[QUOTE=JamesS;958031]Well at least you are finally stating it as your opinion and not as a fact. You are learning Little Grasshopper. Some people think beef tastes like shit as well. Everyone has different tastes so you don't speak for everyone.[/QUOTE]
Without rereading this thread, I can think of at least two prior occasions where she plainly stated that she was speaking an opinion, and in no way contended that she spoke on anyone else's behalf. "Little Grasshopper"? Really? "Twonk" comes to mind. Insults in British English (spoken in a uniquely British accent of course) are legendary for their character and creativity.
[QUOTE=Belforte;958009]I should have hung around.
I re-read my post and I wanted to make a few things clearer. When my mother was eating soy, it was in fact soy milk. I have no problem with the traditional methods of eating soy, with knowledge, that I think most people lack, and for those people soy milk, soy yoghurt are the lazy way out, soy is healthy, I am too lazy to prepare properly therefore I will drink soy milk. I think nutrition wise this is quite a dangerous leap of logic. The rate that my mother's teeth deteriorated without other changes in lifestyle and eating, was quite scary and I think for me was a lesson learned for me as we are close genetically (or so she tells me!)[/QUOTE]
Did you ever stop to consider what other factors may be playing a role such as sugar added to the product? Or the natural decline in stomach acid as we age that decreases mineral absorption, or the numerous other factors that could have led to deterioration of the teeth?
And did you ever stop to consider how widespread soy consumption is yet there is no evidence anywhere that
To avoid the general category of bone diseases one needs to do the following, and they are all things that it causes demineralization of the teeth? People need to be more careful about making such casual relationships between such things. It is like the casual relationship that was made between high cholesterol and heart disease. Even though roughly half of people who die from heart attacks had normal to low cholesterol the high cholesterol causes heart disease myth still strongly persists.
I realize that such casual relationships are a great convenience, but this is also how false propaganda gets started and escalated. This is why we have actual research to verify or disprove certain ideas.
[QUOTE=Belforte;958009]women have trouble doing:
Exercise and weight bearing exercise in particular (women do not like to gain muscle and mots of girls from 12 on try to skip PE lessons)
Go in the sun (most women now avoid the sun using sunscreens)
Drink milk or other fat products (most women drink low fat milk)[/QUOTE]
As I mentioned previously milk and other dairy products are some of the worst things that can be ingested if a person wants to maintain bone health.
[QUOTE=Belforte;958009]And James as you said the body requires collagen for bone building, most women these days are not big meat eaters and broth is not a big part of people's diets these days.[/QUOTE]
And you really think that meat and bone broth are the only sources of the amino acids and other nutrients needed to build up collagen? Amino acids are also found in plants. In fact, some plants are considerably higher in protein than beef and unlike beef can be complete amino acid sources. For examples, chlorella that is about 3 times higher in protein than beef and pollen, which is both higher in protein than beef and a complete amino acid source.
And how much vitamin C does beef or bone broth provide since vitamin C is essential for collagen formation? Keep in mind that heat, such as applied in the cooking of meat or making of bone broth is destroyed by heat.
And where does the vast majority of silica, also essential for collagen formation come from in our diets? Not from beef. It comes from dietary fibers provided by plants. By the way silica is also essential for the absorption of calcium and the mineralization of bone making it the most essential nutrient there is for bone health.
[QUOTE=Belforte;958009]So if you have a woman doing this for about 35 years, and then decides at menopause to drink soy milk because it is good for her, while not doing the other activities either, I think it would be impossible to say that soy does not contribute problems to a diet already lacking, especially if that person picks 'lazy soy' as opposed to traditional soy. It may not be bone density issues, it could be something else, depending on the person.
But of course there are no studies, this all my own opinion.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. So you are making a casual relationship based on nothing really. That is like claiming since 100% of all cancer patients in history had inhaled oxygen and therefore oxygen causes cancer. Actually that claim would have more credibility since again since this involves 100% of the people as opposed to one person out of billions developing mineral loss in their teeth.
[QUOTE=Belforte;958009]But soy like wheat, was food for poor people and eaten during famine or when times were hard (also polenta another 'good' food),[/QUOTE]
Don't know where you came up with that one, but again there is no real evidence to back the claim.
[QUOTE=Belforte;958009] so if you can have nutrient rich food why not? I think these bone diseases are proof, that we are animals and need to eat animal products, because the best sources of collagen and gelatine and all these other trace minerals is from meat.[/QUOTE]
And again there are several flaws in your hypotheses. First of all as I pointed out you cannot get all the nutrients needed for strong bones from meat. Secondly, red meats in particular are high in phosphorus, which in high consumption leads to bone [U]LOSS[/U] by inducing pseudohyperparathyroidism. And again, plants can provide more protein and complete proteins as opposed to meats. But regardless of the protein source the proteins are going to be broken down in to amino acids for absorption. You do not absorb collagen nor gelatin intact. And when protein sources are broken down in to amino acids for absorption the body does not see any difference between animal amino acids and plant amino acids because there is no difference.
[QUOTE=Belforte;958009] Soy has ruined it for itself, it is generally genetically modified and other than traditional products needs to be so processed to be edible that by definition it cannot be edible. [/QUOTE]
You are reading too many bogus propaganda sites again.
J[QUOTE=Belforte;958009]ames I know that I have no studies or medical journals to back me up, this is all my opinion, but I know I am not the only person to have a gut feeling on soy. And no one knows how it mixes with excess sugar (of all kinds), vegetable oils, and other chemicals in our food.[/QUOTE]
We don't know how meats or bone broth mix with excess sugars of all kinds, or vegetable oils or other chemicals in our food. With that logic we would all be taking a gamble with our health every time we consumed a meal since we have no idea what kind of reactions may form as a result of the chemical soup present in a meal.
We don't know how meats or bone broth mix with excess sugars of all kinds, or vegetable oils or other chemicals in our food. With that logic we would all be taking a gamble with our health every time we consumed a meal since we have no idea what kind of reactions may form as a result of the chemical soup present in a meal.[/QUOTE]
Excess sugars... from where... we don't eat processed sugars.
Vegetable oil??? NOoooooo!
Chemicals??? Not if we can avoid it... Organic as much as possible. Wash fruits and produce.
What on earth do you thing we eat around here. Jeeeezus man, no wonder you post weird stuff. :(
You have no idea what this forum is about.
I think you mean CAUSAL.
Sorry but that was really annoying me.
[QUOTE=cori93437;958014]I'm glad you think you know everything about everything...
You just seriously don't. [/QUOTE]
Never claimed I did. So you must be thinking of your own thoughts.
[QUOTE=cori93437;958014]Oxalate and oxalic acid are certainly closely related, but are not identical. Oxalate is the base. [/QUOTE]
Very good! Now, if you can just figure out why that difference is so important.
[QUOTE=cori93437;958014]Yes percentages is good for some things. But its not a very good chart for limiting yourself to a specific amount of oxalate/day is it? It has no food serving sizes to go by... nothing. No soluble verses insoluble oxalate content. [/QUOTE]
Hmm..... So you cannot figure out that if you have 100 grams of a certain substance that ____% give you your answer?!!!! Here, let me help you out. Let's say you have a substance we will call substance X. So you have 100 grams of substance X and it is known that substance X has a percentage of 25% of another substance we will call substance Y. So how much substance Y is in a 100 grams of substance X if substance X contains 25% of substance Y? The answer is easy, it is 25 grams.
[QUOTE=cori93437;958014]Not everything that is high in oxalates has the lemony oxalaic acid bit.
Some plants and greens of course... either oxalate or oxalic acid or BOTH.
Nuts are also very high in oxalates... as are beans/soy/seeds... and some fruits, such as Starfruit.[/QUOTE]
It would depend on what someone considers to be "high". Purslane for example is significantly higher in oxalic acid than beans and therefore has a lemony taste. And what is the oxalic acid content difference between beans and the starfruit you mentioned, which by the way has a lemony taste in it as well?:
[url=http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-starfruit.htm]What is Starfruit?[/url]
"The taste of carambola is compared to plums, pineapple or [U]lemons[/U],"
[QUOTE=cori93437;958014]There is also a difference in cooked and raw... however in some things cooked actually makes it worse, makes the oxalates more available instead of less. Tomatoes is one good example of this... raw tomato is lower oxalate than cooked tomato sauce because cooking breaks the cell walls and frees the oxalate to be absorbed. [/QUOTE]
Yes, which is also why it is recommended not to cook spinach, kale and various other greens.
On the other hand you are not correct on the absorption part. Dietary oxalate is poorly absorbed to not absorbed. The reason why is that as I also mentioned previously dietary oxalic acid binds to other things such as calcium blocking its absorption from the intestines. You can easily verify this fact with a little simple research in the medical journals. Most oxalic acid in the bloodstream comes from the breakdown of excess ascorbic acid (vitamin C). So this brings us to the obvious question I eluded to to earlier of what is the big issue with dietary oxalic acid since it readily forms less irritating oxalates and is not really a big issue for serum oxalate levels?
[QUOTE=cori93437;958014]Some vegetables benefit more than others from boiling and having the water drained to remove the soluable portion of the oxalates. The insoluable oxalates remain, but are less of a problem in the body. And often a portion of the soluable oxalates remain as well... its really ignorant to assume that cooking removes oxalates from foods. Not a basic fact at all. [/QUOTE]
What's ignorant is to ignore the research showing that oxalic acid readily forms insoluble oxalates that are not absorbed by the body, which is why dietary oxalates are not a big issue. For example, if you eat rhubarb pie with milk it becomes gritty in the mouth. This is because of the interaction of the calcium in the milk with the oxalic acid in the rhubarb. Point being made here is that when you cook an oxalic acid source with mineral sources or consume oxalic acid with mineral sources there will be chemical reactions that reduce the level of oxalic acid and increase insoluble and unabsorbable oxalates.
You are also overlooking the fact that oxalic acid starts decomposing at 60C (140F), which is well below the boiling point of water or temperatures used in baking both used to cook foods that may contain oxalic acid. So the amount present in a plant is not going to remain the same during cooking.
[QUOTE=cori93437;958014]But that's what happens when you don't know the difference between oxalate and oxalic acid maybe? [/QUOTE]
it sounds like you are describing yourself pretty well since I have already made reference to the differences of affects and absorbability in previous posts. Maybe if you actually read those posts you will save yourself a lot of time having to look up things to try and counter me with.
[QUOTE=cori93437;958014]The resource I have lists serving sizes, soluable oxalate content per serving, insoluable content per serving, and soluble/insoluble content for different cooking methods which are very specific such as "boiled 8 minutes, water drained", (and a general category for easy reference such as Extreme, VeryHigh, High, Medium, Low etc).
It is approximately 9-10 pages long... it is extensive, constantly being updated with current information, and is for people with medical conditions who need to follow a Low Oxalate Diet.[/QUOTE]
Again, if you had a clue what you were talking about you would understand the differences between oxalic acid and oxalates, the formation of oxalates and the insolubility and unabsorbability of oxalates that makes it not a big factor.
If you understood the concept of oxalate formation and absorption problems then you would also realize why your charts are worthless since they don't take in to account things like interactions with other foods and amount of decomposition being affected by temperature and time exposed to those temperatures.
[QUOTE=cori93437;958014].........I'm quite sure Paleobird pointed out to you that I'm female, why are you asking to see a Unicorn?:confused:
Play with your own toys! :eek:[/QUOTE]
First of all yes, she did mention that. Do I care? No. In fact, since you seem to like to look in to science a little are you aware of the fact that the only way to determine if you are really female is to look at your DNA? Surprise! You may not be the sex you think you are.
As far as your statement of asking to see a unicorn I never asked. So yes, I can see you are very confused. That is why I am trying to explain these facts to you in as simple terms as possible.
[QUOTE=JamesS;958074]First of all yes, she did mention that. Do I care? No. In fact, since you seem to like to look in to science a little are you aware of the fact that the only way to determine if you are really female is to look at your DNA? Surprise! You may not be the sex you think you are.[/QUOTE]
And JamesS just jumped the shark..... <wah wah wah>
I mentioned that I didn't eat soy here for personal reasons... the oxalates, and felt a need to address the serious wrongness that was shot back at it with the "oxalic acid" remark.
That is way off base where oxalates are concerned... so simply telling someone to avoid the greens that have oxalic acid such as those with a sour taste, and that cooking removes the oxlates is very, very wrong. [/QUOTE]
Why do some people feel such a strong need to add words to my statements I never said? Is this the only way they feel they can win a debate? When did I ever say to avoid greens that have oxalic acid? What I said was that many of the greens have a higher oxalic acid content than soy. A BIG difference in what was said and what you are claiming I said.
Also keep in mind that I have mentioned various times that dietary oxalates are not really an issue since they are poorly absorbed if at all. So why would I tell people to avoid oxalate foods when oxalates are not really an issue. It appears you either have a reading and/or a comprehension problem. But I don't appreciate you claiming I said things I never said.
[QUOTE=cori93437;958035]Oxalates are not a concern to anyone with normal kidney function who has never had a kidney stone.
Also... Calcium Oxalate stones and the relating oxalate/oxalic acid are the only things I know about... because that is where my issue lies. [/QUOTE]
And as I pointed out before dietary oxalates are not an issue. Most serum oxalate comes from the breakdown of excess ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in the body.
[QUOTE=nixxy;958062]I think you mean CAUSAL.
Sorry but that was really annoying me.[/QUOTE]Yeah, well there's more goin on here that annoys me, but...
Hey @JamesS, Ok, we get it, yer a smart dude. But try to lay off the condescending shite, & the name calling (pretty juvenile if its done consistently). Also lay off the look-at-me-I'm smarter-than-you-intellectual-superiority chest beating & posturing, ok? Just know that other people aren't 'not-smart' around here too. Some of them are REALLY smart. Some are frickin' geniuses! And then there's the rest of us...
Also, all the book knowledge and quoting medical PDFs & websites doesn't trump someone's personal real-life truth(s). Studies are great, but there ain't no better study that means more to me, than what's between my toes or up my nose. Anecdotal evidence IS real & it IS IMPORTANT to those who experience it.
"Why can't we all just get along?" ~ Rodney King (RIP)
[QUOTE=cori93437;958041]Here you go...
You don't read very well do you?
This is my original post.
I'll annotate it for you so you can understand it better, and perhaps stop taking things out of context...
I hope that helps Little Grasshopper.[/QUOTE]
Apparently it did not help you Little Grasshopper. For example you have not figured out that a question can still be a claim. Your question implies that studies are being suppressed by big business and thus constitutes a claim. Its like if I said "Does that lemon taste sour to you as well?" I would have both a claim and a question. So Little Grasshopper, you still have much to learn before you are released in to the real world.:(
As for your other big misconception I look at studies both pro and con and see how they were designed and interpreted. Do studies get manipulated? Of course they do. Does this mean that all studies I don't like the findings on are manipulated? Of course not. Don't assume so much Little Grasshopper. You need to listen to facts more and base decisions on reality, not your fantasies.
[QUOTE=BONZ;958042]Without rereading this thread, I can think of at least two prior occasions where she plainly stated that she was speaking an opinion.[/QUOTE]
And I have seen plenty of examples of where she was making statements as if they were fact. These are what I am referring to, and why I pointed out she was finally stating that particular claim as an opinion.