In article ,
songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Well, I started this as amusement, but I see that you want to be a
"winner". So be it. As I understand it, tofu is used as a condiment in
Japan, not the central element of the meal. That said, pray tell me what
normal consumption is.
i'm not caring about "winning" i just hate
to see casual unfounded remarks that look
like scare mongering put in their place.
Observing that exposure to phytoestrogens can facilitate the growth of
breasts is fear mongering? Breasts are to be feared?
normal consumption, a glass of soymilk a day,
a few ounces of tofu, some soy sauce, a few
teaspoons of fermented soy beans in a black bean
sauce, a soy burger, all probably well within
normal.
i'd say that more than 2lbs of soy products a
day would be getting into the realm of abnormal.
more than a lb a day borderline and less than
that quite ok for most people.
You'd say!? What is the support for what you say?
Facts aren't something that you pull out of your backside.
once again billy, the first paragraph shoots
you down.
Once again!? As charming as you are, bird, you are far too incompetent
to be patronizing, as the following illustrates.
read it. i'll underline the relevant
part for you.
normal consumption
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of foods that contain these phytoestrogens should not provide sufficient
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
amounts to elicit a physiological response in humans.[102]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
What does that sentence say, bird? First, normal consumption isn't
quantified. Then it says "should not", not "will not". So what the
sentence says is that most people probably won't have a physiological
response to phytoestrogens, because they don't consume soybeans beyond
some undefined "healthy limit". It doesn't say eat as much
phytoestrogens as you like, because there is no adverse physiological
threat from them. At some point they become a problem, but that point is
unknown.
the only qualification i see at this time in
the literature is for pregnant or soon to be
pregnant women.
Japan is not the only place that eats soy
products. Thai, Indonesian, Indian, Chinese,
etc. all use soy in various ways.
Golllly, do tell. Who'd have thunk?
(This is a bit dated ['02], but still makes the point.)
Some studies have reported no link and others have reported a decrease
in the risk of breast cancer among women eating soy compared to women
who did not eat soy; no studies have reliably demonstrated an increase
in the risk of breast cancer among women eating soy. In addition to the
conflicting results, there are four problems with these studies. First,
the number of studies is small, only ten studies have examined soy in
the diet and breast cancer risk. Second, most of the studies examined
small numbers of women, only four of the studies included more than 200
patients. Third, all but two of the studies were limited to women from
Asia. The effect of soy in Asian women may not best reflect much of the
population of Western countries like the US. Women in Asia differ in
important ways. Many of them have eaten soy products all their lives and
their usual diets contain large amounts of soy products. Also, Asian
women have low rates of breast cancer compared to Western women, which
may be related to other factors besides soy in their diet. Fourth, most
of these studies are limited by their focus on the general diet of women
rather than soy products in detail. More carefully controlled studies
are needed that examine the effect of soy products on breast cancer risk
in women from cultures outside of Asia and more indepth studies are
needed of Asian women.
Then soy isn't the only phytoestrogen game in town:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavende...traindications
Lavender oil has recently been implicated in gynecomastia, the abnormal
development of breasts in young boys.
Then there is the collateral damage from soybeans.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/93/5/950.abstract
€ © 2011 American Society for Nutrition
Changes in consumption of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in the United
States during the 20th century
Background: The consumption of omega-3 (n*3) and omega-6 (n*6) essential
fatty acids in Western diets is thought to have changed markedly during
the 20th century.
Results: The estimated per capita consumption of soybean oil increased
1000-fold from 1909 to 1999. The availability of linoleic acid
(LA)[omega-6] increased from 2.79% to 7.21% of energy (P 0.000001),
whereas the availability of ?-linolenic acid (ALA) [omega-3] increased
from 0.39% to 0.72% of energy . . .
The ratio of LA to ALA increased from 6.4 in 1909 to 10.0 in 1999.
Predicted net effects of these dietary changes included declines in
tissue n--3 highly unsaturated fatty acid status . . . and declines in
the estimated omega-3 index.
You do know about the importance of omega-6/omega-3, don't you, bird?
songbird
I'd continue your instruction, but I have a football game to watch.
--
Billy
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953