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 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!