Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soy

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

  • Originally posted by Omni View Post
    The comparison between Zinc & Iron absorption in children using either beef protein or Soy protein, the Phytates were removed so it was just straight protein and both meals were equalised for Zinc & Iron

    Effect of Beef and Soy Proteins on the Absorption of Non-Heme Iron and Inorganic Zinc in Children
    From the Discussion
    Non-heme iron is poorly absorbed anyway regardless of the source. This is because plants contain compounds that help bind iron reducing the risk of iron overload, which can lead to numerous health issues and death.

    Comment


    • This study looks specificly at how phytoestrogens bind to either a or b estrogen receptor and whether they act as an agonist or antagonistic manner and in some cases this seems to be dose dependant, they do suggest that the Isoflavones (soy) act as agonists and so actually enhance etsrogen levels and that some of the observed estrogenic antagonistic effects may be due to other things present in Soy, so the reading is that Isoflavones may enhance estrogen dependant cancers.
      At this stage the reccomendation for Soy as a Universal Dietary staple is questionable at best.

      Phytoestrogens and Their Human Metabolites Show Distinct Agonistic and Antagonistic Properties on Estrogen Receptor
      ............, while isoflavones found in soy and tofu are generally considered part of an eastern diet (Cassidy et al., 2000). Due to their abundance (Cassidy et al., 2000; Munro et al., 2003) and potencies, the soy-derived GEN, COUM, the daidzein metabolites equol and the superagonists 347-IF and 467-IF, RESV found mainly in grapes, and the mycotoxin ZEA seem to be relevant as far as potential risk/benefit of their (anti)-estrogenic effects. The isoflavones showed all pure ER agonistic activity. Thus, these compounds should be regarded as potentially estrogenic and, consequently, as potential endocrine disruptors that may cause elevated cell proliferation leading to estrogen-dependent tumor promotion (Allred et al., 2001; Cotroneo et al., 2002; Hilakivi-Clarke et al., 1999a; Newbold et al., 2001) and that may also induce adverse developmental effects (Delclos et al., 2001). The beneficial effects associated with soy intake are likely due in part to non-ER-mediated effects as described above. But, with regard to the adverse and beneficial ER-mediated effects, the timing of exposure is important (Bouker and Hilakivi-Clarke, 2000; Cotroneo et al., 2002). In contrast, RESV's very weak agonistic properties together with its antagonistic properties are likely to be major contributors to the beneficial effects attributed to RESV (Bhat et al., 2001). ZEA might act as an endocrine disruptor at low doses, but its ER antagonistic activity at high doses might contribute to the observed reduction of mammary tumors (Hilakivi-Clarke et al., 1999b). Next to the direct effects on ER activity that were analyzed in this study, phytoestrogens might also affect the formation of endogenous estrogens like 17β-estradiol. One well-characterized and potential target that regulates estradiol formation is aromatase, the enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to estradiol. Indeed, indirect evidence for antiestrogenic effects due to inhibition of the formation of 17β-estradiol has been provided for biochanin A but not genistein at low doses (Almstrup et al., 2002).

      In conclusion, the risks and benefits of estrogenic or antiestrogenic effects depend highly on the target tissue as well as the timing and level of exposure. These latter two factors along with further research on the potential tissue-specific effects of phytoestrogens should aid in the assessment of the real risks and benefits of phytoestrogen-containing diets.
      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Omni View Post
        And one for those little tiny tots "bun in the oven" who are not fully formed yet,
        Genistein crossing the placenta may have developmental effects on the foetus.

        http://download.journals.elsevierhea...0410001177.pdf
        So the study found that a potion of the phytoestrogen is rendered inactive and they have not concluded that there are any adverse effects on the fetus from the remaining phytoestrogen. So this is relevant how?

        And how does this differ from the phytoestrogens found in every plant humans consume? Should pregnant women avoid all plants and stick to beef containing significantly stronger real estrogens?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Omni View Post
          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.
          Sounds like the study you just posted on phytoestrogens crossing the placenta. No health issues had been concluded from this study. Yet is was posted to make it appear that soy was somehow unsafe.

          Originally posted by Omni View Post
          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.
          You must not have looked at many studies on the subject then.

          Originally posted by Omni View Post
          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.
          There is a lot more known about the action on receptors than you think. But again, you need to do some research. Just looking for studies that you think bash soy is not real research.

          And again, what makes the difference if the phytoestrogens come from soy or any other plant we consume? Again, all plants humans consume contain phytoestrogens.

          By the same token where are the studies showing the effects of estrogens from beef on the receptors? So how cautious are you about eating beef? Its already known that the estrogens in beef are significantly stronger than plant phytoestrogens making them an even greater risk factor for things like hormonal imbalances and cancers.

          Originally posted by Omni View Post
          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.
          And again, this applies to the beef industry as well. For example, did you just see the news report last night where cows that could not even walk were being put in to the food supply in violation of the law. And where is most of that meat going? To the nations school districts. The beef industry is in business as well to make money. Is there unethical and illegal activity going on in the industry. Definitely. So how can you trust the research funded by the beef industry?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JamesS View Post
            100g is a very small amount of meat. It is the high consumption of meats like beef that have been linked to inflammatory diseases such as heart disease from arachidonic acid.
            Yes, but that nutrition information is for 100g of pure beef tallow, not meat. That is quite a large amount of fat, like 1/2 cup (8 tablespoons). Meat itself would have significantly less of all the fatty acids listed, even if it was heavily marbled.

            And the link between high red meat consumption and inflammatory diseases is just that: a correlation without proven causation. Many of the studies that show this link have been torn apart by people like Denise Minger.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by KathyH View Post
              the members are:

              Vital Choice
              U.S. Wellness Meats

              Among many others
              U.S. Wellness Meats is part of the beef industry that the WAPF claims to have no ties with. So now we have evidence of their ties to both the beef and dairy industries they claim to have no ties to. So what else has WAPF lied about?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                This study looks specificly at how phytoestrogens bind to either a or b estrogen receptor and whether they act as an agonist or antagonistic manner and in some cases this seems to be dose dependant, they do suggest that the Isoflavones (soy) act as agonists and so actually enhance etsrogen levels
                How did you come to that conclusion being that this is not what "agonist" means?

                Originally posted by Omni View Post
                and that some of the observed estrogenic antagonistic effects may be due to other things present in Soy, so the reading is that Isoflavones may enhance estrogen dependant cancers.
                And again, how did you come to this conclusion since estrogen antagonists help prevent cancer growth by BLOCKING, not enhancing the effects of real estrogens?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by yodiewan View Post
                  Yes, but that nutrition information is for 100g of pure beef tallow, not meat. That is quite a large amount of fat, like 1/2 cup (8 tablespoons). Meat itself would have significantly less of all the fatty acids listed, even if it was heavily marbled.

                  And the link between high red meat consumption and inflammatory diseases is just that: a correlation without proven causation. Many of the studies that show this link have been torn apart by people like Denise Minger.
                  But what I have been talking about is beef meat, not the fat. Meats contain blood that carry things like glucose and fatty acids. The meat is also a source of phospholipids that are precursors for the inflammatory omega 6 arachidonic acid. Therefore, unless people are planning on eating pure beef fat the numbers you posted are irrelevant as far as AA goes. On the other hand the fat is a major magnet for toxins such as herbicides, pesticides and some heavy metals as well as the animals own hormones or hormones they are given. So I would not recommend making a habit out of eating much beef fat.

                  Of course there is just as much danger if not more from the carcinogens created during the cooking of meat.

                  Comment


                  • Mmmmmmm. Meat. Eat meat, be happy!

                    Eat tofu burger, be sad.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                      But what I have been talking about is beef meat, not the fat. Meats contain blood that carry things like glucose and fatty acids. The meat is also a source of phospholipids that are precursors for the inflammatory omega 6 arachidonic acid.
                      Oh nooooooos! Meat contains precursors! And glucose and fatty acids! And phospholipids! Scary! Lions and Tigers and Bears..... Oh my!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                        But what I have been talking about is beef meat, not the fat. Meats contain blood that carry things like glucose and fatty acids. The meat is also a source of phospholipids that are precursors for the inflammatory omega 6 arachidonic acid. Therefore, unless people are planning on eating pure beef fat the numbers you posted are irrelevant as far as AA goes. On the other hand the fat is a major magnet for toxins such as herbicides, pesticides and some heavy metals as well as the animals own hormones or hormones they are given. So I would not recommend making a habit out of eating much beef fat.

                        Of course there is just as much danger if not more from the carcinogens created during the cooking of meat.
                        All of what you said may be true (or not), but my point still stands that beef fat is not very high in omega-6 fatty acids. It is incredibly low in those.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                          How did you come to that conclusion being that this is not what "agonist" means?

                          And again, how did you come to this conclusion since estrogen antagonists help prevent cancer growth by BLOCKING, not enhancing the effects of real estrogens?
                          The isoflavones showed all pure ER agonistic activity. Thus, these compounds should be regarded as potentially estrogenic and, consequently, as potential endocrine disruptors that may cause elevated cell proliferation leading to estrogen-dependent tumor promotion
                          This is what the study said, as I read it "Estrogen dependant tumour promotion" I take that to mean potentially causing an increase in tumours. Please explain if there is a different interpretation, I've read it multiple times because I thought I had misread.

                          By the way, what was the purpose of those two video links, painfully I endured the full 30 min to hear nothing of any value, I have some financial experience and hence already looked at the WAPF returns, I was hoping to see something I missed, but there was nothing. The returns are typical of any non profit organisations, many of these organisations have rich people sitting on the Board and the directors run many different businesses, this doesn't make them criminal in any way.
                          They do promote grass fed beef and raw dairy, they also promote all free range farming and all organic produce, that's what they do, thats what Weston A Price was about, I don't agree with all their nutritional practices, but that doesn't make them sinister.

                          You have been shown enough studies that show that Dietary Soy can have negative consequences, just because you have shown other studies that didn't have the same outcomes doesn't mean it is safe, only that more detailed studies are needed.
                          For whatever reason, you refuse to accept that consuming Soy can have any negative consequences and you simply dismiss any dissenting data, there have been studies posted that show a number of negative outcomes which you refuse to give any due consideration.

                          I take on board the entire Phytoestrogen, Xenoestrogen & Estrogen in beef stories and have learned a lot more about Soy along this journey, and will be much more wary of ensuring greater dietary variety, but am not convinced in the least bit that Soy consumption should form a significant part of anyones diet, there are still too many questions about it's effects in the body.

                          I like to learn and as much as possible I have followed up your links and those posted by others to have a read and I have read the entire discourse on this thread, maybe you don't see it as you do seem to be a very prolific poster, but you do seem to read others out of context often and your replies come across as quite dismissive, to posts which I, and I believe others as well, considered to have some merit to the discussion.

                          I suppose what I'm saying is that it seems you have taken a very clear debating position that Soy is Unilaterally healthy and will not be swayed by any information to the contrary.
                          I have to say I was swaying a bit early in the piece, thinking maybe I had been too tough on Soy, but discovering new information to the negative confirmed that Soy will not be presented on my dinner table, but a wider variety of other foods will.
                          "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by KathyH View Post
                            the members are:

                            Vital Choice
                            U.S. Wellness Meats

                            Among many others
                            Vital Choice and US Wellness Meats are farm operations, selling pastured eggs and grass-fed and pastured meats. They are not "the dairy and meat industry." They probably have to fight very hard against industry to stay in business.



                            All this talk about studies comparing, investigating, defending, implicating soy just makes me feel that a) it's an unproven food source and lots of people are trying very hard to figure out if it's safe or not, and b) that it's way too medicinal to eat regularly if at all.
                            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                              Yet you take the risk with proven carcinogenic beef that contains real estrogens.
                              James, figure one thing out. Calling beef carcinogenic on a Primal site is not going to go over really well.

                              Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                              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.

                              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.
                              The campaign for real milk is about small locally produced sources of raw milk, not The Dairy Industry.
                              And so what about people earning a salary who work there. The scale is still tiny compared to the money involved in the soy Industry.
                              So, how much are they paying you per post, huh?

                              Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                              U.S. Wellness Meats is part of the beef industry that the WAPF claims to have no ties with. So now we have evidence of their ties to both the beef and dairy industries they claim to have no ties to. So what else has WAPF lied about?
                              Yeahright. Us Wellness meats is a small niche market company. Not Teh Beef Industry.

                              Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                              Oh nooooooos! Meat contains precursors! And glucose and fatty acids! And phospholipids! Scary! Lions and Tigers and Bears..... Oh my!
                              Yeah, James, people around here know the facts about their meat.

                              Originally posted by Omni View Post
                              This is what the study said, as I read it "Estrogen dependant tumour promotion" I take that to mean potentially causing an increase in tumours. Please explain if there is a different interpretation, I've read it multiple times because I thought I had misread.

                              By the way, what was the purpose of those two video links, painfully I endured the full 30 min to hear nothing of any value, I have some financial experience and hence already looked at the WAPF returns, I was hoping to see something I missed, but there was nothing. The returns are typical of any non profit organisations, many of these organisations have rich people sitting on the Board and the directors run many different businesses, this doesn't make them criminal in any way.
                              They do promote grass fed beef and raw dairy, they also promote all free range farming and all organic produce, that's what they do, thats what Weston A Price was about, I don't agree with all their nutritional practices, but that doesn't make them sinister.

                              You have been shown enough studies that show that Dietary Soy can have negative consequences, just because you have shown other studies that didn't have the same outcomes doesn't mean it is safe, only that more detailed studies are needed.
                              For whatever reason, you refuse to accept that consuming Soy can have any negative consequences and you simply dismiss any dissenting data, there have been studies posted that show a number of negative outcomes which you refuse to give any due consideration.

                              I take on board the entire Phytoestrogen, Xenoestrogen & Estrogen in beef stories and have learned a lot more about Soy along this journey, and will be much more wary of ensuring greater dietary variety, but am not convinced in the least bit that Soy consumption should form a significant part of anyones diet, there are still too many questions about it's effects in the body.

                              I like to learn and as much as possible I have followed up your links and those posted by others to have a read and I have read the entire discourse on this thread, maybe you don't see it as you do seem to be a very prolific poster, but you do seem to read others out of context often and your replies come across as quite dismissive, to posts which I, and I believe others as well, considered to have some merit to the discussion.

                              I suppose what I'm saying is that it seems you have taken a very clear debating position that Soy is Unilaterally healthy and will not be swayed by any information to the contrary.
                              I have to say I was swaying a bit early in the piece, thinking maybe I had been too tough on Soy, but discovering new information to the negative confirmed that Soy will not be presented on my dinner table, but a wider variety of other foods will.
                              But if he can whip up some controversy, he gets to make more posts about the subject.
                              On the website of the company he works for, there is a whole huge pro-soy section of rants by James. He's just reposting those, not really looking into anything new.

                              I don't often indulge in conspiracy theory but why does one person even care that much about soy one way or the other? Why such an insistent, persistent, vehement promotion of a substance that is questionable at best? He is also a prolific poster all over the net on various health oriented sites. Perhaps he gets paid by the post to spread dis-information? As pointed out upthread, the WAPF has no motive to be intentionally "telling lies" as James characterizes it. The mega billion dollar soy industry on the other hand does.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                                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.
                                Wiki says : Phytoestrogens are plant-derived xenoestrogens functioning as the primary female sex hormone (see estrogen) not generated within the endocrine system but consumed by eating phytoestrogenic plants. Also called "dietary estrogens", they are a diverse group of naturally occurring nonsteroidal plant compounds that, because of their structural similarity with estradiol (17-β-estradiol), have the ability to cause estrogenic or/and antiestrogenic effects.[1] It has been proposed that plants use the phytoestrogens as part of their natural defence against the overpopulation of the herbivore animals by controlling the male fertility.[2][3]
                                Well, it sounds as if these pseudo estrogens can fool the body and have similar effects. As I'm not a herbivore, are you saying I don't need to worry about the miniscule amounts found in soy? Wiki does go on to mention: Phytoestrogens cannot be considered as nutrients, given that the lack of these in diet does not produce any characteristic deficiency syndrome, nor do they participate in any essential biological function.[1]

                                Guess that answers the question of whether soy is necessary, since Primal wants us to load up on nutrient rich unprocessed foods, which soy isn't.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X