This is not a fair way to argue points or discuss things. I will dismiss you as irrational and too emotional about the topic to be objective.
Taking an argument to its extreme to identify falacies is legitimate. It is true that the phyto-oestrogens in soy cause massive damage to reproductive organs, particularly male when soy is consumed at the levels proposed today, and it is true that our ancestors, for millions of years, did not eat low fat diets or seek to replace fats with immitation foods. Frankly, I’ve posted videos, links to scores of articles and studies and, all I get back is horrid disinfo that doesn’t even seek to analyse what I’ve put forward.
If you define “estrogen compounds” as exogenous non-biochemical estrogen, then maybe. But in that case it won’t matter, because 20,000 times regular concentrations are still 2,000 times less than the dose required to see actual physiological effects. Its kind of like how people who take caffeine have 81792591x more caffeine in their blood than people who don’t…
SOURCE?
No, I don’t. You’re just illiterate.
Yeah exactly. You think that everyone in who doesn’t like fat is FROM THE GOVERNMENT or some other evil organization, so you’ve gotta beat them up. You’re pathetic. You’ve brought NO evidence to the table that ANY of your nutritional claims are true. You’re just masturbating about Soy which actually turns out to be a rant against pesticides (lol).
Low fat diets (read - 20 to 25% total calories from fat) are suitable for athletes with good insulin sensitivity. The REASON you limit fat is simply to keep calories under control while keeping carbs and protein high. Eating a “high everything” diet is bad.
It is ALSO feasible to eat a relatively high fat diet (40% calories from fat). This will be fine for people who are not athletes, or athletes with poor insulin sensitivity.
I mean, I’d start backing this up with research, but your claims are so vague that I have no idea where to start. Diets aren’t “good” or “bad”. They serve different functions depending on the context and goals of individuals.
I wasn’t aware that any of your non-evidence based claims actually had people consuming supraphysiological doses of concentrated soy phytoestrogens. Lol.
But lets take your nonsense to its logical conclusion. What if someone ate a diet ENTIRELY of saturated fat? Well they’d die because you need protein to live. Wow how does that make you feel? Is that fair treatment of anything you’ve been saying? No? Well who cares. You’ve been an evasive little prat this entire time. You have not brought one legitimate study to the table, and have ignored at least 9 studies I dug up using an unbiased method (i.e. first 3 google search results).
What would it take for you to admit you are wrong? Nothing. Because you just want to masturbate in public about how everyone who eats soy is stupid and uninformed, and how everyone who thinks differently than you is from the government.
Who cares if he gets emotional. Just LOOK at his actual arguments. Phyto estrogens fry your testicles? That’s now how PEs work. That’s not even how regular estrogen works. He’s speaking from a position of such deep ignorance that it should be obvious to even the most unread laymen that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Are you kidding me! Phyto-oestrogens are not good for boys, particularly growing boys, and no good for men in the quantities you would get if if you use soy as a protein replacement. It is also certain that these hormone type chemicals at that quantity mess with female reproductive systems. Of course the word “fry” was non-technical, but as I said, if you want processed, GMO, roundup pesticide laced soy products rather than grass fed meat, then be my guest.
No. You said they fried your testicles. That’s not how PEs work.
Source?
Source?
It doesn’t do ANYTHING to your testicles. Testicles do not have estrogen receptors.
Yeah like I said. You’re just saying “pesticides are bad”. Would you rather have processed GMO pesticide meats versus au naturale soy? Hmm?
Whatever. You’re so freaking illiterate. You’re just talking past me, ignoring all the points you’re losing in favor of points you think you can win (which is zero at this point).
Sieben, I have provided you the entire WAPF archives on the dangers of modern processed soy, and the health benefits of traditional fermented (non GMO) soy.
Here, again, are all the references: http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-alert/
Lol. I already went through those. Most of them don’t say what you claim they say. I’m also not going through literally hundreds of publications and debunking them 1 by 1.
And you already ignored all the counterevidence I gave you. So what would be the point? WHY WOULDN’T YOU IGNORE ME?
You’re a moron.
Enjoy your GMO Soy.
Enjoy your last word. Oh wait, you won’t. Cus I live here. I get the last word. Sorry.
I’d say “Enjoy your ”, but you’ve been remarkably unclear about what your diet consists of. But you don’t look like you work out, so enjoy being another string-bean pasty white kid.
Studies Showing Adverse Effects of Soy1. Studies Showing the Toxicity of Soy in the US Food & Drug Administration’s Poisonous Plant Database (7.5M PDF)
Those hyperlinks aren’t studies. Those hyperlinks are links to LISTS of studies. Hundreds of them. Why don’t you pick one that supports any of your insane claims?
Btw, you have not read these studies. You just blindly trust in your authority figures at westonaprice. I’m not making any progress with you because you are arguing based on faith.
Omg. I clicked on the first one. She didn’t actually use any of those sources. She didn’t actually read them. No one has. They just punched in “Soy” into a database of poisonous plants. Lololololol. Hows that for objective? Why don’t you use pubmed or google scholar or ANYTHING remotely objective? Cus if you search a database about poison, all the articles are going to be about poison.
But yeah there’s a study about how tree bark will cause skin irritation. Its included in there because the technical name has “Soy” in it.
You = dishonest/moronic/etc.
Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods.
Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods.
Okay, you don’t have a source for that, but I also never said it. So thanks for talking past me so you can masturbate in public.
Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods.
Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens.
Copypasted from some propaganda website. There are literally dozens of websites who have this crap verbatim. Like I said - just masturbating in public.
Myth: Soy formula is safe for infants.
Truth: Soy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders. Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for vitamin D, needed for strong bones and normal growth. Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavailabilty of iron and zinc which are required for the health and development of the brain and nervous system. Soy also lacks cholesterol, likewise essential for the development of the brain and nervous system. Megadoses of phytoestrogens in soy formula have been implicated in the current trend toward increasingly premature sexual development in girls and delayed or retarded sexual development in boys.
Let me know when you want to sit down and discuss one issue (instead of jockying through them at light speed) and see how much research you can bring to the table. I bet it will be animal studies from the 60s.
Myth: Soy foods can prevent osteoporosis.
Truth: Soy foods can cause deficiencies in calcium and vitamin D, both needed for healthy bones. Calcium from bone broths and vitamin D from seafood, lard and organ meats prevent osteoporosis in Asian countries—not soy foods.