Atlas Soy-led: Ayn Rand's Take on the Soybean

Miscellaneous General
101

Well, there’s really no rush. You haven’t made any hard claims so I don’t see you being super accountable to the conversation.

A little more background on myself though. Bodybuilders have a reputation for being obsessive compulsive perfectionists. They count every calorie at every meal and can stick to a diet with 100% adherence and accuracy. I can be one of those people. To the extent that I am not is the extent to which particular dietary choices don’t matter - ex whether a deficit is 500 calories or 450 calories, idrc cus its a big enough deficit already.

So a few years ago, I did a ketogenic diet (i.e. atkins, low carb). I ate less than 50g of carbs every day with a BMR of 3000 calories. I did not keep count of fat or protein calories. I lost about 10lbs of weight in the first week (this was water), and then I basically lost nothing else. When I started eating carbs again, the weight (water) came back on.

I think you can lose weight on ketogenic diets. I just don’t think there’s any point in putting yourself through both calorie restriction AND low carb. I mean, at the very low end of bodyfat percentages, low carb can be useful. But its actually not the only way to be useful (see morning cardio + yohimbine, intermittent fasting, etc).

The long story short is that the best diet is the diet you can stick to. I don’t think it would really matter if there were superior results from eating 3000 calories of protein a day, because no one would ACTUALLY be able to do that. I have a hunch that all the “low carb” people do it for a while, and then transition on to eating ~80g of carbs a day but underestimate it and really wind up eating closer to 120g carbs/day. Not ketogenic but I guess you can call yourself “low carb”.

And then I went on a calorie counting diet with 40% of its calories from carbs and a 500 calorie deficit and lost 40lbs in 3 months. That’s actually faster than I was supposed to lose weight, but who cares. When people are fat, the fat melts off if you start doing ANYTHING right.

Fast forward to now and I’ve dieted to just under 10% bodyfat on a similar diet. Oh, and all this while training with heavy weights all the way, so I look good (google 10% bodyfat). Unlike phil, who is a skinnyfat pasty white kid.

102

I had a feeling you were into bodybuilding after seeing the guy you linked to posted about heavily on bodybuilding forums. That’s cool.

I sent in a post here in response to Phil that goes over that “wasted time researching” stuff I mentioned, it contained a bunch of links so its awaiting moderator approval, hopefully that doesn’t take a long time.

103

Stuart, I’ve said right from the beginning that in the West, when soy is used as a protein replacement, that we consume far more soy than is normal in the east, where soy is used primarily as a fermented, probiotic condiment, and where either fish or pork is the staple for protein. The Weston A Price Foundation actually promote the use of non-gmo soy products in moderate quantities if they are fermented and unpasteurized. For example, I have Source Foods exhibit at our conference in London because they produce fermented miso which is unpasteurized and non-gmo. Its delicious and I had some last night with our dinner, but the main protein source was pork in that meal.

For example, in the Illinois Prison case, circa 70% of the diet is soy, which would never occur in the East.

So, by pointing out that the levels of soy necessary to cause problems is greater than the soy consumption in the east, really is backing up what I’ve been saying all along.

Thank you for looking into those sources. I appreciate your collaborative approach. I have a broad understanding of the Foundation’s position and have bought up questions in this forum which you have helped us analyse in a non-confrontational manner.

104

He didn’t “collaborate” with you. He looked into one of your insane claims and found that the reference is to a paper that doesn’t even study the issue, let alone support your stance. What is that? Strike 8975 for you? How many strikes before you’re “out”?

105

Phil, again, did you actually read a word I wrote? Did you read a single word from a single study I linked to?

The study WAPF cites wasn’t using high doses of soy as a “protein replacement”, they were seeing what effects high doses of genistein had on breast fluids.

I wasn’t pointing out that “the levels of soy necessary to cause problems is greater than the soy consumption in the east”, and that hasn’t been what you’ve “been saying all along”.

I was pointing out that your claim (and WAPF’s) that soy intake “increases your chances of breast cancer” is wrong. You have failed to rebut that at all, you haven’t even made an attempt to.

Did you not see my various “…your response?” points throughout that post? You haven’t directly responded to any of them, in fact you haven’t really responded to anything I wrote at all.

Let’s do a quick review of what you have done here…
1.) You’ve copy and pasted big chunks of the WAPF web site, in their entirety, even various non-content related icons.
2.) You haven’t provided a single link/source to a non-WAPF related article/site.
3.) You haven’t backed up a single claim you’ve made with an actual source, other than linking to random WAPF articles which themselves don’t back up their claims.
4.) You’ve ignored every point or source others have made that contradict yours.
5.) And a biggie… you’ve demonstrated you don’t even seem to know or understand WAPF’s own teachings.

You keep mentioning Dr. Price; you’ve linked to his book, a book which doesn’t even mention the word soy in it. The Weston A. Price Foundation itself rarely even uses Dr. Price’s material as a source. They’re at present using his name more as a marketing gimmick. The Mises Institute is named after Ludwig von Mises, and his work is constantly discussed here, and if not his, then either his direct influencers or followers.

Just look at all the “sources” at the WAPF you linked to, not a single one was written by Dr. Price himself, literally none.

I saw you mention the Illinois prison stuff on another thread, and all I can find on it is mainly a lawsuit the WAPF itself is funding. Apparently a couple of inmates with a soy allergy complained about soy being in the normal prison diet. The Illinois Department of Corrections response to this was that if an inmate has a soy allergy they will be given an alternative diet.

Again, the lawsuit is being funded by the WAPF itself, and pretty much all the information about it that I was able to find was simply comments from WAPF itself.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-12-21/news/0912200121_1_soy-protein-soy-cheeses-soyfoods-association
“Tens of thousands of inmates in Illinois prisons are being fed “up to 100 grams” of soy protein a day, according to the Weston A. Price Foundation, which is funding the lawsuit.”

Almost the entire article is filled with “according to the WAPF”, or “said Sally Fallon from the WAPF”, and even your buddy Kaayla Daniel is mentioned.

However I can’t find a single non-WAPF source stating the Illinois prison diet is 70% soy or anywhere remotely near that. The newspaper wasn’t able to confirm that either, the only thing they found was the prison menu showing 7 “soy-enhanced meats” a week (aka 1 per day). WAPF’s response to that was to point out that their consumption is higher than that because some other foods they eat are cooked in soybean oil, etc. Yeah, so what? So is nearly every product non-inmates eat. Almost every product in a mainstream grocery store has soy taking up big chunks of the ingredient list. It’s subsidized by government and “cheap”, that’s what happens. Corn/soy/corn/soy/corn/soy, all over the grocery. That’s nothing unique to Illinois prisons.

I’d like to see you provide just 1 non-WAPF related source stating anything soy related about Illinois prison diets… in fact I’d like to see you provide just 1 non-WAPF related source on ANYTHING. I don’t think you can do it. You’re completely obsessed with the WAPF.

106

I’m not employed by WAPF, just a volunteer who has chosen to run a conference in London for them, which incidentally doesn’t make any money, because I believe in what they stand for, and am horrified by the physical degeneration in society. Really, that is no reason to mock me.

It would take me quite some time to trawl through things and find evidence to back up my comments, I’m not a scientist, I’m a lay person attempting to stimulate debate and the Standard American Diet (SAD).

I’ll go look through Kaayla’s book tonight if I get time, to see if I can find references on this.

107

I tell you one thing. A reason our ancestors survived for millions of years, is because they had common sense. They would not need a triple validated study to tell them that eggs and meat from healthy animals was good for them, and that replacing it with a grain that was diificult to process and digest, that that would be a good thing.

And there is nothing wrong with presenting a hypothesis. No reason to be rude to me for contradicting your belief in the system. No justification for bullying me. You can put your counterpoint without hurling abuse.

108

It is true arrogance of the West that our science can immediately better millenia of accumulated wisdom from our ancestors. But us living in cities is probably a major component, that we forget how wholesome food is when it is produced from nature.

109

You are a skinnyfat pasty white boy. You shouldn’t be lecturing anyone about their physiques.

We’re lay people too and we can come up with evidence to back up our claims. If you believe in this cause SO MUCH that you’re volunteering your time, why can’t you sit down and actually read the research that backs up your views? You haven’t read ONE of the studies listed as a “reference” in any of your links. Stewart and I have already pointed out that they don’t say what you claim they say.

And then you’ll also need to tell us why our references don’t matter. Like, why are her references better than controlled studies saying the opposite thing? Cus I linked them to you and you ignored them lololololol

Average life expectancy was about age 30.

. No. You said soy would “fry my testicles”. That is not an innocent hypothesis. That religious dogma masquerading as science. Its one step off of telling me I’m going to hell. And you are so damn sure about it that you don’t need ANY research to back it up. Cus like I said, you argue based on faith.

Our ancestors didn’t eat one “the diet”. You can find evidence that paleo man ate grains and low fat diets, as well as nuts and high fat diets. He ate whatever was around and easiest to get. Kind of like what we do now actually!

110

Sieben you really need to cool it down. I don’t want to give you temp-ban, because you’re usually not like this, and your contributions are highly valued. But if you insult Phil once more I will. (Or if another mod catches it, please do it for me.) I suggest you stop addressing Phil if you can’t talk to him civilly.

111

Not really mocking you (granted, a very tiny bit in response to mocking comments I’ve seen from you); not demanding you to provide “triple validated studies” to “every single thing” you say. Don’t really disagree with you overall on the traditional vs modern diet thing either. Which as Sieben pointed out, wasn’t a one-size-fits-all worldwide, vast differences in different populations.

I’m mainly just curious what your “requirement” is for taking a statement such as “soy increases chances of breast cancer” as being true? So far it appears it’s simply the WAPF saying it does. Which again, that’s fine if you are, but say so. Kind of looks like you’re starting to acknowledge that though.

Nice to see you’re going to be checking out some references in Kaayla Daniel’s book, and I look forward to seeing what you come back with.

Remember what site you’re at, the Mises Institute, a pretty academic site (and non-mainstream non-sheep). Making claims about medical related issues and then being asked for references to support those claims should be completely expected at a place like this. That’s not “being lazy”, it’s called following the burden of proof “standard”.

Perhaps you look towards WAPF as well researched experts, and if they say something is true/false that’s good enough for you. That’s fine. If I suddenly had a bunch of chest pains and shortness of breath I wouldn’t be pulling up Google Scholar and PubMed and trying to hunt down randomized controlled studies to figure out what’s wrong with me and how to fix it. I’d be running over to someone I think is an expert on that kind of issue, a medical doctor, and pretty much blindly following his treatment. As he’s attempting to inject me with various drugs, I wouldn’t be popping up my head going “hey hey hey, where’s your reference about that drug being effective on my condition?!”. No one researches every little bit of information they come across every day to check its validity; there’s too much information intake each day, and not enough time or energy to thoroughly research it all. Anyone that claims they do either lives in the middle of a desert and doesn’t have much information intake each day, or is a liar.

But when making specific medical claims, it’s perfectly reasonable for us to ask what your source for that claim is. If it’s a medical journal article, link it; if it’s blindly following the WAPF, say so. But when you repeatedly refuse to link to actual direct sources on specific claims AND refuse to acknowledge you’re just blindly following the WAPF, you kind of come across as simply a shill for the organization.

Again I look forward to any references you find in Kaayla Daniel’s book. Oh, and for the record, I don’t think she’s fat either.

112

Right. So if I call a spade a spade, I get banned. On the other hand, if Phil gives people literally harmful dietary advice (it will cause them physical harm if they follow it), and doesn’t back up ANYTHING he’s saying with sources, and on top of it trolls by ignoring/talking past EVERYONE (not just me), that’s okay.

Only on the mises.org forums. Its like church or something.

113

Just ditch the personal attacks and you’re fine. Sheesh. Common sense.

114

I actually have a reason behind verbally attacking people. But some people are so violently allergic to attacks on the body that they just assume that their paradigm is objectively correct.

115

Sieben. Of course you have a reason for verbal attack, aka bullying. What the moderator is trying to explain is, that verbal abuse on a public forum is not acceptable according to the forum etiquette.

And the most frustrating thing is, that you bully me every time I put forward a hypothesis. A hypothesis need not be proven to be stated. Sure, counter it with info but, it is rude to simply say oh, no evidence so you cannot state a hypothesis. What I am doing is encouraging debate, so please debate me rather than abuse me.

And another thing, you claim that my advice is damaging. Well incase you had not noticed, I percieve your advice to be harmful. Does that justify me hurling abuse at you? I get it, that these are emotional subjects but, that should not stop us from discussing like adults.

As said in the forum, please listen to Lew Rockwell’s recent podcast where he comes out against the USDA’s food pyramid and against the strictures against saturated fat: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/09/13/223-government-hates-good-health/

Would you hurl abuse at Lew Rockwell for having that opinion?

So if the Chairman of the Mises Institute is of my opinion, can you at least recognize that rational debate on this subject is justified?

116

Actually you’re the one bullying. You are beating up on everyone who doesn’t think like you and using totally bogus reasons to do it. This is a witch hunt; you are going after everyone whos culture differs from yours.

I am telling YOU that you have SEVERE mental problems. That’s why I called you a “retard” (does this count as an ad hom? lol). The “attacks on your body”, or in this case, your mind, are true. You are literally insane. You are a liar. You are illiterate. You are a religious nutjob. There is literally nothing you won’t believe as long as it fits your cultural agenda.

No. You don’t put forward hypotheses. You put forward things you think are facts, such as the “fact” that soy fries your testicles. Not only is this blatantly false, you just ignore it.

If you were just putting forward hypotheses, I’d say your hypotheses were dumb. You know, because there’s all this counterevidence. But you are masquerading as some bringer of truth. Except you have no support, so, you know, studies > no studies.

It isn’t a matter of perception. Your advice IS harmful. My advice IS NOT harmful. I objectively base my advice on controlled studies and pick the side that has better results. So you can see there it literally no way for me to give harmful advice.

I can call you a retard because you say retarded stuff and don’t back it up with reasoning or evidence. So no, you can’t do the same to me. If someone had your opinion but brought reasoning and evidence to the table, then I wouldn’t be able to call them that either. But since you are totally intellectually deficient, I point out your intellectual deficiency.

You’d figure adults would be able to handle a couple of cus words.

Depends how he supports it. If he supports it like YOU, with no evidence whatsoever, then yeah. I would.

No. Because that’s an appeal to authority Phil. It doesn’t matter what the chair of the mises institute thinks. It doesn’t matter what Einstine thinks. It doesn’t matter WHAT anyone thinks. It matters HOW they substantiate it.

You have no substantiation, ergo you are a religious wackjob.

If someone else with your opinion brings evidence and reasoning to the table, they may be wrong, but they are not a religious wackjob.

Do you see how that works? You don’t get to mooch off the credit of people much smarter and more honest than you.

117

Dear Moderator. I regret making this request, but Sieben has resorted once more to calling me a retard and a wackjob. I think that if the threat of temporary ban is not carried out now, that the abuse will just continue. As you can see, I am trying really hard to have an adult-adult conversation.

Even stating that Lew Rockwell supports my position is not enough to encourage civil debate. Apparently it is false for me to respect Lew’s point of view.

And frankly, having a total lack of respect for the views of the Chairman of the Mises Institute really puts into question why Sieben spends time here and makes me wonder whether Sieben aims to agitate.

But I really think this abuse should be nipped in the bud. Calling me a retard after soft suggestions from moderators not to be abusive really does not make the cut with me. It is completely exhausting having to deal with tirades of abuse every time I post.

118

A few studies regarding soy phytoestrogens and breast cancer:

1978
Martin PM and others. Phytoestrogen interaction with estrogen receptors in human breast cancer cells. Endocrinology 1978 Nov;103(5):1860-7. Phytoestrogens “translocate the cytoplasmic estrogen receptor and bind to unfilled nuclear estrogen receptors in whole cells. Bound nuclear receptors are then processed in a manner similar to estradiol in a step, which rapidly decreases total cellular estrogen receptors. The phytoestrogens are also biologically active; they can markedly enhance tumor cell proliferation.”

1996
Petrakis NL and others. Stimulatory influence of soy protein isolate on breast secretion in pre-and postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996 Oct;5(10):785-794. Twenty-four normal pre- and postmenopausal white women, ages 30 to 58 were studied for one year. During months 4-9, the women ingested 38 g soy protein isolate containing 38 mg genistein. Seven of the 24 women developed epithelial hyperplasia during the period of soy feeding, a condition that presages breast cancer. The authors noted that “the findings did not support our a priori hypothesis” that soy protected Asian women against breast cancer. “Instead, this pilot study indicates that prolonged consumption of soy protein isolate has a stimulatory effect on the pre-menopausal female breast, characterised by increased secretion of breast fluid, the appearance of hyperplastic epithelial cells and elevated levels of plasma estradiol. These findings are suggestive of an estrogenic stimulus from the isoflavones genistein and diadzein contained in soy protein isolate.”

1997
Dees C and others. Dietary estrogens stimulate human breast cells to enter the cell cycle. Environ Health Perspect 1997 Apr;105 (Suppl 3):633-636. Dietary estrogens were found to increase enzymatic activity leading to breast cancer. “Our findings are consistent with a conclusion that dietary estrogens at low concentrations do not act as anti-estrogens, but act like DDT and estradiol to stimulate human breast cancer cells to enter the cell cycle.”

1997
Wang C and Kurzer MS. Phytoestrogen concentration determines effects on DNA synthesis in human breast cancer cells. Nutr Cancer 1997;28(3):236-47. Although high levels of isoflavones inhibited DNA synthesis in human breast cancer cells, low levels of genistein and related compounds. . . induced DNA synthesis 150-235%. “The current focus on the role of phytoestrogens in cancer prevention must take into account the biphasic effects observed in this study, showing inhibition of DNA synthesis at high concentrations but induction at concentrations close to probable levels in humans.”

1997
Connolly JM and others. Effects of dietary menhaden oil, soy, and a cyclooxygenase inhibitor on human breast cancer cell growth and metastasis in nude mice. Nutr Cancer 1997;29(1):48-54. Phytoestrogens at levels close to probable levels in humans were found to stimulate cellular changes leading to breast cancer.

1997
Wang C and Kurzer MS. Phytoestrogen concentration determines effects on DNA synthesis in human breast cancer cells. Nutr Cancer 1997;28(3):236-47. Soy intake caused larger mammary fat pad tumors to occur in mice. Soy feeding appeared to suppress enzymes protective of breast cancer.

1997
Anderson D and others. Effect of various genotoxins and reproductive toxins in human lymphocytes and sperm in the Comet assay. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1997;17(1):29-43. Human sperm exposed to the phytoestrogen diadzein had reduced DNA integrity. “The integrity of DNA is necessary not only for the noncancerous state, but also for the accurate transmission of genetic material to the next generation.”

1998
Morris SM and others. p53, mutations, and apoptosis in genistein-exposed human lymphoblastoid cells. Mutat Res 1998 Aug 31;405(1):41-56. In vitro administration of genistein was found to cause cellular damage and death. “Our results may be interpreted that genistein is a chromosomal mutagen.”

2000
Habito RC and others. Effects of replacing meat with soyabean in the diet on sex hormone concentrations in healthy adult males. Br J Nutr 2000 Oct;84(4):557-63. Men consuming tofu instead of meat for 4 weeks had lower testosterone-oestradiol ratios as well as changes in other hormone levels. “Thus, replacement of meat protein with soyabean protein, as tofu, may have a minor effect on biologically-active sex hormones which could influence prostate cancer risk.”

2001
de Lemos ML. Effects of soy phytoestrogens genistein and daidzein on breast cancer growth. Ann Pharmacother 2001 Sep;35(9):118-21. “Genistein and daidzein may stimulate existing breast tumor growth and antagonize the effects of tamoxifen. Women with current or past breast cancer should be aware of the risks of potential tumor growth when taking soy products.”

2001
Ju YH and others. Physiological concentrations of dietary genistein dose-dependently stimulate growth of estrogen-dependent human breast cancer (MCF-7) tumors implanted in athymic nude mice. J Nutr 2001 Nov;131(11):2957-62. Genistein stimulated breast tumor growth and cell proliferation in mice in a dose-responsive manner.

2001
Ju YH and others. Physiological concentrations of dietary genistein dose-dependently stimulate growth of estrogen-dependent human breast cancer (MCF-7) tumors implanted in athymic nude mice. J Nutr 2001 Nov;131(11):2957-62. Genistein stimulated breast tumor growth and cell proliferation in mice in a dose-responsive manner.

2001
den Tonkelaar I and others. Urinary phytoestrogens and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001 Mar;10(3):223-8. “We were not able to detect the previously reported protective effects of genistein and enterolactone on breast cancer risk in our postmenopausal population of Dutch women.”

2001
Allred CD and others. Dietary genistin stimulates growth of estrogen-dependent breast cancer tumors similar to that observed with genistein. Carcinogenesis 2001 Oct;22(10):1667-73. Genistin, the glycoside form of genistein, is converted to genistein by human saliva. The glycoside genistin, like the aglycone genistein, can stimulate estrogen-dependent breast cancer cell growth in vivo. Removal of genistin or genistein from the diet caused tumors to regress.

2002
Newbold R and others. Increased uterine cancer seen in mice injected with genistein, a soy estrogen, as newborns. Cancer Research 2002 Jun 1;61(11):4325-8. Infant mice given genistein developed cancer of the uterus later in life. “The data suggest that genistein is carcinogenic if exposure occurs during critical periods in a young animal’s development.”

2003
Tsutsui T and others. Cell-Transforming Activity And Mutagenicity of 5 Phytoestrogens In Cultured Mammalian Cells. Int J Cancer 2003 105, 312-320. Phytoestrogens, such as Genistein and Dadzein, are responsible for the mutation of genes in mammals.

2004
Grace P and others. Phytoestrogen concentrations in serum and spot urine as biomarkers for dietary phytoestrogen intake and their relation to breast cancer risk in European prospective investigation of cancer and nutrition-norfolk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 May;13(5):698-708. Women who had high concentration of Phystoestrogens were more likely to be at risk for breast cancer.

2010
Ward H and others. Breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk in relation to phytoestrogen intake derived from an improved database. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2010 Feb;91(2):440-8. “Dietary phytoestrogens may contribute to the risk of colorectal cancer among women and prostate cancer among men.”

119

Actually I was referring to the fact that I had called you a retard and a wackjob in the past. But that’s cool that you want to cry to authority figures and get me banned rather than continue to deal with being publicly exposed as such.

No. You are talking past me. You are talking past stewart. You do not bring anything to the table. You are here for the SOLE PURPOSE of pushing your ideological garbage. This is not what “adults” do. This is what religious zealots do.

And again, adults can handle being called “retarded”, especially when they are actually in fact retarded.

I didn’t say Lew was like you. If Lew uses evidence to back up his claims, then he’s DIFFERENT from you. Because you DO NOT use evidence to back up your claims.

But yeah thanks 4 appeal to authority. I guess you can be banned for making one type of logical fallacy (ad homs; and in my case they are not even logical ad homs since i’m not saying i’m right because phil is a retard), but not banned for another type of logical fallacy.

Lol. Like I’m an outsider. YOU are the outsider. No one on these forums wants to listen to you spout garbage about your religious beliefs. On the other hand, people (see stewart in this thread), are actually interested in talking to me. They respect reasoning and evidence (unlike you), and they can learn from me and maybe I can learn from them if I am in error.

We’ll find out who is in the wrong on the basis of evidence. See you can never be proved wrong because you don’t even acknowledge that counterevidence exists. You’re an ideologue.

If you don’t like it, you can go somewhere else. I’m worth 100000x you. There’s no point in banning me just to keep people like you around.

(And the whole point of drawing attention to your mental defect is so that you’ll feel bad about yourself. You should. You really do have those problems.)

120

Oh and again with the copypasted link. Stewart and I both went through the studies and they turn out to be totally bogus. Not even studying what you claim they study. You haven’t read them either, but you accept them on faith because it fits your worldview.

There are plenty of other faith-based forums on the internet. Maybe you could troll elsewhere.