Re: the magic bean

 http://www.dogtorj.net/id46.html

the list provided here is different to your list.

 

What is different about it? My list and their list is pretty much the same. The only thing is that they are trying to hide the fact that the "estrogen ihibitors" are also phytoestrogens, just like their first list of estrogenic herbs. By the way, if you check their links you will see that the soy contains both the lignans and the isoflavonones. So if they are going to claim that one is estrogen promoting and one is estrogen blocking do you the problem with their claim yet?

 

What they don't seem to understand is the fact that phytoestrogens are on average 200 to 400 times weaker than the body's own estrogen. So they do not contribute to estrogen load unless you are planning on eating a truck load of these fruits and vegetables all at once. Instead these phytoestrogens ANTAGONIZE our own estrogen as well as xenoestrogens. Again, read my posting on phytoestrogens since I explain all this.

it's the candida diet all over again , completely different list of foods listed on each website you go to.

The issue has nothing to do with a Candida diet. It has to do with the false misconception that phytoestrogens are dangerous.

nevertheless i find myself eating more estrogen limiting foods rather than estrogen boosters from the foods listed at that site.

And once again, those "estrogen limiting" foods are also phytoestrogen sources!!!

there are plenty of articles out there pushing the truth about soy , that it is being pushed only because it is so cheap to mass produce.

That is hardly the truth. Check some REAL research sites like PubMed and look at all the studies showing soy's benefits in humans.

http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/9288.html

The June issue of the respected medical journal, Cancer Research, shows that injecting genistein into newborn mice for 5 days, causes uterine cancer (1). The doses were only slightly higher than infants receive from drinking soybean milk. In fact, genistein from soybean caused a higher rate of cancer than DES, the artifical estrogen that is an established known cause of uterine and vaginal cancer in humans. The July issue of Nutrition and Cancer will feature an article from the University of Missouri showing that genistein causes breast cancer in mice (2).

 

And did you bother looking at the actual study, or are you just accepting someone's claim because they posted it on the Internet and it has something negative to say? Here is an abstract of the study.

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/61/11/4325

"

Uterine Adenocarcinoma in Mice Treated Neonatally with Genistein

Retha R. Newbold¹, Elizabeth Padilla Banks, Bill Bullock and Wendy N. Jefferson

Developmental Endocrinology Section, Laboratory of Toxicology, Environmental Toxicology Program, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 [R. R. N., E. P. B., W. N. J.], and Department of Pathology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157 [B. B.]

The developing fetus is uniquely sensitive to perturbation with estrogenic chemicals. The carcinogenic effect of prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) is the classic example. Because phytoestrogen use in nutritional and pharmaceutical applications for infants and children is increasing, we investigated the carcinogenic potential of genistein, a naturally occurring plant estrogen in soy, in an experimental animal model previously reported to result in a high incidence of uterine adenocarcinoma after neonatal DES exposure. Outbred female CD-1 mice were treated on days 1–5 with equivalent estrogenic doses of DES (0.001 mg/kg/day) or genistein (50 mg/kg/day). At 18 months, the incidence of uterine adenocarcinoma was 35% for genistein and 31% for DES. These data suggest that genistein is carcinogenic if exposureoccurs during critical periods of differentiation. Thus, the use of soy-based infant formulas in the absence of medical necessity and the marketing of soy products designed to appeal to children should be closely examined."

Believe what you will but i like to avoid the stuff just in case.

 

That's fine, if you feel better believing BS that has been proven BS then go for it. I have told you to read my posting on phytoestrogens several times now and you have not done it. I gave you a list a phytoestrogen sources that matched up really well to the list you linked and for whatever reason you cannot see the similarities. And you choose to accept a claim that some phytoestrogens are bad and some are good when they all do the same thing! So this is a waste of time going round and round with you when you refuse to look at the evidence that has been spoon fed to you.

Tweet