Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
uhoh
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. 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. 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. songbird |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
uhoh
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
uhoh
Bill Rose wrote:
.... Observing that exposure to phytoestrogens can facilitate the growth of breasts is fear mongering? Breasts are to be feared? man boobs billy. have you lost your gourd again? i'll ignore the rest of this since fatty acid health isn't the topic i started with, but yes i am aware of the health benefits of various fats. songbird |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
uhoh
"Bill Rose" wrote in message
songbird wrote: 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. And it's also been recorded in at least one case that I recall that a person who drinks too much water can die from water. If you don't want to eat soy products then there is no compulsion for you to do so despite what Bird chooses to do. 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. And the same with drinking water. Life is just one big risk. Perhaps we should all make a pact to slit our wrists right now before something else comes along that might give us a rash or kill us slowly. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
uhoh
FarmI wrote:
.... Life is just one big risk. Perhaps we should all make a pact to slit our wrists right now before something else comes along that might give us a rash or kill us slowly. uhg! sorry, i'm not that kind of follower or believer. i know you mean it as sarcasm, etc., but wow... i think instead i'll just go back to SAVING THE FOREST LEAF LITTER and let it rest at that. hope the game was good Billy. peace, songbird |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
uhoh
"songbird" wrote in message
... FarmI wrote: ... Life is just one big risk. Perhaps we should all make a pact to slit our wrists right now before something else comes along that might give us a rash or kill us slowly. uhg! sorry, i'm not that kind of follower or believer. i know you mean it as sarcasm, etc., but wow... Nah. It was not meant as sarcasm, just a faint touch of whimsy. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
uhoh
In article ,
songbird 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. You hate for unfounded remarks that look like scare mongering to be put in their place, bird? Q.E.D. -- - Billy E pluribus unum http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|