Posted on 12/13/2006 10:38:31 AM PST by Sonora
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular. Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.
The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.
I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.
In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.
If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.
Snip.......
Using the internet as a substitute for an education in science is unfortunate. You can find research to support just about anything you want to believe on the internet. Spending years studying and learning how to separate fact from fiction is a lot harder than just believing someone because they sound like they know what they're talking about. Pushing something here that you don't understand and can't explain is even more unfortunate.
"....but I do know a little bit about the research done in this country where, thank heavens, we are free do eat what we want and research it for ourselves."
NYC has banned certain cooking oils, and Chicago has banned foie gras.
What I am really wondering is if I can become feminized by second-hand soy, from eating beef from cattle that ate soy.
Yeah, I have a real problem with NYC stepping in as the big dietary nanny. It is up to all of us to do the research needed to keep ourselves healthy. I seriously doubt second-hand soy from beef cattle is going to make you a girly man, if it did, there would be more girly men out there than there are. I do buy hormone free meat, however, cause you never know.
It's not just not having gay thoughts, it's not having gay dreams, also. I don't know this for a fact, as I've never surveyed gay about it, but it seems to me that if one was gay, one would have gay dreams, guys dreaming about guys, girls about girls and not dreaming about the opposite sex unless it's a nightmare.
Thanks God, I've never had a gay type dream, assuming that my theory is true.
I wasn't really too worried about the effects of eating second-hand soy. The effects probably would have become apparent by now. But, those Brokeback Mountain cowboys did eat alot of beef, so maybe....
Not sophistry, but hard data.
Gee, I thought my degrees in Biology and Chemistry WERE an education in science. Silly me.
So where did you get your PhD, professor?
Then maybe it's the red meat that's causing the problems here and not soy.
The soy phytoestrogen research was done in this country, where a majority of the people are caucasian.
You'd have to look at the specific research to determine what was done and if it supports their conclusions. Most of the research I've seen in this country has been in animals and in many of these studies they've fed amounts of soybeans to the animals that have no relationship to real world human consumption. This is a typical ploy in much research today and it is absolutely wrong to draw conclusions from animal studies even with species that seem quite closely related to humans because they function quite differently than humans at a molecular level. I've read a test where baby rats didn't thrive on soy milk so the researchers made all sorts of wacky conclusions and then asked for more grant money. What these researchers didn't tell you was that the baby rats didn't survive on human breast milk either.
You say that isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disruptors. What do you mean by this and what are the negative effects of this disruption?
Here's some research from UPenn Med that backs you up.
I consume a lot of soy, some every day.
Being completely lactose intolerant it's not completely by choice but I can tell you for this man, there is no sILLy effects.
and I have noted the statistical health benefits of soy
Thanks. I checked it out. You're correct.
First, it is my understanding that there is little red meat in the Okinawans diet, so perhaps that contributes to their relative cancer rates. Endocrine disruptors are substances in food and the environment that affect the endocrine system, which coordinates various body functions, including the way we metabolize our food and maintain our body temperature (as well as ovulation). They can attach to the receptors for naturally occuring hormones, such as estrogen or testosterone, substituing for them or blocking the action of those hormones. The also have the possibility of changing the chemical message of our hormones, and can interfer with the production of natural hormones or our hormone receptors. In the case I am most familiar with, the overuse of soy phytoestrogen surpressed the production and utilization of the thyroid hormone T3, resulting in a number of medical problems.
Sure, but that degree certainly doesn't qualify you to defend the information you linked in post #27. If you had studied this issue extensively you'd know that isoflavones are dissimilar from estrogen in many ways. As I said before, unlike estrogen, isloflavones are tissue selective and can have estrogen-like effects in some tissue but either no effects or antiestrogenic effects in other tissues. Isoflavones are referred to as phytoestrogens because they bind to estrogen receptors and exert estrogen like effects under some conditions. However, the ability of a chemical to bind to hormone receptors, such as the estrogen receptor, won't tell you much about potency or any resulting biological activity. That explains why the breast cancer drug tamoxifen and the hormone estrogen both bind to estrogen receptors but the former exerts an antiestrogenic effect, while the latter exerts an estrogenic effect, on breast tissue.
As for the effects on infants and children, you can find legitimate research like this article that refutes what you posted earlier. Again, your linked research may be suggestive but it certainly doesn't prove anything.
Check out that article I linked for comparisons of relative dosage of soy ... Asian consumption rates tends to be far lower. The question is not about all the other good things in soy milk, but the effects of high loadings estrogenic compounds.
I don't feel like arguing with you. You have defended Walmart in the past, so we must be on the same page.
Some how, some way, the rainforest is to blame for this.
LOL! :D....no pictures please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.