Is Soy rich in Estrogen,its consumption leading to 'Feminization'? - Is Soy a potential cause of feminization and breast cancer? (Dec/13/2006 )
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
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.
(Column continues below)
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.
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.
Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?
Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.
Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!
There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults – especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.
In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.
P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.
hello hello anybody there?
It is controversial as all these medical investigations...
Look at http://www.breastcancer.org/faq_risk_soy.html or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...st_uids=9492349
Sometimes I think for every food and drink you can find a study showing that it is dangerous, mutagen, toxic or whatever.
If you feed relatively divers and balanced almost all food is ok. If you feed only on a few food/drink types they may be dangerous, even wheat or water.
The concerns and fears caused by these studies may be more dangerous than the food itself
sure, if your entire diet is based on soy, it may cause some problems, but all that about soy being related to increased incident of homosexuality and obesity? i don't buy it. majority of people, in the US at least, don't eat all that much soy. and the majority of obese people? i really doubt their diets include a lot of soy!
i completely agree that soy isn't for babies - breast milk is for babies. i don't see how a parent could seriously believe that a vegetable-derived product is healthier for a baby than what's provided naturally. on the flip side, cow milk isn't for adults, but soy in moderation is fine. this article seems more alarmist in nature than informative! that's why i dislike the media..
it should be noted that soya beans and soya derived products have been consumed in the far east for more then 2 millenia. If the soya consumption was so detrimental to fertility, China would not be on of the most populous nations in the world. And arguably chinese in the far east eat more soya products then the average US citizen.
A comparitive population study between China and the US on obesity and age of onset of puberty would answer you worries quite nicely. I am sure, you'll find the average Chinese citizen rather lean compared to the average US citizen.
And the earlier age of onset of puberty in the US, there have been studies on this particular topic. And while I cannot recall the papers, their findings indicate that body fat deposits and high fat consumption are the main factors. Basically the push towards an earlier age of menarche is due to girls having accumulated sufficient body fat by an earlier age. (there appears to be some sensitivity towards the level of dietary fat.. so it is not all about the amount of food consumed but also the quality of it as well) .
And not to mention better overall nutrition , which leads to better and quicker growth. And if you know anything about ecology, a population's reaction to better food is to mature quicker... not live longer (Which is pretty sad). This has been seen in humpback whales, several species of island rodents and rabbits.
Really, if one was worried about girls hitting menarche too early, just make them dancers or be more athletic. The high energy work outs trims down body fat delaying menarch and biological sexual maturity by years (2 - 3yr). This is a know fact that parents of daughters who are seriously into ballet are told, so as not to worry.
Finally, it is plain silly to give babies soya milk. Ignore the phytoestrogen, soya milk is not nutritionally complete. Said child will probably suffer from malnutrition before becoming homosexual (which seems to be the main worry of the article.... ie "I duno wana be gay"). Chinese parents don't give their babies soya milk (despite the abundance) unless there is a famine.
And really, nothing in the world wants to be eaten. Every living creature has some kind of defence against being eat. Be it human intellect and a handy sharp stick, claws and teeth or for plants... thorns and biochemical defence. A similar alarmist article can be written for vegetable cooking oil, margarine, butter, coffee, lettuse, cabbages, potatoes, carrots, chicken, and probably more (but I don't have the info with me)
1. that article is a load of crap.
2. i can't be bothered to find the peer reviewed sorces to back up what i'm about to say, but they're out there in pub med land.
soy is high in phyto-estrogens. they act as an estrogen agonist. the more you eat, the lower the estrogen levels are in the body. the key is how much you take. dietry studies have shown (one again, somewhere in pubmed land), that having a diet with a low-moderate level of soy based products might be detrimental to your health. BUT having a diet that is high with soy based products is good for you (reduces the risk of cancer et al). they suggest having miso soup 3X a day to prevent some cancers.
soy and men, well, it reduces the risk of developing prostate cancer. just look at the prostate cancer risks among men in the west (low soy) and east (high soy).
phytoestrogens and estrogen-like molecules do not alter brain aromatase levels. it does change studies in ER alpha KO mice show that estrogen is required for both male and female mouse sexual behaviour.
it's questinable what's it doing in cognitive function. one study said it impared function, and other said it improved function.
soy is good for bones. it also good for preventing chronic disease.
soy is a great alternative in baby formula. it's easier on the gut, and all that. (also, putting it in smoothies is a nice treat).
ealier menarch is due to high calorie diets, not high phytoestrogen based diets.
V
Does excess estrogen make people gay? That doesn't seem right. If that were true, wouldn't testosterone replacement therapy make gay people hetero again? I don't think that works. I don't think homosexuality is due to a hormone imbalance, but I guess I could be wrong.
inajar you picked up on the main problem with the article that the others missed.
its problem was not the soya but the insinuation that homosexuality was caused by a feminisation of the male (and i assume a masculisation of the female?).
it also equated homosexuality with sexual confusion and small penises and as for the next bit :-
"No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them. "
ive seen this kind of rubbish before but it tends to involve the war against evolution and "my gods better than your god"
perfect part is the bit about us all tending toward being female - this person obviously looked at the science but didnt understand a word of it so they made up their own twisted version.
i wish i had the answer to get them off our backs (and websites) but i dont.
Frankly, I'm surprised that this thread is still here after almost 5 months. I don't think an article published by this type of conservative group really belongs on bioforum in research news and views. ESPECIALLY with offensive comments such as labelling a subset of the population as deviant!!! Even if you are quoting someone else, it is just not acceptable. 
hope homosexuals don't take soybean as a justification for their acts..
this article is one of the bad sides of profit-based sciences