Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 166

Thread: Soy page 14

  1. #131
    yodiewan's Avatar
    yodiewan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,528
    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. 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.

  2. #132
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    979
    Quote 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.

  3. #133
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    10,211
    Quote 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", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    I can squat 180lbs, press 72.5lbs and deadlift 185lbs

  4. #134
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  5. #135
    Paysan's Avatar
    Paysan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    499
    Quote 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.

  6. #136
    Paysan's Avatar
    Paysan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesS View Post
    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.
    Really? That's not the conclusion the authors of this article: Interaction of Estrogenic Chemicals and Phytoestrogens with Estrogen Receptor β . Their conclusion?
    In summary, while the estrogenic potency of industrial-derived estrogenic chemicals is very limited, the estrogenic potency of phytoestrogens is significant, especially for ERβ, and they may trigger many of the biological responses that are evoked by the physiological estrogens.

  7. #137
    Paysan's Avatar
    Paysan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesS View Post
    ...

    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?
    More media hysteria. According to Meatingplace.com, the lead article this morning said: USDA sees no food safety violation apparent in Central Valley Meat video (updated). There may have been humane handling issues, but their conclusion? Quote:“Our top priority is to ensure the safety of the food Americans feed their families,” said Al Almanza, administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service. “We have reviewed the video and determined that, while some of the footage provided shows unacceptable treatment of cattle, it does not show anything that would compromise food safety. Therefore, we have not substantiated a food safety violation at this time. We are aggressively continuing to investigate the allegations.” Endquote

    Doesn't sound like beef funding research to me.

  8. #138
    Paysan's Avatar
    Paysan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    499
    Quote 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?
    I didn't get the same opinion you did, James. In your view, then, everybody who raises a backyard cow is either part of the beef industry, or the dairy industry. "Industry" is the operative word. People who raise their own food as a protest against mass-raised CAFO meats and farmed fish are totally at odds with the industry. Wellness Meats is NOT part of the CAFO beef industry,any more than raw milk advocates are part of the dairy INDUSTRY. I think your use of the term "lies" referring to WAPF ties is both misleading and mistaken.

  9. #139
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,219
    While I like the WAPF site (particularly the stuff by chriss masterjohn), I do wish they would take down their section on Homeopathy. It hurts their credibility in my eyes.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  10. #140
    onalark's Avatar
    onalark is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    San Clemente, CA
    Posts
    1,660
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    While I like the WAPF site (particularly the stuff by chriss masterjohn), I do wish they would take down their section on Homeopathy. It hurts their credibility in my eyes.
    What? Seriously? Uggggggh.

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •