Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Soy baby formula = severe adult dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, larger fibroids, reprodu

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199

    Thumbs down Soy baby formula = severe adult dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, larger fibroids, reprodu

    The news is bad from the one experiment, but there is worse news in the article: long-term reproductive system damage. Read on.


    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-...menstrual.html

    Soy formula feeding during infancy associated with severe menstrual pain in adulthood

    November 9, 2018, National Institutes of Health

    New research suggests that infant girls fed soy formula are more likely to develop severe menstrual pain as young adults. The finding adds to the growing body of literature that suggests exposure to soy formula during early life may have detrimental effects on the reproductive system. The study appears online in the journal Human Reproduction. Scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health, along with collaborators from Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, and the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, examined data from 1,553 African-American women, aged 23-35, participating in the NIEHS Study of Environment, Lifestyle, and Fibroids (SELF). The researchers found that women who had ever been fed soy formula as babies were 50 percent more likely to have experienced moderate or severe menstrual discomfort between the ages of 18 and 22, and 40 percent more likely to have used hormonal contraception to help alleviate menstrual pain.

    https://academic.oup.com/humrep/adva...dey303/5146638
    Soy-based infant formula feeding and menstrual pain in a cohort of women aged 23–35 years
    Last edited by Roger E. Moore; 2018-Nov-10 at 03:46 PM. Reason: added material

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,492
    Soy contains plant estrogens.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,357
    So how is this very bad, the worst, news? Do we really need these kinds of clickbait titles here?
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    So how is this very bad, the worst, news? Do we really need these kinds of clickbait titles here?
    You are right, my apologies. The new title is correct per the article. I did not quote whole article here.
    Last edited by Roger E. Moore; 2018-Nov-10 at 03:45 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    So how is this very bad, the worst, news? Do we really need these kinds of clickbait titles here?
    I tried to change the thread title, but it did not take. Could you please change the thread title from the original one to this:

    Soy baby formula = severe adult dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, larger fibroids, reproductive damage

    Thank you.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,936
    The equals sign in the new title is still misleading. Soy baby formula does not inevitably lead to the things on the right side of the equality. It (in a retrospective study relying on recall) appears to be associated with an increased risk of these things.

    Grant Hutchison

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,730
    Japanese babies eat tofu and natto and I'm not aware that this causes problems.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The equals sign in the new title is still misleading. Soy baby formula does not inevitably lead to the things on the right side of the equality.
    Frankly, I'm less irritated by the titles of such threads than I am by the content, which is invariably just a link to an article, with no conversation opener (except the implicit 'FYI').

    I come to fora to discuss.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Frankly, I'm less irritated by the titles of such threads than I am by the content, which is invariably just a link to an article, with no conversation opener (except the implicit 'FYI').

    I come to fora to discuss.
    Agreed, but the news was of the sort that I thought perhaps people who were using or considering the use of soy baby formula might want to read the article as a rather pressured FYI.

    If this is not appropriate, I will not do it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Know what, maybe a little pow-wow wouldn't hurt. If I come across a medical science article that appears to have immediate importance ("doctors think Thalidomide is causing birth defects"), how should I treat it when putting it in a thread?

    Want to do the right and good thing here, not cause a lot of trouble or even no trouble if possible. So everyone, moderators too, chip in. Best way to do this, what is it?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Japanese babies eat tofu and natto and I'm not aware that this causes problems.
    In the spirit of this being a discussion forum () perhaps I should rephrase that so it sounds less negative:

    Japanese babies eat tofu and natto, so I wonder if there is any evidence that this causes problems?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Japanese babies eat tofu and natto, so I wonder if there is any evidence that this causes problems?
    Well, there's Kawasaki disease, an autoimmune condition linked to soy consumption in infancy, which (as the name suggests) is more common in Japanese people.
    But there's a difference between eating soy as part of a mixed diet (when the baby moves to solid food), and eating nothing but soy products for months (which is what happens when a baby is raised on infant soy formula). Also, the preparation of tofu may produce a rather different chemical product from soy milk.

    Grant Hutchison

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Know what, maybe a little pow-wow wouldn't hurt. If I come across a medical science article that appears to have immediate importance ("doctors think Thalidomide is causing birth defects"), how should I treat it when putting it in a thread?

    Want to do the right and good thing here, not cause a lot of trouble or even no trouble if possible. So everyone, moderators too, chip in. Best way to do this, what is it?
    I think there are several clues in the article and the report of the article that show this is not some sudden acute medical emergency. We're told there's a growing body of evidence, and the authors describe previous similar work on the same topic. Soy formula has actually been under a cloud for more than a decade, because of various concerns - in the UK it's been a "doctor's advice only" product for that sort of time period. Maybe in the USA parents with small babies are not routinely informed of all this, but I'd be a little surprised, given that baby formula is probably the most heavily regulated foodstuff in the world.
    (The fact that it has been a source of concern for a decade is a significant worry for the sort of retrospective study reported, BTW - it introduces a source of "recall bias" that can skew the results.)

    My rule is that, whenever an alarming headline is attached to a medical report, I read the text carefully, cast a critical eye over the research, and find out what previous work there has been. Usually the alarm dies down significantly.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2018-Nov-11 at 04:19 PM. Reason: extraneous "i"

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    My rule is that, whenever an alarming headline is attached to a medical report, I read the text carefully, cast a critical eye over the research, and find out what previous work there has been. Usually the alarm dies down significantly.
    What caught me off-guard was that after reading through the research paper itself, it mentioned only painful adult dysmenorrhea as a consequence of soy formula ingestion in infancy. THEN I realized the news article was talking about a range of even worse consequences that amounted to unrepaired damage to the female reproductive system, as discovered in OTHER research.

    At that point, being a parent of three (now adult) children, I admit I panicked a tiny bit and decided to frame my re-reporting of the research in an (inappropriate but unintentional) clickbait manner. The thought that I could have fed my kids something in childhood that damaged them as adults.... let's not go there. Except that we never used soy, thank heaven.

    But in the future I will work toward being less of a panic-monger and will write down the actual news. Sadly, in this case, the reading the actual news is devastating. There is no way to wipe this news clean of its horror.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,936
    As I say (and as the articles indicate), this news has been around for a while, the evidence is notably imperfect, and advice on the use of soy formula has been in place for a decade or more.
    One does need to be careful about letting "what if?" horror leak into the interpretation of on-going medical research, especially medical research with numerous weaknesses of the sort reported. Admittedly, there are probably few bad consequences for most parents abandoning soy formula, but we've seen enough stunningly adverse outcomes from scare stories in the past (vaccination, anyone?) to suggest that being moderate and measured is a good default position.

    Grant Hutchison

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Here is the study linking soy milk formula to adult endometriosis.


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5328429/

    Early-life factors and endometriosis risk
    Kristen Upson, PhD, Sheela Sathyanarayana, MD, Delia Scholes, PhD, and Victoria L. Holt, PhD

    Published in final edited form as:
    Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct; 104(4): 964–971.e5.
    Published online 2015 Jul 26. doi: [10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.040]

    Results: We observed that women who were regularly fed soy formula as infants had over twice the risk of endometriosis compared to unexposed women (aOR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.2-4.9). Our data also suggested increased endometriosis risk with prematurity (aOR 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-3.1) and maternal use of DES (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 0.8-4.9, adjusting only for frequency matching variables), although these confidence intervals included the null.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    A milder take, but still noting changes in reproductive systems in females.


    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0312150509.htm

    Babies fed soy-based formula have changes in reproductive system tissues
    CHOP co-author of NIH-led study: Subtle estrogen-like responses in infants point to need for longer-term follow-up of effects

    March 12, 2018; Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

    Summary: Infants who consumed soy-based formula as newborns had differences in some reproductive-system cells and tissues, compared to those who used cow-milk formula or were breastfed, according to a new study. The researchers say the differences, measured in the months after birth, were subtle and not a cause for alarm, but reflect a need to further investigate the long-term effects of exposure to estrogen-like compounds found in soy-based formulas.

    Infants who consumed soy-based formula as newborns had differences in some reproductive-system cells and tissues, compared to those who used cow-milk formula or were breastfed, according to a new study. The researchers say the differences, measured in the months after birth, were subtle and not a cause for alarm, but reflect a need to further investigate the long-term effects of exposure to estrogen-like compounds found in soy-based formulas.

    "Soy formula contains high concentrations of plant-based estrogen-like compounds, and because this formula is the sole food source for many babies in the first six months of life, it's important to understand the effects of exposure to such compounds during a critical period in development," said Virginia A. Stallings, MD, director of the Nutrition Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). Stallings is a senior author of a new study published online March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,202
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Frankly, I'm less irritated by the titles of such threads than I am by the content, which is invariably just a link to an article, with no conversation opener (except the implicit 'FYI').

    I come to fora to discuss.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Know what, maybe a little pow-wow wouldn't hurt. If I come across a medical science article that appears to have immediate importance ("doctors think Thalidomide is causing birth defects"), how should I treat it when putting it in a thread?

    Want to do the right and good thing here, not cause a lot of trouble or even no trouble if possible. So everyone, moderators too, chip in. Best way to do this, what is it?
    Everyone knock off the meta-discussion, it is not appropriate within the thread. If anyone wants such a discussion, take it to Feedback.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    A milder take, but still noting changes in reproductive systems in females.
    Here's the problem with medicine, and in particular with dietary advice - it's never clear cut, and you can usually find a paper or two to support any particular idea or fear you might have.
    The soy situation is complicated, the infant soy situation doubly so, with a couple of decades of research underpinning it, and biological arguments on both sides. But in the USA you've been stuffing soy formula into your infants for a century (no, I don't know why), which is a pretty massive uncontrolled public health experiment, and it doesn't seem to have been a disaster.
    Then again, there have been no demonstrated health benefits to using soy formula, except in the case of babies with actual genetic defects. So with a concern about harm, and no demonstrable benefit, the UK dialed in the "only under medical advice" recommendation a decade ago. Round about the same time, France actually withdrew soy formula products from the general market entirely, which seems to me to be a reasonable response to a generally pointless product that was suspected of causing harm.

    Grant Hutchison

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,936
    I'm reminded of something a paediatrician told me when I was a medical student. "At any given time, there are only about four things you really need to know about how to look after a baby. Unfortunately, at least two of those will be disproven every decade."

    Grant Hutchison

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •