Date:   7/22/2008 11:57:06 PM ( 16 y ago)
Hits:   42,585
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1221269

In both the topics I'm about to discuss I'm only an interested consumer/patient and am not any sort of dietician, nutritionist, naturopath, gp, or whatever. Can I suggest to anyone reading this message that, in regards to these topics, indeed any topic of personal interest to you, that when you research these topics online not only should you read the positive stories of a product or idea, but you should also google for any negative stories. For example, by adding words like 'danger', or 'scam' to your search. This way you won't be taken in by the hype.

(1) Soy. The jury isn't in on this product. As I understand it, in the USA foods are given a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) recognition if they are, as the title suggests, basically harmless. For example, bananas are GRAS. Soy doesn't have that recognition. Most of the soy product you'll see in food or foodstuffs supplied to the western market are the byproduct of industrial processing. The companies that created the byproduct thought they might try to get some of their money back on the waste they were generating and so sought approval to market that byproduct as good for consumers due to its protein content and due to the fact it contains something called 'phytoestrogens'.

(1a) Soy protein: Soy protein, as with any plant protein is not 'complete' protein. I'm a meat eater so I don't generally have to worry about that as meat is a complete protein. However, as any well-informed vege should already know, vegetarians have to attempt to get many varied sources of plant protein in their diet as having only one source of plant protein only partially covers your protein needs and you will become malnourished in regards to your protein needs. Don't be fooled into thinking that simply because you are including soy in your diet you are meeting your protein needs.

(1b) Soy phytoestrogens: Even though the marketing of soy tends to market the phytoestrogen content as a positive of the product, the Science is out on this. Some studies suggest that too much soy might even be harmful, and possibly cancer-producing because of these phytoestrogens. But yet other studies suggest that there might be a positive anti-cancer benefit, but only of a minor degree. When the companies I mentioned above first attempted to gain approval to market their soy byproduct/waste, 2 scientists in particular wrote a strongly-worded message against the approval because of soy's phytoestrogen content and their concerns on the effect of human hormonal systems. Phytoestrogens are basically the plant produced equivalent of the human estrogen hormone. That is why someone (such as one of the previous posters) having hot flushes might notice an improvement in their health because of soy. Ingesting soy is like HRT for menopause. But imagine you're a young healthy female who isn't going through menopause, or otherwise imagine you're male, and you're ingesting all these additional pseudo-estrogen compounds through your diet. I've read various stories around the net from individuals and how they think soy has created their health problems that are very worrying. The Cancer Council of NSW has a good, balanced fact sheet on this topic:
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=256


Generally, taking into account the incomplete nature of soy protein as a single source of protein, and also the lack of solid, consensual advice on the positive or negative effects of phytoestrogens I take the view that soy is probably ok ingested in occasional dosages and in a form that is prepared with a more natural/original method, similar to how it would be prepared and ingested in Asian countries, not the cheap waste/byproduct material that is commonly used here in the west. The problem is this byproduct of the industrial processing is so very cheap, and hence a lot of food products marketed as healthy due to their protein content will more commonly than not contain the industrial byproduct of soy, not the traditionally prepared version. Check the packaging of your food. I don't what the standards are in other western countries, but here in Australia, the info you get in the nutrional information panel is fairly good. You'll be shocked to realise just how many foodstuffs on the supermarket shelves contain soy products. Why? Because it's cheap.

There are two common sayings which probably best guide how we should view soy in our diets:
- Everything in moderation; and
- The less processed food equals the better nutrient content.

(2) Dr Clark and her Liver Cleansing diet. I'm mobidly obese and have a fatty liver. As I understand it, if you're obese you're pretty much guaranteed a fatty liver. Being an alcoholic is also very helpful in getting the condition, but since I'm not a drinker I don't worry about that aspect ^^. I'm in the process of losing the fat/dropping the kilos, and so over time the discomfort I've had in the area of my liver while sitting has gone because of the fat I've lost to date (still got a long way to go). I've been interested in 'cleansing' the body because I would like to help it lose that fat as quickly and healthily as possible. However, I've also had some bad experiences where I placed trust in the word of a stranger just because they seemed to be so heartfelt and well-meaning in their advice, and it turned out for the worst in the end. So I googled not only Dr Clark's liver cleanse, but also "dr" clark herself. Did you know that "dr" clark got her masters in Arts? That she obtained an degree in physiology, but of which she majored in zoology? That she has been penalised and even taken to court by various north american states for practising medicine without being licensed? That various products that she advised to 'cure cancer' were ordered not only to be recalled, but a refund to be given to any who asked for it? (that last not only happened in north america, but also here in Australia as well) There's lots more worrying info on her background besides the above. I won't go into the area where she claims to know the cause of and cure for HIV and cancer because what I've read on her actions in that area is just plaining sickening. All you need to do is google it.

In short "dr" Clark is a quack.

Anyways, I thought "well, all these people are talking about how they followed liver cleanse diets and saw results because they were excreting these green lumps. Maybe, even though this Dr Clark is a bit shady, perhaps the diet itself is still of benefit?" So I asked my doctor. I trust my doctor completely. Been with her for yonks, she always offers good sound advice and knows her stuff, so I trust her judgement. She told me that while most 'cleanses' probably won't do too much harm to me, the best way I could get rid of my fatty liver is just to keep focusing on what I'm already doing - get healthy, exercise, eat a good, balanced diet. In short, lose the body fat.

I can't tell the rest of you whether to proceed with or to go without the above 2 products, that has to be left to your own individual good judgement. But please, when thinking about whether to go ahead with things like this, don't get swept up in the hype. Research carefully. Get an informed opinion from someone you trust.

After all, this is your body we're talking about. Once it gets messed up it can take a lot of work to get it right again, if at all.
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1221269