Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 166

Thread: Soy page 13

  1. #121
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Primal Fuel
    Quote 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.

  2. #122
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    979
    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.

  3. #123
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote 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?

  4. #124
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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?

  5. #125
    yodiewan's Avatar
    yodiewan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,486
    Quote 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.

  6. #126
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote 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?

  7. #127
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote 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?

    Quote 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?

  8. #128
    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
    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.

  9. #129
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,993
    Mmmmmmm. Meat. Eat meat, be happy!

    Eat tofu burger, be sad.

  10. #130
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,993
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote 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!

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •