CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Soy and estrogen myth
 

Free Dentist Alternative!
Professional Powder beats Fluoride!


More
More

Free Dentist Alternative!
Professional Powder beats Fluoride!


Hveragerthi Views: 5,954
Published: 12 years ago
Status:       RRR [Message recommended by a moderator!]
 
This is a reply to # 1,542,254

Re: Soy and estrogen myth


 I know that you don´t follow Weston Price much but they have some good information about soy

 

How can incorrect and misleading information be "good"? Let's address their claims:

http://www.westonaprice.org/Soy-Alert/

 

Soy Alert!

Confused About Soy?--Soy Dangers Summarized

  • High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.

 

Phytic acid, which is found in grains and seeds, has a higher affinity for heavy metals than it does beneficial nutrients. The other half of the phytic acid myth is that it robs the body of nutrients. If we think about it the phytic acid will already be bound with minerals the plant picked up from the soil. So let's say it is already bound to calcium, but it has a higher affinity for mercury. So how does it bind to the mercury if it is already bound to the calcium? There is only one way. It would have to release what it is bound to in order exchange it for something it has a higher affinity for. Put simply it is not robbing the body of minerals as some people claim.

 

It should also be noted that phytic acid is sold as a great anti-cancer agent called inositol hexaphosphate (IP6).

 

So being that phytic acid is found in so many of the foods we eat why is it that the Weston Price Foundation is only targeting soy? Sure looks like they have a clear anti-soy at any cost agenda to me. In fact looking at their site I see the foods they really promote are beef and dairy, industries that are financially threatened by the popularity of soy. Ironically the few plants they promote as being good such as nettle and cabbage (sauerkraut) are phytoestrogen sources!!! Maybe we should follow the Weston Price Foundation money trail back to see what their financial interest is in bashing soy so we know why they have this strong anti-soy agenda.

  • Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.

 

Trypsin inhibitors are also found in a variety of plant and animal sources including beans, egg whites and human colostrum. So does the Weston Price Foundation also advocate not breast feeding since human colostrum contains trypsin inhibitors?

 

And why do they fail to mention the fact that trypsin inhibitors can be inactivated by fermentation, cooking and even stomach acid? Again this makes it look like they have an anti-soy agenda so strong that they will lie or mislead the public to make their point.

 

In addition the studies showing adverse effects of trypsin inhibitors were in animals such as rats, mice, hamsters, guinea pigs and chicks, not humans. In these animals the trypsin inhibitors caused problems. But when tested on dogs, calves and pigs there were no adverse effects. Keep in mind that pigs have systems very similar to humans.

  • Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.

 

These myths have been disproven so many times. I address the fertility issue here:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1542259#i

 

As for the myth that soy promotes breast cancer:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1536933#i

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1505384#i

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1536939#i

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1447069#i

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1443251#i

 

And why is it that most of the herbs used to treat cancer are phytoestrogen sources? Simple, because they DO NOT raise estrogen levels, they antagonize the stronger estrogens.

  • Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

 

Again very misleading. first of all the goitergens are inactivated by cooking and fermentation. And again it is ironic that they bash soy for having goitrogenic glucosiniolates. But at the same time they promote sauerkraut that is made from cabbage that contains a goitrogenic glucosinolate called sinigrin. I cover their deception more here:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1530386#i

 

As for their claim that soy increases the risk of thyroid cancer the studies say differently:

http://www.encognitive.com/files/HIGHER%20SOY%20INTAKE%20LINKED%20TO%20LOWER%...

 

As for their claim of increased thyroid autoimmunity I could find no studies verifying this claim. 

  • Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body's requirement for B12.

 

Again misleading. If you want true B12 you have to look at meats such as beef. The B12 found in plants are analogues. But there is no proof that they deplete B12 from the body. To the contrary the fibers in plants feed the intestinal flora that in turn produce B12 for the body such as Lactobacillus reuteri .

  • Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D.

 

Another misleading comment. The only study I could find on this showed a case of a vitamin D deficiency in an individual infant receiving soy milk not fortified with vitamin D. The problem was not that the soy was depleting vitamin D from the infant, but rather the soy milk was low in vitamin D to begin with. Being that most soy milk is fortified with vitamin D and most adults also get vitamin D from other sources such as the sun, fish oils and plants this is not really an issue. So the only reason for their false claim would be to mislead the public. 

  • Fragile proteins are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.

 

Heating of any protein source, such as the beef they promote, can denature the proteins. Or do they eat their fish and beef raw?

  • Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.

 

If lysinoalanine( LAL) is so toxic then why is is a normal component of our body's tissues?:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf981000%2B

"LAL has a strong affinity for copper and other metal ions and is reported to induce enlargement of nuclei of rats and mice but not of primate kidney cells. LAL, LAN, and HAL also occur naturally in certain peptide and protein antibiotics (cinnamycin, duramycin, epidermin, nisin, and subtilin) and in body organs and tissues (aorta, bone, collagen, dentin, and eye cataracts), where their formation may be a function of the aging process."

 

To claim LAL is toxic in humans just because it is toxic to rats is just outright misleading. Using the same principle we could claim that chocolate is deadly to humans since it will kill a dog. Apparently the Weston Price Foundation has not figured out how to differentiate between rodents and humans. 

 

If LAL was toxic to humans then they ought to avoid meats as well since LAL can form from the heating of proteins.

 

As for nitrosamines, they can also form when meats are cooked, and can be found in dairy products as well. Yet the Weston Price Foundation promotes both meats and dairy.

  • Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods.

 

Actually they should have said glutamate, which is also found in the meats and cheeses they advocate eating. You might find this list of glutamic acid levels interesting since the foods they advocate eating are higher in it than soy:

http://www.credencegroup.co.uk/Eclub/Eclubsearchable2/220405/CTM%20-%20Soy%20...

 

Both Blaylock and Mercola are cheeseheads, and continue to eat large amounts of fish and chicken. If their claim that soymilk is bad because it contains four times the amount of glutamic acid as does human breast milk, conclude what you will about their advice after reading the amounts of glutamic acid in hundred-gram portions of animal products:

human milk = 0.17 grams
soy milk = 0.64 grams (3.8 times that of human milk)
soft tofu = 0.80 grams (4.7 times human milk)
broiled salmon = 3.23 grams (19 times)
broiled steak = 3.35 grams (19.7 times)
broiled chicken (white meat) = 4.63 grams (27.2 times)
cheddar cheese = 6.09 grams (35.8 times)

 

  • Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.

 

All plants contain aluminum. Being so common in the Earth's crust it would be impossible for the plants to not pick it up. Then cattle eat these plants picking up the aluminum that ends up in the milk and beef they recommend consuming:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10067727

http://www.longevinst.org/nlt/newsletter6.htm

 

So all the claims they made about soy were either misleading or outright lies. How do you consider this "good" information? In my opinion this shows the Weston Price Foundation completely lacks credibility.

 

 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021  www.curezone.com

0.657 sec, (12)