Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soy

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Addressing the first study they state that there was no change in blood levels of the sex hormones. They also state that other factors may have played a role in the changes, such as the free androgen index (FAI). Overall though the study is showing that the tofu diet was decreasing the risk of cancer as opposed to the meat diet that increased the risk.

    In the second study their primary focus was on the lowering of dihydrotestosterone (DHT), which if elevated is a primary risk factor for prostate cancer.

    The third study shows a decrease of androgen receptor expression also lowering the risk of cancer.

    The last study shows a decreased risk of cancer by soy's ability to enhance the excretion of estrogen metabolites.

    All the studies are actually confirming benefits by soy.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JamesS View Post
      All the studies are actually confirming benefits by soy.
      All the studies I have read have only come to the conclusion that there may be a potential benefit or that the results were worthy of further investigation.

      I did not see any that concluded that there was a clearly indicated benefit with no side effects or that the benefits clearly outweighed any potential side effects.

      The studies look at specific markers that may be indicators of improvement in risk factors, but are these markers as good as LDL is(not) at being a predictor of heart disease risk and then in addition the fact that sex hormone levels are altered and that no one really knows how these compounds really behave in other receptors of the human body, suggests that they should be treated with caution at the very least.

      Whenever you start looking into health conditions, reading studies or questioning health professionals you go through layers like the old "onion",
      First impression is OMG that's amazing I wasn't aware of that, new knowledge, great.
      Then you find some discrepancies, so you question more, you get some answers, but even more questions.
      The deeper you go, the more questions arise, and if dealing with a Health Professional, this is about the time they become irate
      because they have finally reached the point where they have to admit they really don't know.
      So at this point with all the information you have you have to make a "leap of faith", and as for Soy I'm not ready to jump yet.

      From what I have seen there is no way anyone could make a Unilateral statement that it is healthy for everyone to consume Soy in the proportional quantities that it has been pushed into the market place.
      If this was just a natural progression I would be less sceptical, but knowing that the Soy industry is pushing in all directions to get Soy in every meal, particularly in elementary schools and baby formulas, with the full knowledge that there are many questions still unanswered as to what the long term ramifications of this may be for the individuals concerned.

      This just reinforces my current view that it has nothing to do with health and everything to do with money, then automatically you come to the question, what do the Soy industry exec's know and aren't telling us? Remember these guys are from the same school as the tobacco industry execs who knew that smoking was a major risk factor in lung cancer 30 years before overwhelming research forced this exposure and it took a further legal process for them to admit that they knew long before and continued to push cigarettes onto the public.

      I am still looking through trying to get a handle on where Soy belongs in the diet.
      Is it on par with other legumes,
      Is it a bit worse,
      or
      Like a lot of medicinal herbs, should it only be used under strict medical supervision.

      Soy can not be everything to everyone as it is portrayed,
      It is either a benign food or a potent medicine, it can't be both and from the research I have seen showing both potential positive and negative effects indicates it can no longer be considered as a benign food.
      Last edited by Omni; 08-22-2012, 01:35 AM.
      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        I'm not confusing anything. You're creating a straw man and ignoring my original argument. Arachidonic acid is supposed to be inflammatory - it's integral in the healing process. Of course things in excess is harmful. That is the very definition of "excess." Too much water is inflammatory and leads to death. Same thing goes for sunshine. However, water and sunshine are good in the appropriate quantities. So is arachidonic acid.
        And what did I originally state? Here is my quote again: "Seems to me from what I have seen the primal diet is rich in meats." Hmm... Rich in meats thus a higher level of inflammatory arachidonic acid than a more varied diet lower in meat.

        And yes, you were confusing vasodilation with inflammation. I tried to explain the difference to you but it clearly went over your head. What you need to learn though is that vasodilation goes on all the time in everyone, inflammation does not. So clearly there is a difference that you just are not getting. And I really don't know how to get you to understand the difference. I tried, but you just don't get it.

        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        Yes, the body can convert linoleic acid to arachidonic acid just like the body can convert ALA into EPA and DHA. However, studies have shown that ALA conversion is poor and inefficient. The same thing stands with LA conversion into AA. Just like it is far better to take in EPA and DHA from fish instead of ALA from nasty sources like flax and chia, it's better to take in AA from chicken, fish and beef than it is to take in LA from nasty things like soy, canola oil, peanuts and oatmeal. LA is not something the body is designed to take in in large quantities, just like ALA. This is reflected in the poor conversion efficiency.
        You are destroying your own argument. It has already been established that AA is pro-inflammatory. And it has been pointed out by you that the conversion to LA in to AA is poor. Since meats contain inflammatory AA and the LA from soy is not converted in to AA easily this means meat is more inflammatory than soy and thus more of a risk factor for diseases such as heart disease and cancer.

        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        You changed my argument. Your body can handle small amounts of plant-based fats. They are not ideal. The overwhelming majority of your fat intake should come from animal sources. Again, this is reflected by our body's poor and inefficient means of converting ALA to EPA/DHA, LA to AA and the fact that our digestive system more closely resembles that of a carnivore than a herbivore. Make no mistake about it, we can survive on plant matter but we thrive best getting most of our calories from animal sources.
        Again, you are killing your own argument by the same reasoning I mentioned above.

        Secondly, our digestive systems are set up for an omnivore diet. So to compare the human digestive system to a carnivore or a herbivore is ridiculous.


        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        LDL and HDL are lipoproteins, not cholesterol. What's your point? You're creating another straw man.
        What's your point? You are responding to a statement I made that did not even mention cholesterol. Here is what you are responding to:

        Quote Originally Posted by JamesS View Post
        Linoleic acid is not a fat, it is a fatty acid. And there is a difference just like there was a difference between vasodilation and inflammation that you also confused earlier.

        Where is cholesterol even mentioned? Are you that desperate to argue that you are going to argue about things never said now?


        [QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;933537]No, I didn't. You made that assessment somehow. You don't need very much arachidonic acid.

        Yes, you did. And you are doing it again. Once again you clearly stated "Arachidonic acid is very important inside the human body. Linoleic acid isn't." I pointed out that LA can be a starter molecule for AA, which you claim is important. But you are claiming that the conversion of LA in to AA is poor, which means only safe, small levels of AA are going to be produced from LA. And you are stating that we only need small amounts of AA. Therefore, you have contradicted your own arguments several times. After all the LA from soy will provide small amounts of AA as where a high meat consumption will provide excess levels of AA that are harmful to the body.

        [QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;933537]According to nutritiondata, 830 calories of raw soybeans have 1.6mg of vitamin E. Meanwhile, 823 calories of almonds have 35.9mg of Vitamin E. I'd say that's significant.

        And again, the level of vitamin E differs between cultivars as I pointed out. Furthermore, unless that is all you are eating that is not really an issue. All plants and meats will contain high levels of some nutrients and low levels of others. That is why a varied diet is so essential. Secondly, if you think that vitamin E is the only antioxidant in soy then you are sadly mistaking. So your original point is just as invalid as your other points.

        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        Really? Maybe you're getting all this misinformation from bogus propaganda sites.

        http://webpages.charter.net/edsouza/...minarpaper.doc

        Please view Page 18.

        Whey Concentrate: 104
        Egg: 100
        Cow's Milk: 91
        Fish: 83
        Beef: 80
        Soy: 59
        Peanuts: 43

        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        That means that the protein in soy is almost half as available as the protein in eggs or whey. And of course, only around 2/3 as effective as animal flesh.
        Not according to this study:

        https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...Ab7oCbazn2HWpw

        "Mendel and Fine4 found the- protein in mush prepared from soy beans to be from 74.5 to 87.6 per cent digestible by dogs and 85.3 per cent digestible by men (uncorrected values). In fact the protein of soy beans was only 2.6 per cent less digestible than was the protein in a mixed diet of wheat, meat, eggs and peanut butter."

        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        And that's without the horrible effects of the phytoestrogens, which would likely make it the biggest junk protein on this list.
        LOL!!! You clearly don't understand what phytoestrogens are or their numerous benefits. They actually help block the effects of estrogens, such as those found in beef, reducing the risk of cancer. Again, you need to stop relying on those propaganda sites.

        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        I'm not going to comment on the rest because, frankly, it's painful to read and I can't make it through. My forehead is too sore from its time spent slammed against my keyboard.
        At least I know now why you could not understand the simple concepts I presented such as the difference between regular vasodilation and inflammation. Or why you are arguing about LDL and HDL being lipoproteins when they were not even mentioned. Maybe you just like arguing with yourself. That would also explain why you kept contradicting your own arguments. Hmm..... Maybe you have been consuming mad cows.

        Comment


        • [QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;933546]Oh my God. Ok, I have to comment on this because this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Whoa, other plants contain phytoestrogens? No way! Let's actually talk QUANTITY.

          http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/inde...ge=0&Itemid=30


          So, again, let's actually talk quantity. Cow's milk contains phytoestrogens. So do soybeans. Cow's milk contains 1.2μg/100g. Soybeans contain 103,920 μg/100g. Are you serious?

          Are you serious? Where did you learn to read. I NEVER said anything about the phytoestrogens in cow's milk. I clearly stated the estrogens, thus not phytoestrogens but rather true estrogens that are tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands times stronger than phytoestrogens.

          So now we know you don't know the difference between simple vasodilation and inflammation and you don't know the difference between phytoestrogens and real estrogens. Funny thing is that the site you pulled that from even mentions they are different. They also state some of the benefits of phytoestrogens that you are so scared of:

          "What are the benefits of phytoestrogens?

          Several studies show that phytoestrogens have potential health benefits such as reducing risks of incidence of breast cancer, prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease. Phytoestrogens may reduce osteoporosis (bone loss) and menopausal symptoms. Besides, both flavonoid and lignan phytoestrogens have antioxidant activity. Phytoestrogens formulations are used by women in menopause as alternative or compelementary options to hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) because of concerns of side-effects or other considerations. Some studies also report potential benefits of phytoestrogens in lowering serum cholesterol levels."

          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
          Soybeans cause breast cancer. Again, phytoestrogen.
          You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. First of all real estrogens, such as those found in beef and cow's milk, can significantly stimulate the growth of existing breast cancers. Phytoestrogens on the other hand lock up estrogen receptors blocking the action of real estrogens and xenoestrogens, which is why study after study has shown they reduce breast cancer. Historically, phytoestrogens have long been used to treat cancers.

          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
          Again you are going off in left field. Nobody is discussing the availability of vitamin B6 from wheat, just like how nobody but you was discussing whether or not HDL and LDL are lipoproteins. You need to stop banging your head so you can focus and stay on topic and hopefully stop contradicting your own arguments.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BennettC View Post
            I think your post is actually very ignorant to the actual problem with eating soy. It goes wayyyy beyond cutting carbohydrates. I cut soy out of my diet but never had any significant amount of soy as carbohydrate in my diet. Soy is extremely toxic and contains high levels of phytoestrogen. It is not meant for human consumption. Dr. Greg Ellis has a good video on this.
            Most of the soy consumed is through soybean oil, all the restaurants cook in it. Its in all processed food, and now infant formulas!

            Check out these links
            Soy Products are Dangerous - YouTube
            Soy Products, Including Soy-Based Infant Formulas, May Be a Major Cause of All Types of Disease
            I checked out the links. The same old misinformation that has been debunked over and over. For example, being a supposed doctor I would think Ellis would be aware of the anti-viral effects of the protease inhibitors that he thinks are dangerous.

            As for phytoestrogens they are beneficial, not detrimental. Again, I am surprised that Ellis has not looked at the overwhelming evidence proving their benefits. The studies are readily available on Medline and elsewhere.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paysan View Post
              Few people in N.A. eat blood or organs in which estrogen is apt to be found in detectable quantities. Any beef that contained as much estrogen as soy would be very sick, very overweight animals.
              How did you come to that conclusion? Soy does not even contain real estrogen. Phytoestrogens get their name because they have a similar structure to real estrogens. But they are neither the same, nor do they have anywhere close to the same strength as real estrogens. It is like trying to compare the strength of a bicycle to a muscle car.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                Strike one for soy: It's not Primal.

                It's a legume and, in anything other than the edamame out of the shell form, it's a processed food.

                Strike two for soy: I don't like it. It's gross.

                Let's see, I could have a gritty watery milk-like substance or I could drink some raw real milk.
                I could have a grass fed burger or I could have a cardboard replica of one made out of "textured vegetable protein" and who knows what else. I could have a squidgy cheese-like substance that never melts right on my burger or maybe just have some real cheese.
                Do you cook that burger? Cooking is a form of processing. For that matter unless you are chewing on the whole dead cow that meat went through a variety of processing to get it the form of ground beef.

                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                I could have all meat sausages or I could have a tofu dog. Nuff said.
                I could have a squidgy white flavorless substance known as tofu in my stir-fry or I could have some shrimp and scallops.
                Hmmm..... Shrimp and scallops. Yes, nothing like scavengers and filter feeders to get your daily dose of ocean toxins. Great for cancer.

                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                Strike three for soy : Possible potential breast cancer risk

                We can debate about phytoestrogens until the free range cows come home. There are just as many studies saying it's carcinogenic and saying it's preventative against cancer, some poorly done, some scientifically sound, some obvious shills and some independent research, on both sides of the issue. Plus others that say it makes no difference. This puts it firmly in the "We Really Don't Know For Sure Yet" category in my mind.
                The ONLY studies I have seen claiming they could cause cancer were rat studies where the rats were given massive doses of isolated phytoestrogens. Using the same reason what do you think would happen if they gave those same rats massive doses of the isolated real estrogens from the cows you are consuming? Especially considering these estrogens are tens of thousands to hundreds of thousand times stronger than phytoestrogens.

                And what plants do you eat? Are you aware that EVERY SINGLE PLANT humans eat contain phytoestrogens?


                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                Given the above two strikes, it's not Primal and I don't like it anyway, why should I take a risk that maybe the research on the cancer danger side turns out to be true? Anecdotal, I know, but I ate a lot of soy growing up with 70's health freak parents and continued to do so until I got breast cancer at 45. Now I choose to err on the side of caution for my own personal safety.

                So that's three strikes. Soy, you're out of my diet.
                I still find it interesting that you are worried about phytoestrogens that have been shown in numerous studies to be cancer protective but you have no problem with the estrogens in beef that are considerably stronger than phytoestrogens.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                  So, for me, the question really isn't ,"Why not eat soy", it's "Why?" It doesn't give me anything nutritionally that I can't find in a better tasting form, IMO, from animal sources. Why take the risk that it may be carcinogenic for a tofu dog?
                  Yet you take the risk with proven carcinogenic beef that contains real estrogens.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by canuck416 View Post
                    Reminds me of the experience my sister and brother-in-law had on the "Farm" a commune in Tennessee during the late 60s and 70s. They embraced vegetarianism and grew their own soy. They ate plenty of seasonal vegetables but their primary source of protein was Soy. They were always sick, tired and run down. Their son developed cancer and died, they moved off the Farm started eating meat and have recently embraced a Paleo style diet and are a vibrant healthy family. They swear that soy was the cause of their constant battle with illness and possibly their son's death. Very anecdotal but it makes you think.
                    Strict vegetarians can develop B12 deficiency anemia after a few years. Decreased B12 also increases the risk of cancer from reduced methylation. None of this has anything to do with soy consumption. I don't advocate any strict diet for this exact reason. All strict diets have their limitations and problems.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post

                      "The main sources of support for the Weston A. Price Foundation are the dues and contributions of its members. The Foundation receives no funding from any government agency or food processing corporation. Although many of our members are farmers, the Foundation has no ties with the meat or dairy industry, nor with any organization promoting these industries. The Foundation promotes the production of food by independent farmers and artisans, and not by industry.
                      the members are:

                      Vital Choice
                      U.S. Wellness Meats

                      Among many others

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=Paleobird;933808]I really think that leading a pro-soy charge by bashing on the WAPF is weaksauce. This is from their webpage where they display their income and expenses openly for the world to see going back several years. WAPF Funding - Weston A Price Foundation

                        "The main sources of support for the Weston A. Price Foundation are the dues and contributions of its members. The Foundation receives no funding from any government agency or food processing corporation. Although many of our members are farmers, the Foundation has no ties with the meat or dairy industry, nor with any organization promoting these industries. The Foundation promotes the production of food by independent farmers and artisans, and not by industry.

                        No ties to the beef or dairy industry? Then why on their tax returns do they have listed under their expenses "campaign-real milk"? Sure sounds like a tie to the dairy industry to me.

                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        I don't agree with everything the WAPF says, e.g. I don't do sprouted grains, but I think attacking their integrity is un-called for.
                        These are interesting videos on WAPF's finances. Looks like they they are pretty creative when it comes to this as well. I especially like the part where the head of WAPF shows a zero income yet they paid out $170,000 for three employees of WAPF and she is listed as the only one working close to full time. Also note how vague they are there as well as to their income sources.

                        Is the Weston A. Price Foundation Truly a Charity? (1 of 2) - YouTube

                        Is the Weston A. Price Foundation Truly a Charity? (2 of 2) - YouTube

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                          Very true. The WAPF may not always be right about everything but they are not anybody's paid shills. That's just silly. I wouldn't put it past the soy industry,however, to pay people to go around posting misinformation on the internet. Hmmm. I wonder why a certain poster was SO adamant that we debate the topic of soy and followed me around several threads trying to "call me out" on the subject even though it was totally irrelevant to the topics at hand and then insisted that this thread be created. It seemed like he was just itching for an excuse to whip out his list o' links. Hmmm?

                          Also, as long as the jury is still out and "we don't know" about soy, I'm not taking a chance on something that offers me nothing but tasteless squidginess in return.
                          I asked you to state specifically what you think is toxic about soy. So far all you have even got close to responding with is phytoestrogens, which are found in all plants we consume and are significantly weaker than the real estrogens in the beef you consume.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by onalark View Post
                            Soy sauce is still pretty friggin' delicious...as an accent to meat. :3

                            Pretty much everything I was going to say has been said. I don't agree with WAPF 100% and I think they're kind of crazy on some subjects, and I agree they seem to have some sort of epic-level hard-on against soy, but I also don't believe they're being funded by anti-soy lobbyists. If they are, they are spectacularly unsuccessful. If there is an anti-soy lobby, they'd be better off funneling money into places like McDonald's, not an eccentric organization like WAPF. And why the beef and dairy industry would hate on soy when it's primarily used to feed their livestock is beyond me. Sounds like conspiracy-theorist propaganda.

                            In my own n=1 experiment, I feel ditching soy has improved my thyroid and overall health. I ate a LOT of soy when I was a vegan. I also, coincidentally, wound up with elevated cholesterol and had to have my thyroid dose upped. I don't know for certain if these two are related, and it's totally anecdotal, but I'm not exactly missing the stuff anymore.
                            Nobody said anything about anti-soy lobbyists. Why do people keep putting their own twist on things and adding things that were never said? This is how all the bogus propaganda about soy has grown as well.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                              Another one, Soy supplement over 5 years increasing incidence of Endometrial Hyperplasia.
                              Endometrial effects of long-term treatment wit... [Fertil Steril. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
                              A pilot study of the effects ... [J Soc Gynecol Investig. 2002 Jul-Aug] - PubMed - NCBI

                              J Soc Gynecol Investig. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):238-42.
                              A pilot study of the effects of phytoestrogen supplementation on postmenopausal endometrium.
                              Balk JL, Whiteside DA, Naus G, DeFerrari E, Roberts JM.
                              Source

                              Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA. rsijlb@mail.magee.edu
                              Abstract
                              OBJECTIVE:

                              This study was designed to assess endometrial histology in postmenopausal women not taking hormone replacement therapy, to evaluate side effects and efficacy of phytoestrogens in treating menopause-associated symptoms, and to determine whether 6 months of phytoestrogen supplementation altered endometrial histology.
                              METHODS:

                              We performed a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing the effects of 6 months of dietary phytoestrogen supplementation versus placebo in postmenopausal women. Baseline endometrial biopsies were performed and, if adequate, nonhyperplastic, noncancerous, and nonovulatory, subjects were randomly assigned to receive daily placebo or soy cereal supplementation for 6 months. Study subjects completed baseline and weekly dietary, symptom, and side effect logs. Repeat endometrial biopsies were obtained at 6 months.
                              RESULTS:

                              Subjects were recruited from January 1998 through June 2000. Twenty-seven subjects were randomized, and 19 completed the study. One (3.7%) baseline endometrial sample was weakly proliferative. All other baseline and final biopsies were consistent with atrophic, inactive endometrium. The maximum risk of endometrial stimulation with phytoestrogens is 35%. Hot flushes, night sweats, and vaginal dryness were significantly less severe at the final week of the study compared with baseline in the placebo group. Insomnia was more common in the treated group. There were no other statistically significant differences in symptoms or side effects.
                              CONCLUSION:

                              Phytoestrogens did not cause stimulation of the endometrium. Insomnia was more frequent over the 6-month study in the soy group, whereas hot flushes, night sweats, and vaginal dryness improved from baseline in the placebo group but not in the soy group.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                                And here's one for the tiny tots on baby Soy.
                                After 10 days supplementing at same Soy rate as baby formula, there was a reduction in intestinal cell proliferation and migration.

                                http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/2449/PDF
                                In piglets, not humans. I guess chocolate is deadly to humans as well since it will kill a dog. Animal studies rarely correlate to humans.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X