Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 166

Thread: Soy page 11

  1. #101
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    978
    Primal Fuel
    Another one, Soy supplement over 5 years increasing incidence of Endometrial Hyperplasia.
    Endometrial effects of long-term treatment wit... [Fertil Steril. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

    CONCLUSION(S):
    Long-term treatment (up to 5 years) with soy phytoestrogens was associated with an increased occurrence of endometrial hyperplasia. These findings call into question the long-term safety of phytoestrogens with regard to the endometrium.

  2. #102
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    978
    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
    CONCLUSION
    In summary, after 10 d of consuming formula supplemented
    with genistein at the concentration present in soy-based infant
    formula, piglets displayed inhibited cell proliferation in the
    jejunal crypts and a tendency for reduced jejunal enterocyte
    migration. These data provide compelling evidence that
    genistein is bioactive within the neonatal small intestine at a
    concentration approximating what would be formed by conversion
    of the genistin in soy infant formula to genistein by
    intestinal -glucosidases and lactase phlorizin hydrolase (8).
    Furthermore, antiproliferative effects within the intestine were
    observed at circulating concentrations of genistein that were
    comparable to those reported in human infants who were fed
    soy infant formula (4). On the basis of these findings, further
    studies of longer duration using formulas that contain mixtures
    of isoflavones, as well as other bioactive components in soy
    formulas (54,55), are warranted as there are potential synergistic
    and opposing interactions among the various components
    present in soy infant formulas.

  3. #103
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    978
    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
    ........
    Iron absorption from the soy meal increased as iron status worsened, but no such effect was seen for the beef meal. The difference in absorption between the soy and beef meals, therefore, became less as iron status worsens. As none of our subjects was iron deficient we cannot say whether this effect continues as iron deficiency becomes apparent.

    We have shown that non-heme iron and inorganic zinc absorption is lower from low-phytate soy protein based meal than from beef based meal. Clearly, this could be overcome by increasing the iron and zinc content of the soy protein through fortification during the production process. Our results suggest that nonheme iron content of soy based meal would need to be at least double that of the beef meal, and the inorganic zinc content at approximately 50% greater, to overcome the relative inhibitory effect of the soy protein.

    We conclude that substitution of soy protein for beef protein reduced non-heme iron and zinc absorption. The effect is not explained by different non-heme iron or zinc loads in the different meals, but appears to be specifically related to the protein source. These effects should be one of the factors taken into account when designing diets for children.

  4. #104
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    978
    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

    Our data clearly show that genistein at low, environmentally relevant concentration can transfer across the human placenta at term. Due to the structure activity relationship with 17-b-estradiol a minor fraction of genisteinis recognized by the placental conjugating enzymes and is converted to its glucuronide and or sulphate forms. Hence it may be possible that thefetus of a pregnant mother on high soy diet is constantly exposed to phytoestrogens at the vulnerable window of development. The effects on health and wellbeing of the fetus from such an exposure has yet to be elucidated.
    Last edited by Omni; 08-21-2012 at 11:16 PM.

  5. #105
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by yodiewan View Post
    James: First, I'd like to say that I appreciate your contributions on this thread.

    But beef is NOT high in omega 6 fatty acids. Beef tallow is one of the lowest omega-6 fats there is. In 100g of beef fat, there is only 3.1g of total omega-6 fats.

    Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Fat, beef tallow
    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.

  6. #106
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    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.

  7. #107
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    978
    Quote 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 at 01:35 AM.

  8. #108
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.


    Quote 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.

    Quote 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

    Quote 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."

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  9. #109
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    [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."

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  10. #110
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote 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.

Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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