Phil Ridley: At least I now know why traditional conservatives are a dying breed and how liberals managed to take over society. At least they do tend to look after their bodies and environment, which is probably why they have been the ones capable of implementing their political programs.
At least I now know why traditional conservatives are a dying breed and how liberals managed to take over society. At least they do tend to look after their bodies and environment, which is probably why they have been the ones capable of implementing their political programs.
Yup, we "traditional conservatives" prefer those boring randomized controlled studies for medical information, compared to mainstream liberals that prefer those flashy reference-less Myth/Truth brochures and like sourcing their medical information from consumer magazines. Thanks for revealing yourself as an undercover mainstream liberal though, I thought one of my fellow "traditional conservatives" was falling for junk science, *whew*. Mainstream "liberals tend to look after their bodies and environment"... hahahaha, yeah they sure do, and they look after yours even more. Hilarious.
Liberals have also managed to implement each and every one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. I regret that but understand now the sarcasm that has led traditional conservatives to the Darwin awards.
So, when your mother told you to not run into the road, did you ask for nothing more than normalized, actualized, hyper-quantified, interadimentional studies whilst stepping out into the path of a speeding car? Did you ask for a normalized, hypolized triple checked study last time somebody suggested you should not bathe in roundup pesticide?
Anybody got any comments on why Ayn Rand would relate a proper beef burger with the fulfilment of obectivist values? And why she cast scorn on a soy alternative?
ANYBODY got any comments on that?
Oh, and I missed on the forum rules where it said that one had to be a professor to post here. Sorry, I missed your credentials, Dr Siebeen, Professor know it all, Practitioner malnutrition and Oncologist Infertilty.
I'm not allowed to make a point unless I write a freaking treatise and know the medical journals back to front.
You people are a joke. And Siebeen, with her high standards starts off by calling an author fat. This is like having a conversation with school kids who are only capable of reading the thesarus. But then I guess that real Libertarians would be off making and spending money rather than wasting time warning folk about health issues on a forum.
Sieben: Actually you can do controlled studies in humans. Its just that they're really expensive and therefore can't be run for very long times. The most accurate controlled studies are done in hospitals where patients' diets can be recorded and managed, but these tend not to be very applicable to the general population (since the subjects are so sick somehow that they must be hospitalized). But don't even worry about the theory of controlled studies. Phil has totally ignored all of my controlled studies and continued to ejaculate his biased propaganda to reassure himself that his lifestyle choice is RIGHT and everyone who acts differently is wrong.
Actually you can do controlled studies in humans. Its just that they're really expensive and therefore can't be run for very long times. The most accurate controlled studies are done in hospitals where patients' diets can be recorded and managed, but these tend not to be very applicable to the general population (since the subjects are so sick somehow that they must be hospitalized). But don't even worry about the theory of controlled studies. Phil has totally ignored all of my controlled studies and continued to ejaculate his biased propaganda to reassure himself that his lifestyle choice is RIGHT and everyone who acts differently is wrong.
Sure, we can do controlled studies, but not the kind that would give us complete information. As I said, if you really wanted to know what a lack of copper in the diet does, you could take some human population and simply not feed them copper and see what they die of and how long it takes. We cannot do this. We're only guessing right now.
I remember reading about this veterinarian, I think his name was Joel Wallachs who has some interesting things to say about modern diet. He pointed out that kidney-stones in people are the same problem known as "water-belly" in cattle. In cattle it's a fatal condition, and the farmers know how to prevent: feed the cattle more calcium. In humans, if you get kidney stones the doctors will tell you it's caused by too much calcium and to stop eating calcium-rich foods.
I don't know if he's correct or not, but it's clear we cannot do the kind of experimentation on people that we can on animals because of ethical considerations.
If you'll excuse me, I've got some chilled edamames in the fridge, pre-cooked and salted in the shell and ready to eat ^_^ Damn they're good. I eat 'em by the handfuls. (true story)
Somehow I'm stil alive :P
Phil Ridley: Oh, and I missed on the forum rules where it said that one had to be a professor to post here. Sorry, I missed your credentials, Dr Siebeen, Professor know it all, Practitioner malnutrition and Oncologist Infertilty. I'm not allowed to make a point unless I write a freaking treatise and know the medical journals back to front. You people are a joke. And Siebeen, with her high standards starts off by calling an author fat. This is like having a conversation with school kids who are only capable of reading the thesarus. But then I guess that real Libertarians would be off making and spending money rather than wasting time warning folk about health issues on a forum.
Primarily we're attacking your epistemology. A weak epistemology + alarmist pronouncements = chicken little.
Beyond that you're not capable of advocating dispassionately on this issue and it's divisive, an adversarial argument style.
Phil Ridley: So, when your mother told you to not run into the road, did you ask for nothing more than normalized, actualized, hyper-quantified, interadimentional studies whilst stepping out into the path of a speeding car? Did you ask for a normalized, hypolized triple checked study last time somebody suggested you should not bathe in roundup pesticide?
No, and as a follower of Austrian economics empirical evidence doesn't impress me much. In regards to medical information, I prefer randomized controlled studies on humans over other types of studies. The Weston A. Price Foundation you keep referencing prefers these studies themselves. Have you ever seen Fat Head creator Tom Naughton's lecture titled "Science For Smart People"? That's what the entire lecture is about. I'm assuming you know who Tom Naughton is, being he's a well known WAPF supporter, and eats the exact lifestyle you are referring to, and I happen to eat as well. Almost all the studies you copy and pasted from WAPF are either observational studies or performed on non-humans. In some cases they aren't even medical studies but just consumer magazine articles written by vitamin supplement salesmen. Don't need to be a professor or write a treatise to post, just link to some randomized controlled studies. Randomized controlled studies are actually pretty basic, and the opposite of "normalized, actualized, hyper-quantified, interadimentional studies". It's simply taking a bunch of people, splitting them up into groups, giving some one treatment, and the other a different treatment and seeing what the differences between them are. Very simple. Got any?
You keep making statements like "soy causes *health problem*"... says who? Link to the studies, and if you're saying it causes it in humans, link to a study that was done on humans. Hopefully it won't simply be a simple observational correlation study, they're a dime a dozen, and are pretty useless other than for coming up with ideas for future randomized controlled studies. Tom's lecture, enjoy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0 Again, he's on your side (and mine too).
As said, WAPF refer back to the works of Dr Weston A Price, which does satisfy the above requirements. He saw isolated people's eating their traditional foods and compared them to other nearby popuations with the same genetics eating modern newfangled foods. But the biggest study we have is that infertility, obesity, diabetes and cancer have rocketted since we replaced traditional foods with carbs and protein replacements like soy. Don't you think that the difference between health in our population prior to the USDA's dietary guidelines first coming out mid 1970's vs the horrific health problems of today, do you not think that is a perfect example of what modern foods do? Or am I mislead and it is just evolution, that our genetics suddenly gave up on us?
I mean really, you seek studies, of which there are many, when right infront of you an entire generation is on modern foods, getting sicker than any peacetime generation that proceeded them. Aren't we loosing sight of the wood for the trees?
And heck, if you want a certain type of study, maybe you should go look for it. I can't do everything for you.
- Nutrition & Physical Degeneration: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html
Again, I agree on the fat/carbohydrates stuff, which is mainly what Dr. Price and the WAPF deals with, however Dr. Price's research didn't comment on soybeans, that book doesn't refer to them at all. http://www.google.com/search?q=soy+site:journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/ http://www.google.com/search?q=soybean+site:journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/ Yes, traditional diets are good for you, and modern diets not so much, and they are responsible for the big increases in diabetes, cancer, etc. However are soybeans part of the problem? Is it the actual soybean itself or the modern modifications, pesticides, etc put in it? If it is the soybean itself, show some randomized controlled study that supports that claim.
There are many many studies and epidemiological observations showing people doing just fine on high carb, high fat, low carb, low fat, etc diets. The issue is, and always will be, calories. Saying that people get fat because they eat too many calories is a WAY simpler and more plausible explanation than saying its cus they eat too many processed carbs. I'm willing to go and put up studies backing this up for anyone other than Philtard, since he'll just ignore them. I mean maybe you guys will ignore them too, but what the hey.
Sieben: There are many many studies and epidemiological observations showing people doing just fine on high carb, high fat, low carb, low fat, etc diets. The issue is, and always will be, calories. Saying that people get fat because they eat too many calories is a WAY simpler and more plausible explanation than saying its cus they eat too many processed carbs. I'm willing to go and put up studies backing this up for anyone other than Philtard, since he'll just ignore them. I mean maybe you guys will ignore them too, but what the hey.
You can definitely find many studies, including randomized and controlled ones, that show people losing weight, improving health indicators like blood pressure, etc on both high/low fat/carb diets. However when comparing them to each other, generally I have found low carb/high fat beats low fat/high carb, even though both produce generally positive results. Take for example the Stanford study which compared the Atkins, Zone, LEARN, and Ornish diets: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.short (free full text available) In that study, the Atkins diet which was lowest in carb, highest in fat, produced the best results, the Ornish diet, which was the least fat most carb produced the worst results (but again, still show improved results). Recently I watched a lecture given by the president of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They're finding carbohydrate consumption "dramatically increases risk" of cancer development because the most common mutation in cancer cells is a mutation in the genes that control glucose uptake. Fat had "no increase risk at all", protein was "halfway in between". Not a randomized controlled study, unfortunately, I don't currently have one to share, but if you're interested in the lecture, here's the link, it's on Sloan-Kettering's own YouTube account... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40 As for calories, "It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling...". This is from the ACSM/AHA 2007 guidelines on physical activity: PDF... http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home_Page&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7788 (PDF) Gary Taubes goes over the calorie theory in detail in his lecture at the OSU Medical Center here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc
Another video lecture, sorry, I'm more a visual learner. ;-) His book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is a nice read as well. I welcome any studies/lectures/books/etc you have to share, no bias here, open to all.
stewart:In that study, the Atkins diet which was lowest in carb, highest in fat, produced the best results, the Ornish diet, which was the least fat most carb produced the worst results (but again, still show improved results).
Its a good study though. I actually see it thrown around as evidence that all the diets produce similar results. And btw... losing 10lbs in 12 months is really laughable :) By the books you should be able to maintain 1lb weight loss/week. These kinds of studies are always conflated with adherence issues. Again, I can pull it up, but obese individuals can underrerport their calorie intake by something like 50%. If you're trying to create a 500 calorie deficit on a 2000 calorie diet, overeating by 10% of your BMR (200 calories) is going to cut your weight loss by 40%. If you overeat by 400 calories, your weight loss is cut by 80%. Etc etc.
Recently I watched a lecture given by the president of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They're finding carbohydrate consumption "dramatically increases risk" of cancer development because the most common mutation in cancer cells is a mutation in the genes that control glucose uptake. Fat had "no increase risk at all", protein was "halfway in between". Not a randomized controlled study, unfortunately, I don't currently have one to share, but if you're interested in the lecture, here's the link, it's on Sloan-Kettering's own YouTube account...
What I'm trying to get at is that really all that counts is calories. Once you've set your protein intake, everything else is peripheral.
stewart:As for calories, "It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling...". This is from the ACSM/AHA 2007 guidelines on physical activity: PDF.
Gary Taubes goes over the calorie theory in detail in his lecture at the OSU Medical Center here:
I welcome any studies/lectures/books/etc you have to share, no bias here, open to all.
Here is a video I commissioned at our conference in London where Zoe Harcombe covers Gary Taubes and the various falacies of current obesity policy:
"The Obesity Epidemic, What Caused It, How To End It": http://vimeo.com/26994290
stewart wrote the following post at Mon, Sep 12 2011 11:30 PM: Yes, traditional diets are good for you, and modern diets not so much, and they are responsible for the big increases in diabetes, cancer, etc. However are soybeans part of the problem? Is it the actual soybean itself or the modern modifications, pesticides, etc put in it? If it is the soybean itself, show some randomized controlled study that supports that claim.
Regarding what I know, it is the modern processing, the absence of traditional fermentation and, the vast quantities are what cause the problems, alongside the use of GMO's which produce their own pesticides, which we then consume. Traditional people's consumed small quantities of raw, fermented, unpasteurized soy as a probiotic aid to digestion which will of course have been organic/non GMO. On average, folk in the east consumed a spoonful a day. Soy, once fermented looses much of its toxicity and is a potent source of probiotics and digestive enzymes. They used meat or fish for their protein.
NOTE: I SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BACK UP EVERYTHING I SAY WITH A STUDY, THIS IS A FORUM, NOT A HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT. IF YOU ARE CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID, GO LOOK FOR YOUR OWN STUDY IF THAT IS WHAT YOU REQUIRE AND STOP BEING LAZY ASKING ME TO DO THAT WORK FOR YOU.
Phil:GO LOOK FOR YOUR OWN STUDY IF THAT IS WHAT YOU REQUIRE AND STOP BEING LAZY ASKING ME TO DO THAT WORK FOR YOU.
Sieben, please stop being abusive and learn to agree to disagree. Your points will sound far more convincing if you do so.
Evidence = convincing. Everything else = not convincing. See Stewart is talking to >>me<< and asking >>me<< for input and sources on dietary topics. He is not asking you for anything because recognizes that you are an sopping wet sack of shit. Get off these forums. You are just advertising for your stupid little cult.
Sieben, I'm bogged down with meetings over the next 2 days (and today was wasted researching something else ;-)), but I've bookmarked the page you linked to and will be checking it out in detail soon. Looks like its loaded with lots of hyperlinks directly to references, which I like. Glanced at it a bit and noticed some misreadings of Taubes, but we'll see. Thanks for the link.
Phil Ridley: NOTE: I SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BACK UP EVERYTHING I SAY WITH A STUDY, THIS IS A FORUM, NOT A HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT. IF YOU ARE CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID, GO LOOK FOR YOUR OWN STUDY IF THAT IS WHAT YOU REQUIRE AND STOP BEING LAZY ASKING ME TO DO THAT WORK FOR YOU.
I'm curious, what exactly is your "requirement" for taking in a piece of medical information as true or false? You previously stated soy intake increases your risk of breast cancer; what are you basing this on exactly? Is it the same thing the Weston A. Price Foundation bases it on? Do you know what that is, or are you just taking their word for it and assuming they did the thorough research for you already? That's fine if you are, but just clarify that for others sake. However, so far it seems you aren't saying that; you're coming across as someone who has done their own research and we are just "being lazy" not doing our own Disregarding the whole "burden of proof" idea people have thought up over time to keep discussions flowing and civilized for a moment, I would request you refrain from accusing others of "being lazy", when so far it's been you that comes across as lazy. Let's compare... You keep repeating the same set of links to the WAPF when asked for "sources" on various claims you have made, I've already addressed these links in my very first post... your response? You've pasted giant chunks of their web pages, sometimes the entire web page, including the pdf/print/email icons they have in the upper right corner of their pages. As I previously stated, some of these web pages are using things like consumer magazine articles written by vitamin supplement salesmen as sources... your response? Is that your requirement? "Random vitamin salesman says X, so X must be true."? Again, that's fine if it is your requirement, but just clarify that's the case. On the other hand, I have demonstrated I have read all the articles you've pasted or linked to (actually, I already read them a long time ago, I'm very familiar with the WAPF already). I have demonstrated (in my very first post) I went over a good chunk of the sources you linked to, one by one, and commented on them... your response? So who here is really the one "being lazy"? How about this, I'm going to take your specific claim about breast cancer and research it in real time and type it out here, if you continue with the "being lazy" stuff after that then I'm done with you, I'd rather you actually give a somewhat intelligent response...
Your claim: "increase your chances of breast cancer if you are a female"
Your source: ???
My research: 1.) Search westonaprice.org for: soy "breast cancer" 2.) First result, Wise Choices, Healthy Bodies: Diet for the Prevention of Women's Diseases 3.) Go to section titled "Breast Cancer" 4.) Statement in second to last paragraph of section: "The biggest scam promoted in the guise of women's health is, quite possibly, the promotion of soy foods, rich in plant-based estrogens such as genistein, for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer." ... "In fact, in 1997, researchers found that dietary genistein stimulated breast cells to enter the cell cycle, a condition that presages malignancy.[42]" 5.) Jump to footnote 42 as referenced in above statement. 6.) Footnote 42: "N L Petrakis, at al, "Stimulatory influence of soy protein isolate on breast secretion in pre-and postmenopausal women," Cancer Epidemiological and Biological Prevention 1996, Vol 5, Pages 785-794." 6.) Uhh... research was done in 1997 and the results were published in... 1996? Great scott! Eh, whatever, simple typo I guess, moving on... 7.) Paste citation into Google Scholar (or PubMed) 8.) First result is a match, go to first result. 9.) Read article, free full text available (PDF). 9.) This study wasn't investigating if soy or genistein increased risk of breast cancer in women, it was seeing if giving high doses (38g) of genistein would cause the properties of fluids in the breast of non-Asian women to become closer to that of Asian women. Asian women who consume soy are found to have lower rates of breast cancer. They found it did not change the properties to more closely match Asian women. However during this study they found hyperplastic epithelial cells in about 30% of the women. In response to this finding the authors wrote the following: "Of potential concern was the finding of hyperplastic epithelial cells in nipple aspirates in 30% of women one or more times during the time they were consuming soy protein or in the months after they had completed the soy regimen. Although statistically significant, the number of women is very small, and the results should be considered as suggestive. Because estradiol is known to stimulate breast epithelial proliferation and hyperplasia, it is reasonable to attribute the hyperplastic response seen in our study to the result of a combined estrogenic stimulus from high levels of endogenous estrogen and of genistein and daidzein. In a prospective study of NAF cytology and breast cancer risk in 2700 women, NAF hyperplasia was found by Wrensch et al. to indicate a modest increased risk of breast cancer, but the risk was much lower than that found with NAF epithebial atypia. Although no atypical epithelial cells were found in NAF in the present study, further research on the effects of long-term soy consumption on breast epithelium is warranted." 9.) Basically an interesting finding, might not mean much, but they suggest further research. Ok, further research let's see... 10.) Review some of the 313 articles that cite this study. 11.) Phytoestrogen Consumption and Breast Cancer Risk in a Multiethnic Population: The Bay Area Breast Cancer Study 11.) "Phytoestrogen intake was not associated with breast cancer risk" ... "Phytoestrogens appear to have little effect on breast cancer risk at the levels commonly consumed by non-Asian US women: an average intake equivalent to less than one serving of tofu per week." 12.) Meta-Analysis of Soy Intake and Breast Cancer Risk 12.) "Conclusions: Soy intake may be associated with a small reduction in breast cancer risk. However, this result should be interpreted with caution due to potential exposure misclassification, confounding, and lack of a dose response. Given these caveats and results of some experimental studies that suggest adverse effects from soy constituents, recommendations for high-dose isoflavone supplementation to prevent breast cancer or prevent its recurrence are premature." 12.) In the section where that article cites the WAFP citation article it states... "genistein exhibits estrogenic properties, some of which could theoretically enhance breast cancer risk" ... "However, physiologic doses of genistein also exhibit potential anticarcinogenesis activities" ... 13.) Soy for Breast Cancer Survivors: A Critical Review of the Literature 13.) "Overall, the data are not impressive that the adult consumption of soy affects the risk of developing breast cancer or that soy consumption affects the survival of breast cancer patients. Consequently, if breast cancer patients enjoy soy products, it seems reasonable for them to continue to use them." 14.) Various Doses of Soy Isoflavones Do Not Modify Mammographic Density in Postmenopausal Women 14.) "In this randomized 2-y trial, isoflavone supplements did not modify breast density in postmenopausal women. These findings offer reassurance that isoflavones do not act like hormone replacement medication on breast density." 15.) The Volume of Nipple Aspirate Fluid Is Not Affected by 6 Months of Treatment with Soy Foods in Premenopausal Women 15.) "Contrary to an earlier report, soy foods in amounts consumed by Asians did not increase breast tissue activity as assessed by NAF volume." 16.) Estrogen Levels in Nipple Aspirate Fluid and Serum during a Randomized Soy Trial 16.) "Conclusion: Soy foods in amounts consumed by Asians did not significantly modify estrogen levels in NAF and serum. Impact: The trend toward lower estrogen levels in NAF during the high-soy diet counters concerns about adverse effects of soy foods on breast cancer risk."
My thoughts: The study WAPF cites had a low sample size of 24, of which only 7 had epithelial hyperplasia. It was a poorly controlled study; menstrual cycles weren't controlled, overall diet wasn't controlled, and well, I'll let the authors of the study itself say the rest... "Here are some final caveats regarding this study. This was a small pilot study to determine if we could detect an effect on breast fluid secretion by soy protein consumption." ... "further studies are warranted on a larger sample size. " ... "menstrual cycle data were obtained from many women at differing days in their cycles" ... "we did not attempt to control the total diet of the women in the study. The diets of the subjects were ad lib, supplemented by the soy protein. It is possible that the absorption and metabolism of the isoflavones can be altered by various components of the diet." And then a biggie... "It is also likely that the amount of genistein consumed in our study, i.e., 38 mg/day, is considerably higher than the amount normally eaten by the majority of Asian populations and may exert pharmacological rather than physiological effects on the breast." According to some other studies I reviewed, including a few I cited above, they did indeed give a very high dose, well above what even Asian's consume.
My conclusion: Overall it seems soy doesn't have much effect on breasts, neither positive nor negative. Most evidence would lean towards a positive preventive effect, if anything. The study WAPF cited was pretty useless.
Your research, Your thoughts, Your conclusion: ???
...your response? Oh and hey, if you really have a connection to WAPF on a personal level, can you try to convince them to remove the "Disallow: /" from their web site's robots.txt file? That's preventing Google from indexing the page content, and preventing sites like the Internet Archive from archiving and showing archived copies of their web site. Usually that's done on sites that want to cover up previous things they stated that have turned out wrong. Thanks!
Well, there's really no rush. You haven't made any hard claims so I don't see you being super accountable to the conversation. A little more background on myself though. Bodybuilders have a reputation for being obsessive compulsive perfectionists. They count every calorie at every meal and can stick to a diet with 100% adherence and accuracy. I can be one of those people. To the extent that I am not is the extent to which particular dietary choices don't matter - ex whether a deficit is 500 calories or 450 calories, idrc cus its a big enough deficit already.
So a few years ago, I did a ketogenic diet (i.e. atkins, low carb). I ate less than 50g of carbs every day with a BMR of 3000 calories. I did not keep count of fat or protein calories. I lost about 10lbs of weight in the first week (this was water), and then I basically lost nothing else. When I started eating carbs again, the weight (water) came back on.
I think you can lose weight on ketogenic diets. I just don't think there's any point in putting yourself through both calorie restriction AND low carb. I mean, at the very low end of bodyfat percentages, low carb can be useful. But its actually not the only way to be useful (see morning cardio + yohimbine, intermittent fasting, etc).
The long story short is that the best diet is the diet you can stick to. I don't think it would really matter if there were superior results from eating 3000 calories of protein a day, because no one would ACTUALLY be able to do that. I have a hunch that all the "low carb" people do it for a while, and then transition on to eating ~80g of carbs a day but underestimate it and really wind up eating closer to 120g carbs/day. Not ketogenic but I guess you can call yourself "low carb". And then I went on a calorie counting diet with 40% of its calories from carbs and a 500 calorie deficit and lost 40lbs in 3 months. That's actually faster than I was supposed to lose weight, but who cares. When people are fat, the fat melts off if you start doing ANYTHING right.
Fast forward to now and I've dieted to just under 10% bodyfat on a similar diet. Oh, and all this while training with heavy weights all the way, so I look good (google 10% bodyfat). Unlike phil, who is a skinnyfat pasty white kid.
I had a feeling you were into bodybuilding after seeing the guy you linked to posted about heavily on bodybuilding forums. That's cool.
I sent in a post here in response to Phil that goes over that "wasted time researching" stuff I mentioned, it contained a bunch of links so its awaiting moderator approval, hopefully that doesn't take a long time.
Stuart, I've said right from the beginning that in the West, when soy is used as a protein replacement, that we consume far more soy than is normal in the east, where soy is used primarily as a fermented, probiotic condiment, and where either fish or pork is the staple for protein. The Weston A Price Foundation actually promote the use of non-gmo soy products in moderate quantities if they are fermented and unpasteurized. For example, I have Source Foods exhibit at our conference in London because they produce fermented miso which is unpasteurized and non-gmo. Its delicious and I had some last night with our dinner, but the main protein source was pork in that meal.
For example, in the Illinois Prison case, circa 70% of the diet is soy, which would never occur in the East.
So, by pointing out that the levels of soy necessary to cause problems is greater than the soy consumption in the east, really is backing up what I've been saying all along.
Thank you for looking into those sources. I appreciate your collaborative approach. I have a broad understanding of the Foundation's position and have bought up questions in this forum which you have helped us analyse in a non-confrontational manner.
He didn't "collaborate" with you. He looked into one of your insane claims and found that the reference is to a paper that doesn't even study the issue, let alone support your stance. What is that? Strike 8975 for you? How many strikes before you're "out"?
Phil, again, did you actually read a word I wrote? Did you read a single word from a single study I linked to? The study WAPF cites wasn't using high doses of soy as a "protein replacement", they were seeing what effects high doses of genistein had on breast fluids. I wasn't pointing out that "the levels of soy necessary to cause problems is greater than the soy consumption in the east", and that hasn't been what you've "been saying all along". I was pointing out that your claim (and WAPF's) that soy intake "increases your chances of breast cancer" is wrong. You have failed to rebut that at all, you haven't even made an attempt to. Did you not see my various "...your response?" points throughout that post? You haven't directly responded to any of them, in fact you haven't really responded to anything I wrote at all. Let's do a quick review of what you have done here... 1.) You've copy and pasted big chunks of the WAPF web site, in their entirety, even various non-content related icons. 2.) You haven't provided a single link/source to a non-WAPF related article/site. 3.) You haven't backed up a single claim you've made with an actual source, other than linking to random WAPF articles which themselves don't back up their claims. 4.) You've ignored every point or source others have made that contradict yours. 5.) And a biggie... you've demonstrated you don't even seem to know or understand WAPF's own teachings. You keep mentioning Dr. Price; you've linked to his book, a book which doesn't even mention the word soy in it. The Weston A. Price Foundation itself rarely even uses Dr. Price's material as a source. They're at present using his name more as a marketing gimmick. The Mises Institute is named after Ludwig von Mises, and his work is constantly discussed here, and if not his, then either his direct influencers or followers. Just look at all the "sources" at the WAPF you linked to, not a single one was written by Dr. Price himself, literally none. I saw you mention the Illinois prison stuff on another thread, and all I can find on it is mainly a lawsuit the WAPF itself is funding. Apparently a couple of inmates with a soy allergy complained about soy being in the normal prison diet. The Illinois Department of Corrections response to this was that if an inmate has a soy allergy they will be given an alternative diet. Again, the lawsuit is being funded by the WAPF itself, and pretty much all the information about it that I was able to find was simply comments from WAPF itself. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-12-21/news/0912200121_1_soy-protein-soy-cheeses-soyfoods-association "Tens of thousands of inmates in Illinois prisons are being fed "up to 100 grams" of soy protein a day, according to the Weston A. Price Foundation, which is funding the lawsuit." Almost the entire article is filled with "according to the WAPF", or "said Sally Fallon from the WAPF", and even your buddy Kaayla Daniel is mentioned. However I can't find a single non-WAPF source stating the Illinois prison diet is 70% soy or anywhere remotely near that. The newspaper wasn't able to confirm that either, the only thing they found was the prison menu showing 7 "soy-enhanced meats" a week (aka 1 per day). WAPF's response to that was to point out that their consumption is higher than that because some other foods they eat are cooked in soybean oil, etc. Yeah, so what? So is nearly every product non-inmates eat. Almost every product in a mainstream grocery store has soy taking up big chunks of the ingredient list. It's subsidized by government and "cheap", that's what happens. Corn/soy/corn/soy/corn/soy, all over the grocery. That's nothing unique to Illinois prisons. I'd like to see you provide just 1 non-WAPF related source stating anything soy related about Illinois prison diets... in fact I'd like to see you provide just 1 non-WAPF related source on ANYTHING. I don't think you can do it. You're completely obsessed with the WAPF.
I'm not employed by WAPF, just a volunteer who has chosen to run a conference in London for them, which incidentally doesn't make any money, because I believe in what they stand for, and am horrified by the physical degeneration in society. Really, that is no reason to mock me.
It would take me quite some time to trawl through things and find evidence to back up my comments, I'm not a scientist, I'm a lay person attempting to stimulate debate and the Standard American Diet (SAD).
I'll go look through Kaayla's book tonight if I get time, to see if I can find references on this.
I tell you one thing. A reason our ancestors survived for millions of years, is because they had common sense. They would not need a triple validated study to tell them that eggs and meat from healthy animals was good for them, and that replacing it with a grain that was diificult to process and digest, that that would be a good thing.
And there is nothing wrong with presenting a hypothesis. No reason to be rude to me for contradicting your belief in the system. No justification for bullying me. You can put your counterpoint without hurling abuse.
It is true arrogance of the West that our science can immediately better millenia of accumulated wisdom from our ancestors. But us living in cities is probably a major component, that we forget how wholesome food is when it is produced from nature.
Phil Ridley:which incidentally doesn't make any money, because I believe in what they stand for, and am horrified by the physical degeneration in society.
Phil Ridley:It would take me quite some time to trawl through things and find evidence to back up my comments, I'm not a scientist, I'm a lay person attempting to stimulate debate and the Standard American Diet (SAD).
Phil Ridley:I'll go look through Kaayla's book tonight if I get time, to see if I can find references on this.
Phil Ridley:I tell you one thing. A reason our ancestors survived for millions of years, is because they had common sense. They would not need a triple validated study to tell them that eggs and meat from healthy animals was good for them, and that replacing it with a grain that was diificult to process and digest, that that would be a good thing.
Phil Ridley:And there is nothing wrong with presenting a hypothesis. No reason to be rude to me for contradicting your belief in the system. No justification for bullying me. You can put your counterpoint without hurling abuse.
Phil Ridley:It is true arrogance of the West that our science can immediately better millenia of accumulated wisdom from our ancestors.
Sieben you really need to cool it down. I don't want to give you temp-ban, because you're usually not like this, and your contributions are highly valued. But if you insult Phil once more I will. (Or if another mod catches it, please do it for me.) I suggest you stop addressing Phil if you can't talk to him civilly.
Phil Ridley: I'm not employed by WAPF, just a volunteer who has chosen to run a conference in London for them, which incidentally doesn't make any money, because I believe in what they stand for, and am horrified by the physical degeneration in society. Really, that is no reason to mock me. It would take me quite some time to trawl through things and find evidence to back up my comments, I'm not a scientist, I'm a lay person attempting to stimulate debate and the Standard American Diet (SAD). I'll go look through Kaayla's book tonight if I get time, to see if I can find references on this.
Not really mocking you (granted, a very tiny bit in response to mocking comments I've seen from you); not demanding you to provide "triple validated studies" to "every single thing" you say. Don't really disagree with you overall on the traditional vs modern diet thing either. Which as Sieben pointed out, wasn't a one-size-fits-all worldwide, vast differences in different populations. I'm mainly just curious what your "requirement" is for taking a statement such as "soy increases chances of breast cancer" as being true? So far it appears it's simply the WAPF saying it does. Which again, that's fine if you are, but say so. Kind of looks like you're starting to acknowledge that though. Nice to see you're going to be checking out some references in Kaayla Daniel's book, and I look forward to seeing what you come back with. Remember what site you're at, the Mises Institute, a pretty academic site (and non-mainstream non-sheep). Making claims about medical related issues and then being asked for references to support those claims should be completely expected at a place like this. That's not "being lazy", it's called following the burden of proof "standard". Perhaps you look towards WAPF as well researched experts, and if they say something is true/false that's good enough for you. That's fine. If I suddenly had a bunch of chest pains and shortness of breath I wouldn't be pulling up Google Scholar and PubMed and trying to hunt down randomized controlled studies to figure out what's wrong with me and how to fix it. I'd be running over to someone I think is an expert on that kind of issue, a medical doctor, and pretty much blindly following his treatment. As he's attempting to inject me with various drugs, I wouldn't be popping up my head going "hey hey hey, where's your reference about that drug being effective on my condition?!". No one researches every little bit of information they come across every day to check its validity; there's too much information intake each day, and not enough time or energy to thoroughly research it all. Anyone that claims they do either lives in the middle of a desert and doesn't have much information intake each day, or is a liar. But when making specific medical claims, it's perfectly reasonable for us to ask what your source for that claim is. If it's a medical journal article, link it; if it's blindly following the WAPF, say so. But when you repeatedly refuse to link to actual direct sources on specific claims AND refuse to acknowledge you're just blindly following the WAPF, you kind of come across as simply a shill for the organization. Again I look forward to any references you find in Kaayla Daniel's book. Oh, and for the record, I don't think she's fat either.
Daniel James Sanchez:Sieben you really need to cool it down. I don't want to give you temp-ban, because you're usually not like this, and your contributions are highly valued. But if you insult Phil once more I will. (Or if another mod catches it, please do it for me.) I suggest you stop addressing Phil if you can't talk to him civilly.
Sieben: Daniel James Sanchez:Sieben you really need to cool it down. I don't want to give you temp-ban, because you're usually not like this, and your contributions are highly valued. But if you insult Phil once more I will. (Or if another mod catches it, please do it for me.) I suggest you stop addressing Phil if you can't talk to him civilly. Right. So if I call a spade a spade, I get banned. On the other hand, if Phil gives people literally harmful dietary advice (it will cause them physical harm if they follow it), and doesn't back up ANYTHING he's saying with sources, and on top of it trolls by ignoring/talking past EVERYONE (not just me), that's okay. Only on the mises.org forums. Its like church or something.
Just ditch the personal attacks and you're fine. Sheesh. Common sense.
I actually have a reason behind verbally attacking people. But some people are so violently allergic to attacks on the body that they just assume that their paradigm is objectively correct.
Sieben. Of course you have a reason for verbal attack, aka bullying. What the moderator is trying to explain is, that verbal abuse on a public forum is not acceptable according to the forum etiquette.
And the most frustrating thing is, that you bully me every time I put forward a hypothesis. A hypothesis need not be proven to be stated. Sure, counter it with info but, it is rude to simply say oh, no evidence so you cannot state a hypothesis. What I am doing is encouraging debate, so please debate me rather than abuse me.
And another thing, you claim that my advice is damaging. Well incase you had not noticed, I percieve your advice to be harmful. Does that justify me hurling abuse at you? I get it, that these are emotional subjects but, that should not stop us from discussing like adults.
As said in the forum, please listen to Lew Rockwell's recent podcast where he comes out against the USDA's food pyramid and against the strictures against saturated fat: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/09/13/223-government-hates-good-health/
Would you hurl abuse at Lew Rockwell for having that opinion?
So if the Chairman of the Mises Institute is of my opinion, can you at least recognize that rational debate on this subject is justified?
Phil Ridley:Sieben. Of course you have a reason for verbal attack, aka bullying. What the moderator is trying to explain is, that verbal abuse on a public forum is not acceptable according to the forum etiquette.
Phil Ridley:And the most frustrating thing is, that you bully me every time I put forward a hypothesis. A hypothesis need not be proven to be stated. Sure, counter it with info but, it is rude to simply say oh, no evidence so you cannot state a hypothesis. What I am doing is encouraging debate, so please debate me rather than abuse me.
Phil Ridley:And another thing, you claim that my advice is damaging. Well incase you had not noticed, I percieve your advice to be harmful.
Phil Ridley:Does that justify me hurling abuse at you?
Phil Ridley:I get it, that these are emotional subjects but, that should not stop us from discussing like adults.
Phil Ridley: As said in the forum, please listen to Lew Rockwell's recent podcast where he comes out against the USDA's food pyramid and against the strictures against saturated fat: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/09/13/223-government-hates-good-health/ Would you hurl abuse at Lew Rockwell for having that opinion?
Phil Ridley:So if the Chairman of the Mises Institute is of my opinion, can you at least recognize that rational debate on this subject is justified?
Dear Moderator. I regret making this request, but Sieben has resorted once more to calling me a retard and a wackjob. I think that if the threat of temporary ban is not carried out now, that the abuse will just continue. As you can see, I am trying really hard to have an adult-adult conversation.
Even stating that Lew Rockwell supports my position is not enough to encourage civil debate. Apparently it is false for me to respect Lew's point of view.
And frankly, having a total lack of respect for the views of the Chairman of the Mises Institute really puts into question why Sieben spends time here and makes me wonder whether Sieben aims to agitate.
But I really think this abuse should be nipped in the bud. Calling me a retard after soft suggestions from moderators not to be abusive really does not make the cut with me. It is completely exhausting having to deal with tirades of abuse every time I post.
A few studies regarding soy phytoestrogens and breast cancer:
1978 Martin PM and others. Phytoestrogen interaction with estrogen receptors in human breast cancer cells. Endocrinology 1978 Nov;103(5):1860-7. Phytoestrogens "translocate the cytoplasmic estrogen receptor and bind to unfilled nuclear estrogen receptors in whole cells. Bound nuclear receptors are then processed in a manner similar to estradiol in a step, which rapidly decreases total cellular estrogen receptors. The phytoestrogens are also biologically active; they can markedly enhance tumor cell proliferation."
1996 Petrakis NL and others. Stimulatory influence of soy protein isolate on breast secretion in pre-and postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996 Oct;5(10):785-794. Twenty-four normal pre- and postmenopausal white women, ages 30 to 58 were studied for one year. During months 4-9, the women ingested 38 g soy protein isolate containing 38 mg genistein. Seven of the 24 women developed epithelial hyperplasia during the period of soy feeding, a condition that presages breast cancer. The authors noted that "the findings did not support our a priori hypothesis" that soy protected Asian women against breast cancer. "Instead, this pilot study indicates that prolonged consumption of soy protein isolate has a stimulatory effect on the pre-menopausal female breast, characterised by increased secretion of breast fluid, the appearance of hyperplastic epithelial cells and elevated levels of plasma estradiol. These findings are suggestive of an estrogenic stimulus from the isoflavones genistein and diadzein contained in soy protein isolate."
1997 Dees C and others. Dietary estrogens stimulate human breast cells to enter the cell cycle. Environ Health Perspect 1997 Apr;105 (Suppl 3):633-636. Dietary estrogens were found to increase enzymatic activity leading to breast cancer. "Our findings are consistent with a conclusion that dietary estrogens at low concentrations do not act as anti-estrogens, but act like DDT and estradiol to stimulate human breast cancer cells to enter the cell cycle."
1997 Wang C and Kurzer MS. Phytoestrogen concentration determines effects on DNA synthesis in human breast cancer cells. Nutr Cancer 1997;28(3):236-47. Although high levels of isoflavones inhibited DNA synthesis in human breast cancer cells, low levels of genistein and related compounds. . . induced DNA synthesis 150-235%. "The current focus on the role of phytoestrogens in cancer prevention must take into account the biphasic effects observed in this study, showing inhibition of DNA synthesis at high concentrations but induction at concentrations close to probable levels in humans."
1997 Connolly JM and others. Effects of dietary menhaden oil, soy, and a cyclooxygenase inhibitor on human breast cancer cell growth and metastasis in nude mice. Nutr Cancer 1997;29(1):48-54. Phytoestrogens at levels close to probable levels in humans were found to stimulate cellular changes leading to breast cancer.
1997 Wang C and Kurzer MS. Phytoestrogen concentration determines effects on DNA synthesis in human breast cancer cells. Nutr Cancer 1997;28(3):236-47. Soy intake caused larger mammary fat pad tumors to occur in mice. Soy feeding appeared to suppress enzymes protective of breast cancer.
1997 Anderson D and others. Effect of various genotoxins and reproductive toxins in human lymphocytes and sperm in the Comet assay. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1997;17(1):29-43. Human sperm exposed to the phytoestrogen diadzein had reduced DNA integrity. "The integrity of DNA is necessary not only for the noncancerous state, but also for the accurate transmission of genetic material to the next generation."
1998 Morris SM and others. p53, mutations, and apoptosis in genistein-exposed human lymphoblastoid cells. Mutat Res 1998 Aug 31;405(1):41-56. In vitro administration of genistein was found to cause cellular damage and death. "Our results may be interpreted that genistein is a chromosomal mutagen."
2000 Habito RC and others. Effects of replacing meat with soyabean in the diet on sex hormone concentrations in healthy adult males. Br J Nutr 2000 Oct;84(4):557-63. Men consuming tofu instead of meat for 4 weeks had lower testosterone-oestradiol ratios as well as changes in other hormone levels. "Thus, replacement of meat protein with soyabean protein, as tofu, may have a minor effect on biologically-active sex hormones which could influence prostate cancer risk."
2001 de Lemos ML. Effects of soy phytoestrogens genistein and daidzein on breast cancer growth. Ann Pharmacother 2001 Sep;35(9):118-21. "Genistein and daidzein may stimulate existing breast tumor growth and antagonize the effects of tamoxifen. Women with current or past breast cancer should be aware of the risks of potential tumor growth when taking soy products."
2001 Ju YH and others. Physiological concentrations of dietary genistein dose-dependently stimulate growth of estrogen-dependent human breast cancer (MCF-7) tumors implanted in athymic nude mice. J Nutr 2001 Nov;131(11):2957-62. Genistein stimulated breast tumor growth and cell proliferation in mice in a dose-responsive manner.
2001 den Tonkelaar I and others. Urinary phytoestrogens and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001 Mar;10(3):223-8. "We were not able to detect the previously reported protective effects of genistein and enterolactone on breast cancer risk in our postmenopausal population of Dutch women."
2001 Allred CD and others. Dietary genistin stimulates growth of estrogen-dependent breast cancer tumors similar to that observed with genistein. Carcinogenesis 2001 Oct;22(10):1667-73. Genistin, the glycoside form of genistein, is converted to genistein by human saliva. The glycoside genistin, like the aglycone genistein, can stimulate estrogen-dependent breast cancer cell growth in vivo. Removal of genistin or genistein from the diet caused tumors to regress.
2002 Newbold R and others. Increased uterine cancer seen in mice injected with genistein, a soy estrogen, as newborns. Cancer Research 2002 Jun 1;61(11):4325-8. Infant mice given genistein developed cancer of the uterus later in life. "The data suggest that genistein is carcinogenic if exposure occurs during critical periods in a young animal's development."
2003 Tsutsui T and others. Cell-Transforming Activity And Mutagenicity of 5 Phytoestrogens In Cultured Mammalian Cells. Int J Cancer 2003 105, 312-320. Phytoestrogens, such as Genistein and Dadzein, are responsible for the mutation of genes in mammals.
2004 Grace P and others. Phytoestrogen concentrations in serum and spot urine as biomarkers for dietary phytoestrogen intake and their relation to breast cancer risk in European prospective investigation of cancer and nutrition-norfolk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 May;13(5):698-708. Women who had high concentration of Phystoestrogens were more likely to be at risk for breast cancer.
2010 Ward H and others. Breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk in relation to phytoestrogen intake derived from an improved database. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2010 Feb;91(2):440-8. “Dietary phytoestrogens may contribute to the risk of colorectal cancer among women and prostate cancer among men.”
Phil Ridley:Dear Moderator. I regret making this request, but Sieben has resorted once more to calling me a retard and a wackjob
Phil Ridley:I think that if the threat of temporary ban is not carried out now, that the abuse will just continue. As you can see, I am trying really hard to have an adult-adult conversation.
And again, adults can handle being called "retarded", especially when they are actually in fact retarded.
Phil Ridley:Even stating that Lew Rockwell supports my position is not enough to encourage civil debate. Apparently it is false for me to respect Lew's point of view.
Phil Ridley:And frankly, having a total lack of respect for the views of the Chairman of the Mises Institute really puts into question why Sieben spends time here and makes me wonder whether Sieben aims to agitate.
Phil Ridley:But I really think this abuse should be nipped in the bud. Calling me a retard after soft suggestions from moderators not to be abusive really does not make the cut with me. It is completely exhausting having to deal with tirades of abuse every time I post.
Oh and again with the copypasted link. Stewart and I both went through the studies and they turn out to be totally bogus. Not even studying what you claim they study. You haven't read them either, but you accept them on faith because it fits your worldview. There are plenty of other faith-based forums on the internet. Maybe you could troll elsewhere.