Yup, we “traditional conservatives” prefer those boring randomized controlled studies for medical information, compared to mainstream liberals that prefer those flashy reference-less Myth/Truth brochures and like sourcing their medical information from consumer magazines.
Thanks for revealing yourself as an undercover mainstream liberal though, I thought one of my fellow “traditional conservatives” was falling for junk science, whew.
Mainstream “liberals tend to look after their bodies and environment”… hahahaha, yeah they sure do, and they look after yours even more. Hilarious.
Liberals have also managed to implement each and every one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. I regret that but understand now the sarcasm that has led traditional conservatives to the Darwin awards.
So, when your mother told you to not run into the road, did you ask for nothing more than normalized, actualized, hyper-quantified, interadimentional studies whilst stepping out into the path of a speeding car? Did you ask for a normalized, hypolized triple checked study last time somebody suggested you should not bathe in roundup pesticide?
Anybody got any comments on why Ayn Rand would relate a proper beef burger with the fulfilment of obectivist values? And why she cast scorn on a soy alternative?
Oh, and I missed on the forum rules where it said that one had to be a professor to post here. Sorry, I missed your credentials, Dr Siebeen, Professor know it all, Practitioner malnutrition and Oncologist Infertilty.
I’m not allowed to make a point unless I write a freaking treatise and know the medical journals back to front.
You people are a joke. And Siebeen, with her high standards starts off by calling an author fat. This is like having a conversation with school kids who are only capable of reading the thesarus. But then I guess that real Libertarians would be off making and spending money rather than wasting time warning folk about health issues on a forum.
Sure, we can do controlled studies, but not the kind that would give us complete information. As I said, if you really wanted to know what a lack of copper in the diet does, you could take some human population and simply not feed them copper and see what they die of and how long it takes. We cannot do this. We’re only guessing right now.
I remember reading about this veterinarian, I think his name was Joel Wallachs who has some interesting things to say about modern diet. He pointed out that kidney-stones in people are the same problem known as “water-belly” in cattle. In cattle it’s a fatal condition, and the farmers know how to prevent: feed the cattle more calcium. In humans, if you get kidney stones the doctors will tell you it’s caused by too much calcium and to stop eating calcium-rich foods.
I don’t know if he’s correct or not, but it’s clear we cannot do the kind of experimentation on people that we can on animals because of ethical considerations.
If you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some chilled edamames in the fridge, pre-cooked and salted in the shell and ready to eat Damn they’re good. I eat 'em by the handfuls. (true story)
No, and as a follower of Austrian economics empirical evidence doesn’t impress me much.
In regards to medical information, I prefer randomized controlled studies on humans over other types of studies. The Weston A. Price Foundation you keep referencing prefers these studies themselves. Have you ever seen Fat Head creator Tom Naughton’s lecture titled “Science For Smart People”? That’s what the entire lecture is about. I’m assuming you know who Tom Naughton is, being he’s a well known WAPF supporter, and eats the exact lifestyle you are referring to, and I happen to eat as well.
Almost all the studies you copy and pasted from WAPF are either observational studies or performed on non-humans. In some cases they aren’t even medical studies but just consumer magazine articles written by vitamin supplement salesmen.
Don’t need to be a professor or write a treatise to post, just link to some randomized controlled studies. Randomized controlled studies are actually pretty basic, and the opposite of “normalized, actualized, hyper-quantified, interadimentional studies”. It’s simply taking a bunch of people, splitting them up into groups, giving some one treatment, and the other a different treatment and seeing what the differences between them are. Very simple. Got any?
You keep making statements like “soy causes health problem”… says who? Link to the studies, and if you’re saying it causes it in humans, link to a study that was done on humans. Hopefully it won’t simply be a simple observational correlation study, they’re a dime a dozen, and are pretty useless other than for coming up with ideas for future randomized controlled studies.
As said, WAPF refer back to the works of Dr Weston A Price, which does satisfy the above requirements. He saw isolated people’s eating their traditional foods and compared them to other nearby popuations with the same genetics eating modern newfangled foods. But the biggest study we have is that infertility, obesity, diabetes and cancer have rocketted since we replaced traditional foods with carbs and protein replacements like soy. Don’t you think that the difference between health in our population prior to the USDA’s dietary guidelines first coming out mid 1970’s vs the horrific health problems of today, do you not think that is a perfect example of what modern foods do? Or am I mislead and it is just evolution, that our genetics suddenly gave up on us?
I mean really, you seek studies, of which there are many, when right infront of you an entire generation is on modern foods, getting sicker than any peacetime generation that proceeded them. Aren’t we loosing sight of the wood for the trees?
And heck, if you want a certain type of study, maybe you should go look for it. I can’t do everything for you.
Again, I agree on the fat/carbohydrates stuff, which is mainly what Dr. Price and the WAPF deals with, however Dr. Price’s research didn’t comment on soybeans, that book doesn’t refer to them at all.
Yes, traditional diets are good for you, and modern diets not so much, and they are responsible for the big increases in diabetes, cancer, etc. However are soybeans part of the problem? Is it the actual soybean itself or the modern modifications, pesticides, etc put in it? If it is the soybean itself, show some randomized controlled study that supports that claim.
There are many many studies and epidemiological observations showing people doing just fine on high carb, high fat, low carb, low fat, etc diets. The issue is, and always will be, calories. Saying that people get fat because they eat too many calories is a WAY simpler and more plausible explanation than saying its cus they eat too many processed carbs.
I’m willing to go and put up studies backing this up for anyone other than Philtard, since he’ll just ignore them. I mean maybe you guys will ignore them too, but what the hey.
You can definitely find many studies, including randomized and controlled ones, that show people losing weight, improving health indicators like blood pressure, etc on both high/low fat/carb diets. However when comparing them to each other, generally I have found low carb/high fat beats low fat/high carb, even though both produce generally positive results.
In that study, the Atkins diet which was lowest in carb, highest in fat, produced the best results, the Ornish diet, which was the least fat most carb produced the worst results (but again, still show improved results).
Recently I watched a lecture given by the president of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They’re finding carbohydrate consumption “dramatically increases risk” of cancer development because the most common mutation in cancer cells is a mutation in the genes that control glucose uptake. Fat had “no increase risk at all”, protein was “halfway in between”.
Not a randomized controlled study, unfortunately, I don’t currently have one to share, but if you’re interested in the lecture, here’s the link, it’s on Sloan-Kettering’s own YouTube account… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
As for calories, “It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling…”. This is from the ACSM/AHA 2007 guidelines on physical activity: PDF… http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home_Page&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7788 (PDF)
Low carb diets cause significant water loss. If you want evidence for this I’ll look it up. The biggest giveaway on this study is that they just measure weight, not actual changes in body composition. Most studies interested in bodycomp changes use BIA or X-ray (I forget what they’re called) tests.
Conflating these results are the fact that low-carb diets tend to be higher in protein. Protein has the highest satiety of any macronutrient, which results in better adherence. Additionally it has a greater thermic effect than either of the other macronutrients. So a truly controlled study investigating fats vs carbs would hold protein constant. Except by definition, atkins/zone/others do not…
Its a good study though. I actually see it thrown around as evidence that all the diets produce similar results. And btw… losing 10lbs in 12 months is really laughable By the books you should be able to maintain 1lb weight loss/week. These kinds of studies are always conflated with adherence issues. Again, I can pull it up, but obese individuals can underrerport their calorie intake by something like 50%. If you’re trying to create a 500 calorie deficit on a 2000 calorie diet, overeating by 10% of your BMR (200 calories) is going to cut your weight loss by 40%. If you overeat by 400 calories, your weight loss is cut by 80%. Etc etc.
Its epidemiology. I am not remotely interested in this.
On a related note, context is also important. The average person is overeating calories. This results in “build up” no matter what. You can’t “build up” indefinitely so stuff accumulates in your blood. High blood sugar, high triglycerides, chelesterol, etc. The specific mechanisms (insulin resistence) are peripheral. Its really just as simple as “you can’t accumulate forever”. Reducing any macronutrient (except maybe protein) will produce beneficial results.
The flip side is that none of this crap matters in weight loss diets. I recently saw a study where a group eating 40% of its carbs from table sugar (!!!) lost as much weight as another group eating their carbs from “healthy” sources (the protein intake was controlled :D). Both groups had similarly improved blood chemistry. Its because if you’re “breaking down” then concentrations of “crap in your blood” have to decrease. That’s what “deficit” means.
What I’m trying to get at is that really all that counts is calories. Once you’ve set your protein intake, everything else is peripheral.
I don’t understand.
What I do know about calories/exercise is that exercise burns off absolute piss for calories. Next time you’re on the treadmill, see how many calories you can burn. I cited 500 calories/day as the textbook-deficit you should be shooting for on weight loss. You’re doing good if you burn 200 calories 3x/week on cardio. And it’ll take you an hour. But this is all assuming you don’t just eat more to compensate. Its very easy to eat an extra few hundred calories without noticing it… which is what I suspect most people do.
Gary taubes is a retard 5x over. I won’t get into it here since you haven’t made any specific claims. Here is a post dealing in general with Taubes. I’m not going to quiz you on it so if you just want to ignore it, go for it. I just remember it being posted and reposted on some other forums.
stewart wrote the following post at Mon, Sep 12 2011 11:30 PM: Yes, traditional diets are good for you, and modern diets not so much, and they are responsible for the big increases in diabetes, cancer, etc. However are soybeans part of the problem? Is it the actual soybean itself or the modern modifications, pesticides, etc put in it? If it is the soybean itself, show some randomized controlled study that supports that claim.
Regarding what I know, it is the modern processing, the absence of traditional fermentation and, the vast quantities are what cause the problems, alongside the use of GMO’s which produce their own pesticides, which we then consume. Traditional people’s consumed small quantities of raw, fermented, unpasteurized soy as a probiotic aid to digestion which will of course have been organic/non GMO. On average, folk in the east consumed a spoonful a day. Soy, once fermented looses much of its toxicity and is a potent source of probiotics and digestive enzymes. They used meat or fish for their protein.
NOTE: I SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BACK UP EVERYTHING I SAY WITH A STUDY, THIS IS A FORUM, NOT A HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT. IF YOU ARE CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID, GO LOOK FOR YOUR OWN STUDY IF THAT IS WHAT YOU REQUIRE AND STOP BEING LAZY ASKING ME TO DO THAT WORK FOR YOU.
Evidence = convincing. Everything else = not convincing. See Stewart is talking to >>me<< and asking >>me<< for input and sources on dietary topics. He is not asking you for anything because recognizes that you are an sopping wet sack of shit. Get off these forums. You are just advertising for your stupid little cult.
Sieben, I’m bogged down with meetings over the next 2 days (and today was wasted researching something else ;-)), but I’ve bookmarked the page you linked to and will be checking it out in detail soon. Looks like its loaded with lots of hyperlinks directly to references, which I like. Glanced at it a bit and noticed some misreadings of Taubes, but we’ll see. Thanks for the link.
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”
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…
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…
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.”
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!
Damn they’re good. I eat 'em by the handfuls. (true story)
