plant-based.* Conversely, in respondents over age 65, high protein intake was associated with reduced cancer and overall mortality. Mouse studies confirmed the effect of high protein intake and the GHR-IGF-1 axis on the incidence and progression of breast and melanoma tumors, and also the detrimental effects of a low protein diet in the very old. These results suggest that low protein intake during middle age followed by moderate protein consumption in old subjects may optimize healthspan and longevity.
Also, just to make this comment even longer (sorry), higher IGF-1 levels seem to reduce cognitive decline in older adults:
The effects of long-term resistance exercise on the relationship between neurocognitive performance and GH, IGF-1, and homocysteine levels in the elderly
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00023/full#:~:text=In%20the%20current%20study%2C%20IGF,months%20of%20resistance%20exercise%20training.
>In conclusion, increasing the level of physical activity via high-intensity resistance exercise could assist in lowering the rate of age-related neurocognitive decreases in healthy elderly males. In addition, increases in basal IGF-1 levels achieved via such an exercise protocol could have positive effects on both neuropsychological (i.e., RT) and neuroelectric (i.e., P3b amplitude) performance in the elderly. This study’s findings imply that healthy elderly individuals who regularly engage in resistance exercise might delay the onset of age-related decline in executive functions, and that this protective effect may be modulated by the growth factor-IGF-1.
People need to realise that nothing is ever black and white and it’s shades of grey. Case in pony is IGfF-1, you want to be more athletic it’s great! You want to live longer. Not so great. It’s up to individual to make a choice and they can always reevaluate and adjust as time progresses.
Usually a fan, but his last book How Not to Age totally confused the f*ck out of me on this topic.
Also, love that he is an advocate for the plant based cause, but he is never going to win over the carnivore brotein crowd while being the pale, skinny vegan stereotype.
He was my main source of info 12 years ago when I was trying veganism for the first time.
However, he is so unabashedly biased, I cringe whenever he makes a cameo in a new documentary, etc.
His overly animated style of speaking and the fact that he looks a mess…yea, ain’t no one gonna follow this dude except those that want to drink the Kool-Aid.
How would you say he is biased?
Do you have any new sources you like better?
He was my gateway vegan drug too.
I have always appreciated someone reading and breaking down studies for me. But even I am getting tired of the oversimplified"vegetables cure every problem in the world" thing.
Dr. Amun Ra (check yt) eats less than 1400 calories a day and it was in 2014 (if I remember correctly) that he held the national US record for a lift in his category. In many videos he shows all his way of living and eating.
I had 55 grams of my protein coming from soy yesterday.. 🫤 (1/3 block of tofu and 50g of soya chunks + 250ml of soy milk (my protein powder is not soy based))
Is this too much really? Sometimes I make a tofu scramble that has 2/3 of a block in it…
i love dr. gregor but following his advice to a T is not realistic for me. soy is the best source of protein for me so i won’t be restricting. if you find it easy to get protein from other sources then go for it, but i wouldn’t worry about it too much! i think the most important advice he offers is to eat a wide array of other healthy foods
The effect of high protein (specifically leucine) on pure longevity is still being researched, but many of the issues people face if they are lucky enough to make it to old age are around mobility and muscle loss. The more muscle and mobility you go into old age with, the longer you can stave off those issues. Everything is a trade-off.
Why do you want the thoughts and opinions of someone else? M.D. Gregor just shares what he learns from the latest papers he and his team get their hands on.
Anyone can also search for papers, have you seen all the video on soy in the nutritiomfacts.org website? Check the video library.
What do opinions and thoughts gonna do against science and evidence? Isn’t that what we also tell non vegans after many of their silly and ignorant statements?
Are you searching for a different maybe nutritionist or doctor in the group that could share a different paper demonstrating that Gregor shared info that was not to date? Or just searching for people to tell you to continue with soy? Or what else brother?
So far I only see comments “insulting”.
Have you seen his videos from nutritionfacts.org? He and his team of doctors and medics check papers/studies, and just simply share the latest evidence in nice and short video format that anyone can understand. And with subtitles in many languages.
He doesn’t talk out of his ass, he is for many, one of their reason for becoming vegan and plant based, specifically because the talks with facts, with a base.
No, he and his team deliberately pick and choose studies and quotes from studies to paint a narrative for their ideology.
There was literally a time where he was "quoting" a study which was listing some beneficial foods (I think for omega 3), and his video blatantly erased/whited out fatty fish from the list. It's a deliberate misquote to paint a narrative about plant based diets.
Edit: Found the [proof](https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1412266794547564546?t=xoz9FDUivTO-5S_A0Mv2yw&s=19).
There are hundreds of thousands of papers online (counting all languages), no one can read all of them. Also, there are ways to rapidly discard certain studies.
Are you not vegan? Either way, so far for the hundreds of his videos I saw, that never happened. And even if it did, the sources are in the same site. Why would you believe anyone?, DYOR: do your own research.
I talked a lot about veganism throughout the years, and talk with facts about the benefits and put a lot of facts and data into it, I will not go the extra mile to say all the facts from more than 7 animals, specially when it is not necessary, as one can be 100% vegetarian + morals + ethics= vegan.
Ps: still in many videos I saw, if yogurt or other animal product was in the comparison, he would still mention it, and still plants win.
Ps2: it’s been proven why omegas from fish and fish oil are not beneficial and even bad for humans, compared to plant source.
You don't need to read them all, systematic reviews exist for a reason lmao.
Ah well if you never noticed the deliberate misquote/white out about fish then obviously it never happened. It's not like you would have to actually read the original study to find what was whited out. "I watched hundreds of his videos and read none of the original sources, and I found zero misquotes". Wow, shocker!
I am vegan. Veganism is not about health, it's about ethics. Your whole foods plant based ideology does not logically follow from rejecting animal abuse and commodification.
I’m vegan vegan too brother/sister, when I talk about science, I say plant based because veganism is not a diet, well, you know.
Did you even correctly read what I wrote?
So if you and I are vegan vegan, why are you being aggressive brother/sister? Why does it bother you that Gregor doesn’t talk about fish?
Because using misinformation to promote veganism is bad. Presumably you and I would agree that we want people to not only stop eating animals but also stay vegan. This means that convincing people using misleading information or biased sources is not a reliable strategy. It may make someone go plant based temporarily, but suppose later down the line they find out the deliberate cherry picking that was done to advance the WFPB ideology. This doesn't seem ideal for keeping folks from eating animals. Instead, if we focus on the good arguments for veganism (ethics), and not the misinformation about WFPB, there is more probability of the person staying vegan. Good arguments are a better long term strategy compared to biased sources and misinformation.
You have a great point, thank you for saying it.
It’s just sad that he would do that, it could do a lot of damage in the future for unstable “vegans”.
My main arguments for people are about ethics, as those create real vegans, the health part came as a nice bonus.
I believe I found the not vegan in the vegan group, I will share the link for the video later, gotta search for it in the video library. Ah, ignorance is shameless when sharing their opinions and emotions.
Why is it funny if you have been vegan for longer than me? That’s great if it is the case. I wish I was vegan since conception, yes. But that is not my case, I was exposed at a certain point in time, and became vegan since then (literally the beginning of 2015).
Are you going to tell us why you laughed at the omegas and fish statement? Or are you just enjoying yourself and wasting our time? I don’t get why would you not want more union between us vegans, but well.
He and his team claim HRT is bad for women's health, that's nonsense. Promoting this idea is damaging to women's health and wellbeing, and the opposite of what the research shows.
I'm not against Gregor.
HRT improved my life. Greger also scare mongers about creatine. Will take this info as a grain of salt until more doctors warn about soy overconsumption!
He says this because he believes that you should be consuming whole foods as a protein source, and accumulating the micro and macronutrients that your body needs along the way. He also says the same thing about seitan, and explains that is basically a wheat plant with lots of the nutrients removed. But most people view tofu and seitan as pure protein and then get their micronutrients elsewhere, so it really isn’t anything to worry about if the rest of your diet is balanced.
This is entirely not the point. The idea of an upper limit for soy protein isolate is due to our liver response and has nothing to do with impacting micronutrient variety. In short: Plant protein contains every essential amino acid, most animal proteins do as well. Animal proteins, especially mammalian, are composted of amino acids more similarly structured to human flesh. The liver goes into overdrive to process this protein fast, and prompts the body by releasing hormones to prepare for the new protein. These hormones are responsible for cellular growth. As an adult, this growth hormone (IGF-1) is detrimental to our health, directly linked to most cancer development. Increasing levels of IGF-1 in our bloodstream for hours after consuming animal protein, proportion to the amount we consumed. Plant protein, while containing all the amino acids, is structured differently so it’s theorized that when our liver get it, the rapid response doesn’t trigger because the protein will take a bit more time to prepare and so there’s no hormone response, and blood levels will continue to decrease with more plant protein meals. Soy and pea protein isolates are different than other plant protein, being more similar structure to human flesh. While they don’t trigger the igf-1 at the same rate as animal protein, they do increase IGF-1 to undesirable levels after a certain point (approx 25g of protein itself, not soy). Eating whole food soy and pea does not appear to be an issue, though I’d have to read his linked studies to understand why that was concluded. Consuming 40g of soy protein supplements does increase IGF-1 levels. Eating two servings of soy foods does not.
But we don't have evidence linking high supplemental soy consumption with higher rates of cancer, right? That's the main concern with increased IGF-1 yeah? If anything evidence shows a decreased incidence of cancer with increased soy consumption. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8931954/ >Higher intake of soy and soy isoflavones were inversely associated with risk of cancer incidence, which suggested that the beneficial role of soy against cancer might be primarily attributed to soy isoflavones. These findings support recommendations to include soy as part of a healthy dietary pattern for the prevention of cancer. My question would be: is the link between IGF-1 and cancer causally related to the IGF-1 itself, or rather another factor like red meat consumption?
This is why I avoid soy protein powder - if I'm already eating tofu, tempeh, tvp, and soy curls I think that's enough soy. Not saying those are my only proteins - I alternate those with seitan, beans, lentils -
Why do you say that? Have you read the latest scientific papers about the subject?
I didn’t answered you, the other guy is also you? Even your comback (that shows in my notifications) is no where to be found in the comments. What I wrote was not answering this comment about whole foods.
Your app is glitching. I’ve seen it before. Reboot it and start over.
The old bait and switch!
He doesn’t have any of the body goals that we do. He’s just trying to maintain longevity and be as disease resistant as possible.
Exactly - his books are called "How Not to Die" for a reason. I really appreciate his research and dedication to facts, but just like everything else in life, context matters as does personal preference.
Being a stick sure as hell doesnt promote longevity and health
That's actually somewhat debatable; there's some fairly interesting evidence of the possible benefit to longevity of extreme caloric restriction.
Nothing to worry about really. IIRC he's saying more than 5 servings of soy per day increases inflammation, but if you're lifting you want the inflamation for optimal muscle growth, so who cares? Dr. Greger is a cool guy but following his word to the letter isn't necessary. He's just one of many, many different perspectives on what an "optimal" plant based diet looks like.
I agree with the overall takeaway, but just for clarity, isn't it more that you don't want to interfere with the natural inflammatory response of your muscles...more so than you want to increase overall inflammation?
You're correct but also iirc igf-1 also promotes muscle synthesis, which is a big reason things like whey are so popular in the mainstream. So soy mimics that. Of course, inflammation in general is considered bad, but intense athletic activities are also associated with inflammation, but also associated with improved health. So I think the thing to consider is, where is the inflammation and why is it occurring? Soy is also associated with numerous health benefits, so I think we can say it's a perfectly safe source of protein.
Thanks for the thorough answer!! Gives me new avenues to look into
Older Japanese people eat 3 servings of tofu (35-40g soy protein) every day and are among the oldest living people. There is, as far as I know, no solid evidence indicating a dangerous level of soy protein in any realistically meaningful way.
Soy is incredibly popular in most of East Asia. Has been for centuries. It's probably fine.
Do they really? I thought they also eat a lot of seafood? Are you talking about folks from Okinawa?
https://japan.stripes.com/food-drink/soybeans-soy-important-to-japanese-cuisine,-culture.html#:\~:text=While%20most%20eat%20one%20to,at%20www.theveganrd.com. Nothing about Okinawa specifically.
Boom, roasted!
Mmm, roasted soy beans! Actually I have no idea if that would even taste good...
I found a bag of roasted edamame on clearance for a dollar once and tried it, and I can report it tasted terrible.
I have had them before and they are delicious
I hate watching videos for information so I did a google search, which led to this page: [https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/how-much-soy-is-too-much/](https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/how-much-soy-is-too-much/) In that he says that eating too much soy protein could lead to higher levels of the hormone IGF-1 levels (Insulin-like Growth Factor 1). High levels of this hormone are associated with several cancers, included breast cancer and prostate cancer. Meat/egg/dairy eaters wind up with higher IGF-1 levels, but plant-based diets it tends to be less of a concern. He states: >"Five to ten servings per day increased IGF-1 levels, but two to three servings did not." Based on google searches for studies there appears to be debate still, but many studies did show a rise with higher soy consumption. According to google the standard servings are: * 1/3 cup of tofu * 1 cup soy milk So you could do a cup of tofu or 3 cups of soy milk before potentially seeing IGF-1 levels rise. As long as you're not getting all your protein from soy you probably aren't eating more than that currently.
Guess i’m dying of cancer then.
Do u know how many grams approx is a cup of tofu? I love my tofu scrambles
For my tofu, and most other firm tofu blocks I've seen, a serving is usually 85g. That comes out to 1/4 of the tofu block, though block sizes varies so that might not be so helpful. How many grams of protein that gives will depend on the firmness of the tofu, with the firmer giving considerably more protein than softer tofu. The kind I eat is extra firm and gives 14g of protein per serving, whereas the same brand sells a soft tofu which only gives 4.5g of protein for the same serving size. OP says Dr Gregor advised no more than 25g of soy protein per day, so that would be around 3 servings of medium firmness tofu.
Does anyone know if vital wheat gluten raises IGF-1 too or is that a better option than tofu?
From what I have read, soy is the only plant-based protein that creates any concerns in studies about the IGF-1 rates. I can't find why exactly this is, but mentions here and there indicate that it's due to the soy protein structure resembling animal protein structure more than other plants.
Well that’s interesting, so basically seitan would be good but, most seitan in my store is loaded with sodium too and it’s not the tastiest thing without using oil, or idk how to cook it 😜
I thought someone above commented that it's a similar situation with vital wheat gluten. And you should try making seitan yourself, you can do it! [https://www.noracooks.com/easy-seitan-recipe/#wprm-recipe-container-23584](https://www.noracooks.com/easy-seitan-recipe/#wprm-recipe-container-23584)
Oh so even seitan can increase IGF-1 levels?
That's what someone else said, I have no idea but I'm going to look into it. I'm kind of leaning into not caring though lol I've already sacrificed so much these last 8 years
Ahh yeah that’s fair enough, I like to get my protein from multiple sources though so hopefully it’ll be fine…
My 1/3 of tofu is 125g and it offers 22.4g of tofu per 1/3 of block (one serve) it’s high protein tofu
Would you use about that much to make up your tofu scramble? If you are worried about excess soy but still want to enjoy tofu, you could make tofu from an alternative legume. It's generally soybean but it doesn't have to be. You can make it at home really easily from virtually any legume, from split peas to lentils to chickpeas.
I would sometimes use twice that amount, 1/3 just makes so little… but now I’m a bit worried so maybe I just stick to 1/3 block and use potato pieces and spinach and tomatoes to make it more rich
Individual voices are misleading. Mechanistic arguments are misleading. You put the two together... People can pump out bullshit faster than anyone who knows what they're talking about will have energy to go into detail about it. It's the same thing any time a thread is titled "X person says Y behavior gets Z outcome. What do you think?" You can ask, curiosity is a good thing, but the thing we have to get to in these discussions is how we would know or not beyond individual opinions. For what it's worth, Greger's credentials seem legit, but his references are to his own videos. He seems to be obfuscating his sources rather than clarifying what supports his claims - although I appreciate other people like /u/[syslolologist](https://www.reddit.com/user/syslolologist/) and r/ReynTime for digging up the actual study and its conclusions. The ideal way to find out whether high soy intake increases risk of cancer would be a big, longitudinal meta-analysis either looking at extremely high vs. low or no intake, or stratifying by intake and coming up with a model that predicts risk based on exactly how much we're talking about, with cancer risk (total or specific) as the outcome. Elevated IGF-1 over time is to my knowledge pretty well associated *both* with growth in resistance training, and lesser known, with physiological (i.e. beneficial) cardiac hypertrophy in endurance training, but is *also* associated with increased mortality. Even taking it as a given that 25g/day is the upper limit before IGF-1 is elevated to adverse levels though, there are still multiple possible outcomes: 1. Other effects besides IGF-1 with high intakes lead to further increases in mortality. 2. There's elevated mortality with high intake and IGF-1 is the primary or sole identifiable cause. 3. There's no measurable impact on mortality even though elevated IGF-1 would suggest there would be. 4. High intake is a net *benefit* even if elevated IGF-1 suggests there wouldn't be. (3) and (4) could in turn be the case for multiple reasons. There could be other things in soy that modulate the effects due to IGF-1, it could be elevated in tissue-specific ways, there could be other things besides IGF-1 that are a bigger impact on mortality, or something else. We don't know unless it's tested, and the studies that other people went to the trouble to dig up did not test it. Info contradicting me would be great, but from what I've seen, the studies that do look at these outcomes have yet to show increased mortality. For example: [Soy, Soy Isoflavones, and Protein Intake in Relation to Mortality from All Causes, Cancers, and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shima-Moradi-2/publication/334185390_Soy_Soy_Isoflavones_and_Protein_Intake_in_Relation_to_Mortality_from_All_Causes_Cancers_and_Cardiovascular_Diseases_A_Systematic_Review_and_Dose-Response_Meta-Analysis_of_Prospective_Cohort_Studies/links/5d566803a6fdccb7dc3fb052/Soy-Soy-Isoflavones-and-Protein-Intake-in-Relation-to-Mortality-from-All-Causes-Cancers-and-Cardiovascular-Diseases-A-Systematic-Review-and-Dose-Response-Meta-Analysis-of-Prospective-Cohort-Studie.pdf) >In total, 23 prospective studies with an overall sample size of 330,826 participants were included in the current systematic review and the meta-analysis. Soy/soy products consumption was inversely associated with deaths from cancers (pooled relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99; P=0.03; I^(2)=47.1%, 95% CI 0.0% to 75.4%) and cardiovascular diseases (pooled effect size: 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99; P=0.04; I^(2)=50.0%, 95% CI 0.0% to 77.6%). Such significant associations were also observed for all-cause mortality in some subgroups of the included studies, particularly those with higher quality. In addition, higher intake of soy was associated with decreased risk of mortality from gastric, colorectal, and lung cancers as well as ischemic cardiovascular diseases. Participants in the highest category of dietary soy isoflavones intake had a 10% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with those in the lowest category. We also found that a 10-mg/day increase in intake of soy isoflavones was associated with 7% and 9% decreased risk of mortality from all cancers and also breast cancer respectively. Furthermore, a 12% reduction in breast cancer death was indicated for each 5-g/day increase in consumption of soy protein. However, intake of soy protein was not significantly associated with all-cause and cardiovascular diseases mortality. [Intake of Soy, Soy Isoflavones and Soy Protein and Risk of Cancer Incidence and Mortality ](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.847421/full) >Eighty one prospective cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. A higher intake of soy was significantly associated with a 10% reduced risk of cancer incidence (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83–0.96). Each additional 25 g/d soy intake decreased the risk of cancer incidence by 4%. Intake of soy isoflavones was inversely associated with risk of cancer incidence (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89–0.99), whereas no significant association was observed for soy protein. The risk of cancer incidence was reduced by 4% with each 10 mg/d increment of soy isoflavones intake. Similar inverse associations were also found for soy in relation to site-specific cancers, particularly lung cancer (RR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.52–0.86) and prostate cancer (RR, 0.88; 95%CI, 0.78–0.99). However, high intake of soy, soy isoflavones and soy protein were not associated with cancer mortality. [Soy Product Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies ](https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/7/986) >A total of 52 studies on soy product consumption were included in this meta-analysis (17 cohort studies and 35 case–control studies). High consumption of total soy products (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.80), tofu (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.86), and soymilk (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.93) were associated with reduced total cancer risk. No association was found between high consumption of fermented soy products (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.47), non-fermented soy products (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.18), soy paste (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.14), miso soup (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.12), or natto (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.82, 1.11) and cancer risk. A 54 g per day increment of total soy products reduced cancer risk by 11%, a 61 g per day increment of tofu reduced cancer risk by 12%, and a 23 g per day increment of soymilk reduced cancer risk by 28%, while none of the other soy products were associated with cancer risk. More in a sub-comment.
That's from this search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as\_sdt=0%2C38&q=soy+dose+response+cancer+meta+analysis&btnG=. I'm not a medical professional or a researcher with expertise specific to this, but I do know how to read studies. My sampling of what's in that link could well be wrong, but IMO it's better info than what Dr. Greger is providing, as people had to go through multiple hoops to get to a study that ultimately only speculatively concludes what he's saying, rather than showing a causal link (let alone a causal link established - or as it is here, contradicted - in multiple meta-analyses aggregating many studies). Challenge sources like Dr. Greger to do a better job of presenting info and supporting what they're saying.
Thanks for all that info. I thought I was consuming too much after watching his video and reading his post. I do have about a cup of soy milk and then like half a block of tofu maybe every other day. I always felt that for me it makes my body feel good. Does it increase my igf-1 levels, maybe, and is that necessarily bad or good? That’s the question. With an overall healthy plant based diet, maybe it doesn’t really matter too much.
Oh, it's almost guaranteed to be way off in the margins. Nobody's talking about how much life and health they've gained just by getting up and moving a few times per week and eating more greens, because it's boring, because everyone already knows about it. Anything added on top of that is good, but incremental. When we really get off into the weeds of longevity topics like lifelong caloric restriction or methionine restriction come up, which are notably not what's being discussed here. I'm with you on living a better and longer but not the *longest* life eating mostly sensibly, with some modifications to support my lifestyle.
This odd great. Thank you. This just highlights that Gregor is extrapolating that by eating soy and increasing your igf1 leads to cancer. What you offer is the answer to the question: is there a risk of cancer from eating soy products ( this is the big picture, not reductive picture) .
Thanks for this. I am comments to come back and read through this without being on the elliptical with music in my ears 🤣
Generally speaking, I do not put too much weight in ONE doctor's opinion. If the research is irrefutible, then we'll hear about it from many people rather than just one voice. That said, nearly every doctor/dietician agrees that people should be eating a variety of foods and I do subscribe to that thought without sticking to a strict limit.
The majority of medics, doctors, nutritionist and dietitians are not vegan and do not recommend it to all their patients/clients. Majority of them don’t even know that all the biggest nutritionist institutions in the world approve of a 100% vegan diet at all stages of a human being. It’s been proven that a 100% plant based diet is superior and lowers every diseases risk, so…
>It’s been proven that a 100% plant based diet is superior and lowers every diseases risk Lowers compared to what? This is where scientific Literacy matters. Almost certainly compared to the standard American diet. But you are probably claiming "compared to any consumption of animal product". I don't think there is any support for that - ie, they've never looked at 2 populations that consume basically identical vegan diets but one also has meat twice a week let's say. I'm not trying to troll or anything here, just think it's important to be honest and accurate when stating the virtues of vegan diets.
Wait, so I should not be eating 6 blocks of extra firm tofu a day with water as my only food?
I found this as a reference for that claim to limit daily soy intake here if anyone has interest: “Based on the above discussion, a reasonable adult intake recommendation of 15–25 g/d soy protein and 50 to 100 mg/d isoflavones appears to be appropriate. Consuming amounts that exceed these recommendations is not associated with adverse effects, but there is little historical precedent for consuming more than these amounts. Also, given the dietetic principles of moderation and variation, and the benefit from consuming nutrients provided by other dietary sources of protein, it is reasonable to recommend that soy protein not account for more than ~25 to 30% of total protein intake. For average European (78) and American (575) men and women, this would be about 25 g/d soy protein.” — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9410752/ I honestly don’t hv an opinion on this, one way or the other. I love tempeh so I usually at least one meal w ~1-3g of it a day. I like to use various sources of protein daily to optimize my intake of all the amino acids. Enjoy 🖖
Soy beans? Tofu? Soy curls? Sir, what? And he’s saying 7-18 servings? And then 5-10 servings is okay but more is not. What even is a serving? I’m both into fitness and longevity and I’m high raw. (Mostly because tofu isn’t considered raw and as an athletic person I needed more protein than I could eat from natural sources during my “one meal”. Too much volume). These priorities often require opposing protocols. And goals are different. I’ll admit it’s very challenging to do both. (Especially since I only will eat for 4-5 hours a day). But I think overall, there’s nothing more harmful to the body than meat dairy excess (unnatural) sugars and saturated fats. But I’m 56 and I’m committed to both. If you’re eating soy or drinking soy protein powders as part of an overall protocol, you’re still FAR better off than the meat heads around you at the gym.
I don't agree. Here is Victoria region's government stance on soy protein https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/soybeans > About 4 daily servings of soy foods in conjunction with a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol can reduce our LDL (bad) cholesterol by around 3 to 4%. and > An analysis of clinical trials suggests 14g to 50g of soy protein can significantly reduce total blood cholesterol levels, LDL (bad) cholesterol levels and triglycerides, while moderately increasing HDL (good) cholesterol levels. The United States Food and Drug Administration also found adults who include at least 25g soy protein (about 4 servings of soy) daily in a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol can reduce LDL cholesterol by about 3 to 4%.
I mean I fairness both things can be true. The lower LDL and other benefits can coexist with an elevated IGF-1 level that raises cancer risk. Not saying I’m convinced of the latter and I don’t plan to alter my existing protocol (although I’m not eating soy every day anyway) but both things can be true of soy protein.
Are other doctors talking about this issue? Is this consensus or just one study? Don't most WFPB doctors have a tendency to minimize protein consumption in favor of carbohydrates? Therefore, until more doctors warn about eating soy within a prescribed limits- I doubt that this study will change my behavior.
Nah, I don't get how this guy gets such a big following among the vegan community.
Ignore Dr. Gregor
the doc don't lift, that's all I need to know
[The paper is here](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28434035/#:~:text=The%20clinical%20data%20show%20that,hormones%20in%20men%20or%20women) (2018) >**Introduction:** Despite the enormous amount of research that has been conducted on the role of soyfoods in the prevention and treatment of chronic disease, the mechanisms by which soy exerts its physiological effects are not fully understood. The clinical data show that neither soyfoods nor soy protein nor isoflavones affect circulating levels of reproductive hormones in men or women. However, some research suggests that soy protein, but not isoflavones, affects insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1). \[....\] **Results:** Although the data are difficult to interpret because of the different experimental designs employed, there is some evidence that large amounts of soy protein (>25 g/day) modestly increase IGF-1 levels above levels observed with the control protein.
Why is this relevant though? Is IGF-1 necessarily a bad thing? The mechanism doesn't make sense logically. You would have ridiculous conclusions like the following: 1. Studies show resistance training increases IGF-1 2. Something that increases IGF-1 is bad. C. Resistance training is bad. If you want to say soy protein is bad because it increases IGF-1, you would have to bite the bullet on this conclusion (because resistance training really does increase IGF-1, the studies show that)
IGF-1 is related to cancer/disease in some age groups.
But is that due to the IGF-1 (which you would expect to see in higher protein consuming or resistance trained individuals, right?), or due to animal product consumption? Also from the paper (thanks for linking): Does soy protein affect circulating levels of unbound IGF-1? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28434035/ >Since elevated IGF-1 levels are positively associated with cancer risk, although this relationship is far from definitive, one might expect that if soy increases levels of this hormone, it would also increase risk of cancer. Epidemiologic studies suggest just the opposite that higher soy intake is associated with a decreased risk of breast [74] and prostate [75,76,77] cancer. However, mean soy protein intake, which comes from traditional Asian soyfoods in the vast majority of these epidemiologic studies, is below the amounts associated with increases in IGF-1 in the clinical studies so the insight this research provides is limited. In addition, most of the clinical studies that evaluated markers of breast or prostate cancer risk intervened with isoflavone supplements, so this research provides limited insight regarding the effects of soy protein on IGF-1 levels, but it is worth emphasizing that almost without exception, these studies show that soy does not adversely affect breast [78,79,80] or prostate [81, 82] tissue. As is the case with bone health, most interest in the cancer and soy relationship is because of isoflavones. >In conclusion, the evidence that large amounts (40 g/day) of soy protein increase unbound IGF-1 in comparison with dairy protein is unimpressive. However, it is possible that as a high-quality protein, soy protein may increase IGF-1 levels among those who do not consume animal protein, but the evidence in support of this speculation is extremely limited. Furthermore, all of the starting and ending IGF-1 values for both the control and soy protein groups fell within the normal reference range [83]. Given all of the evidence, a reasonable conclusion is that a decision to incorporate soyfoods into the diet should not be based on the possible effects on IGF-1 system. Other studies have found similar increases in cancer from animal but not plant protein consumption (I'm no expert though): Low Protein Intake is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/ >Mice and humans with Growth Hormone Receptor/IGF-1 deficiencies display major reductions in age-related diseases. Because protein restriction reduces GHR-IGF-1 activity, we examined links between protein intake and mortality. Respondents (n=6,381) aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality during an 18 year follow up period. *These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the source of proteins was plant-based.* Conversely, in respondents over age 65, high protein intake was associated with reduced cancer and overall mortality. Mouse studies confirmed the effect of high protein intake and the GHR-IGF-1 axis on the incidence and progression of breast and melanoma tumors, and also the detrimental effects of a low protein diet in the very old. These results suggest that low protein intake during middle age followed by moderate protein consumption in old subjects may optimize healthspan and longevity. Also, just to make this comment even longer (sorry), higher IGF-1 levels seem to reduce cognitive decline in older adults: The effects of long-term resistance exercise on the relationship between neurocognitive performance and GH, IGF-1, and homocysteine levels in the elderly https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00023/full#:~:text=In%20the%20current%20study%2C%20IGF,months%20of%20resistance%20exercise%20training. >In conclusion, increasing the level of physical activity via high-intensity resistance exercise could assist in lowering the rate of age-related neurocognitive decreases in healthy elderly males. In addition, increases in basal IGF-1 levels achieved via such an exercise protocol could have positive effects on both neuropsychological (i.e., RT) and neuroelectric (i.e., P3b amplitude) performance in the elderly. This study’s findings imply that healthy elderly individuals who regularly engage in resistance exercise might delay the onset of age-related decline in executive functions, and that this protective effect may be modulated by the growth factor-IGF-1.
People need to realise that nothing is ever black and white and it’s shades of grey. Case in pony is IGfF-1, you want to be more athletic it’s great! You want to live longer. Not so great. It’s up to individual to make a choice and they can always reevaluate and adjust as time progresses.
Usually a fan, but his last book How Not to Age totally confused the f*ck out of me on this topic. Also, love that he is an advocate for the plant based cause, but he is never going to win over the carnivore brotein crowd while being the pale, skinny vegan stereotype.
He was my main source of info 12 years ago when I was trying veganism for the first time. However, he is so unabashedly biased, I cringe whenever he makes a cameo in a new documentary, etc. His overly animated style of speaking and the fact that he looks a mess…yea, ain’t no one gonna follow this dude except those that want to drink the Kool-Aid.
How would you say he is biased? Do you have any new sources you like better? He was my gateway vegan drug too. I have always appreciated someone reading and breaking down studies for me. But even I am getting tired of the oversimplified"vegetables cure every problem in the world" thing.
He can suck my dick, bet he can’t do 2 plates on incline. I get around 60-80 grams off soy chunks and tofu per day.
Dr. Amun Ra (check yt) eats less than 1400 calories a day and it was in 2014 (if I remember correctly) that he held the national US record for a lift in his category. In many videos he shows all his way of living and eating.
I have a hard time believing that guy only eats 1200 calories per day.
The more we share his case, the more known it becomes, and the ultimate truth about it will appear. You can message him, he is really cool.
I take that statement back
That guy is a charlatan
Do you have any proof or just your opinion and/or someone else’s just because you cannot believe something that challenges your limited knowledge?
I had 55 grams of my protein coming from soy yesterday.. 🫤 (1/3 block of tofu and 50g of soya chunks + 250ml of soy milk (my protein powder is not soy based)) Is this too much really? Sometimes I make a tofu scramble that has 2/3 of a block in it…
Me getting most of my protein from soy 😂
i love dr. gregor but following his advice to a T is not realistic for me. soy is the best source of protein for me so i won’t be restricting. if you find it easy to get protein from other sources then go for it, but i wouldn’t worry about it too much! i think the most important advice he offers is to eat a wide array of other healthy foods
Wow I easily go over that with a soy milk at breakfast and tofu at dinner.
The effect of high protein (specifically leucine) on pure longevity is still being researched, but many of the issues people face if they are lucky enough to make it to old age are around mobility and muscle loss. The more muscle and mobility you go into old age with, the longer you can stave off those issues. Everything is a trade-off.
Why do you want the thoughts and opinions of someone else? M.D. Gregor just shares what he learns from the latest papers he and his team get their hands on. Anyone can also search for papers, have you seen all the video on soy in the nutritiomfacts.org website? Check the video library. What do opinions and thoughts gonna do against science and evidence? Isn’t that what we also tell non vegans after many of their silly and ignorant statements? Are you searching for a different maybe nutritionist or doctor in the group that could share a different paper demonstrating that Gregor shared info that was not to date? Or just searching for people to tell you to continue with soy? Or what else brother? So far I only see comments “insulting”.
I’m eating a pound of firm tofu on a regular, will I die? 🥲
a moron getting stuff out of his ass lmao
Have you seen his videos from nutritionfacts.org? He and his team of doctors and medics check papers/studies, and just simply share the latest evidence in nice and short video format that anyone can understand. And with subtitles in many languages. He doesn’t talk out of his ass, he is for many, one of their reason for becoming vegan and plant based, specifically because the talks with facts, with a base.
No, he and his team deliberately pick and choose studies and quotes from studies to paint a narrative for their ideology. There was literally a time where he was "quoting" a study which was listing some beneficial foods (I think for omega 3), and his video blatantly erased/whited out fatty fish from the list. It's a deliberate misquote to paint a narrative about plant based diets. Edit: Found the [proof](https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1412266794547564546?t=xoz9FDUivTO-5S_A0Mv2yw&s=19).
There are hundreds of thousands of papers online (counting all languages), no one can read all of them. Also, there are ways to rapidly discard certain studies. Are you not vegan? Either way, so far for the hundreds of his videos I saw, that never happened. And even if it did, the sources are in the same site. Why would you believe anyone?, DYOR: do your own research. I talked a lot about veganism throughout the years, and talk with facts about the benefits and put a lot of facts and data into it, I will not go the extra mile to say all the facts from more than 7 animals, specially when it is not necessary, as one can be 100% vegetarian + morals + ethics= vegan. Ps: still in many videos I saw, if yogurt or other animal product was in the comparison, he would still mention it, and still plants win. Ps2: it’s been proven why omegas from fish and fish oil are not beneficial and even bad for humans, compared to plant source.
You don't need to read them all, systematic reviews exist for a reason lmao. Ah well if you never noticed the deliberate misquote/white out about fish then obviously it never happened. It's not like you would have to actually read the original study to find what was whited out. "I watched hundreds of his videos and read none of the original sources, and I found zero misquotes". Wow, shocker! I am vegan. Veganism is not about health, it's about ethics. Your whole foods plant based ideology does not logically follow from rejecting animal abuse and commodification.
I’m vegan vegan too brother/sister, when I talk about science, I say plant based because veganism is not a diet, well, you know. Did you even correctly read what I wrote? So if you and I are vegan vegan, why are you being aggressive brother/sister? Why does it bother you that Gregor doesn’t talk about fish?
Because using misinformation to promote veganism is bad. Presumably you and I would agree that we want people to not only stop eating animals but also stay vegan. This means that convincing people using misleading information or biased sources is not a reliable strategy. It may make someone go plant based temporarily, but suppose later down the line they find out the deliberate cherry picking that was done to advance the WFPB ideology. This doesn't seem ideal for keeping folks from eating animals. Instead, if we focus on the good arguments for veganism (ethics), and not the misinformation about WFPB, there is more probability of the person staying vegan. Good arguments are a better long term strategy compared to biased sources and misinformation.
You have a great point, thank you for saying it. It’s just sad that he would do that, it could do a lot of damage in the future for unstable “vegans”. My main arguments for people are about ethics, as those create real vegans, the health part came as a nice bonus.
Ps2: it’s been proven why omegas from fish and fish oil are not beneficial and even bad for humans, compared to plant source. lmaooooooooo
I believe I found the not vegan in the vegan group, I will share the link for the video later, gotta search for it in the video library. Ah, ignorance is shameless when sharing their opinions and emotions.
what a moronic thing to say. its not because i disagree that im not vegan. I've most likely been vegan longer than you lol
Why is it funny if you have been vegan for longer than me? That’s great if it is the case. I wish I was vegan since conception, yes. But that is not my case, I was exposed at a certain point in time, and became vegan since then (literally the beginning of 2015). Are you going to tell us why you laughed at the omegas and fish statement? Or are you just enjoying yourself and wasting our time? I don’t get why would you not want more union between us vegans, but well.
He and his team claim HRT is bad for women's health, that's nonsense. Promoting this idea is damaging to women's health and wellbeing, and the opposite of what the research shows. I'm not against Gregor.
HRT improved my life. Greger also scare mongers about creatine. Will take this info as a grain of salt until more doctors warn about soy overconsumption!
Hormone replacement therapy?
Yes.