-Caveat Lector-
They're Taking the Joy Out of Soy
Does soy shrink the brain? Leave you anemic? Promote
rather than prevent cancer? Interfere with your thyroid
hormones? Is soy a toxin, a food or a drug? If you eat
soy,
look out, here come the soy bashers. And you won't
believe
who they are.
By Bill Sardi - Health Reporter Knowledge of Health,
Inc.
May 2000
c. 2000 The Townsend Letter For Doctors
http://www.tldp.com/issue/11_00/joysoy.htm 12-29-00
It went from being the darling of the natural products
industry to being labeled as a potential toxin. Not
even a year ago it was heralded in Time Magazine
as the bean that brought down cholesterol and the
risk of heart disease. Time Magazine said the Food
& Drug Administration was soon to approve a health
claim for soy protein - that it reduced cholesterol for
people with elevated fatty plaque levels in their
blood circulation. Just 1.5 ounces of soy, said Time,
can lower both total and LDL "bad" cholesterol
levels. [The Joy of Soy, Time Magazine, June 7,
1999]
What a joy, that soy, a natural food product, would
gain such credibility that the FDA would grant a
health claim for it. It was time for a soy festival. The
normally pro-pharmaceutical FDA had finally
succumbed to the reality that foods are a good way
to prevent and even cure disease. The FDA says
scientific studies confirm that 25 grams of soy has a
significant cholesterol-lowering effect.* There was
an asterisk attached to the FDA announcement
however (see below). A soy burger has 9 to 18
grams, and soy milk about 4 to 9 grams of soy
protein, according to the Soyfoods Association of
North America. The cardiovascular health claim was
issued October 26, 1999. [FDA T99-48 Talk Paper]
Just a relatively short time ago soy was considered
a yucky un-American food. But today two-thirds of
American consumers now believe it is healthy to
consume soy, which is a big jump from the 14% who
felt so in 1997. Soy sales were over $1 billion in
1997 and are expected to soon jump over the $2
billion mark. Health Products Business Magazine
reports that the number of new soy beverages is
growing at an astounding pace. More soy, more
soy!
But no sooner had the FDA approved a
cardiovascular health claim for soy protein than the
critics came out of the woodwork, and not from
places one would expect. The greatest criticism of
soy has come from natural health advocates
themselves. Hold up on that soy protein bar, the
tofu scramble and the soy milk. You might come
down with Alzheimer's disease, your growing
children may shows premature signs of puberty,
your thyroid gland may malfunction and your body
may not be able to absorb essential minerals,
according to reports on soy now circulating in
natural health publications.
It took less than a month from the date of the
issuance of a soy health claim for a bombshell to hit
the soy industry. On November 19, 1999, the
Honolulu Star Bulletin reported on a study
conducted by Lon White, MD, MPH, formerly of the
National Institute on Aging and now with the Pacific
Health Research Institute, in Hawaii. Dr. White and
his colleagues indicated tofu (processed bean curd)
could induce "brain aging." Just two servings per
week could be harmful said the subheadline. The
newspaper report was generated from an abstract
of a presentation at the Third International
Symposium on the role of soy in Preventing and
Treating Chronic Disease. [Journal American
College of Nutrition 19: 242, 2000] Data from that
report linked tofu consumption with Alzheimer's
disease and low brain weight upon autopsy.
[http://starbulletin.com/1999/11/19/news/story4.html]
By April 29 of this year, Fox News published its
version of the soy debate, acknowledging that soy
products like tofu and tempeh have "moved out of
the vegetarian ghetto," but also warned that some
experts claimed that "soy can mimic powerful human
hormones and yield unpredictable results." The
wind was changing. Was the soybean craze just a
fad? Fox News quoted Dr. Lon White as saying that
soy isoflavones, one of the active hormonal
ingredients in soy, are "true drugs that are sold
without warning." [Fox News April 29, 2000]
David Zava, PhD, a biochemist, chimes in on the
anti-soy bandwagon in the www.JohnLeeMD.com
newsletter. A specialist in breast cancer, Zava
accurately points out that occasional soy
consumption is probably the best course to get the
benefits out of soy without any undesirable side
effects. But he, unfairly and inaccurately
characterizes some of the components of soy as
being nothing short of poison. Zava says soy
contains allergens, mineral blockers, enzyme
inhibitors, hormone modifiers, and iodine blockers
that interfere with normal thyroid function. Zava
says soy is a medicine in moderation and a potential
poison in excess. [www.johnleemd.com] The
wording is alarming. Soy is beginning to be
compared to hemlock.
Sally Fallon and Mary E. Enig, from the Weston A.
Price Foundation in Washington DC, write in the
April-May edition of Nexus Magazine and the July
and August/September issues of TLfDP that soy is
not a perfect food (nobody said it was). They repeat
claims that it contains anti-nutrients and toxins,
which inhibit digestion block and absorption of
vitamins and minerals. Fallon and Enig believe most
of the information consumers read about soy is
"propaganda."
They say, until a few decades ago, soy was
considered unfit to eat, even in Asia. These
self-appointed soy antagonists claim the enzyme
inhibitors in soy cause pancreatic cancer (not so),
and that other components in soy induce clumping
of red blood cells. They admit most of the
growth-depressants in soy are removed in
processing and fermentation, but not completely
eliminated. The very interest in soy for cancer
prevention emanates from its ability to thwart growth
of tumors.
While Fallon and Enig acknowledge that the
Japanese and Asians have lower rates of breast,
prostate and colon cancer and that they eat 30
times more soy than North Americans, they also
indicate the Japanese have higher rates of other
types of cancer, particularly esophageal, stomach,
thyroid, pancreas and liver cancer. They give the
misimpression that soy prevents some tumors and
promotes others. This just isn't an accurate
characterization. The stomach cancers in Japan are
attributed to the consumption of pickled, smoked
and salted meats and fish as well as raw sushi that
may contain parasites. The frying of meats
promotes the development of carcinogens. The
cancer-promoting agents in these foods can actually
be countered by the inclusion of soy protein with
ground meat prior to frying. [Basic Life Science 52:
105-18, 1990] A hidden epidemic among males in
Japan is that of alcoholism, as well as rampant
tobacco use, which would be likely causes of liver,
esophageal and stomach cancers. Instead, Fallon
and Enig imply that soy is a hidden carcinogen in
Japan.
Fallon and Enig cite the work of Mark Messina,
author of The Simple Soybean and Your Health
(Avery Publishing 1994], who reviewed 26 animal
studies at the Third International Soy Symposium.
According to Messina, 65% of these studies confirm
the protective properties of soy against cancer.
Fallon and Enig claim that Messina purposely left
out a 1985 study by Rackis which showed that soy
increases the risk of pancreatic cancer in rats.
[Advances Experimental Medicine Biology 199:
33-79, 1986] At a workshop conducted by the
National Cancer Institute, researchers pointed out
that the pancreas of a few species of animals,
notably rats and chicks, are extraordinarily sensitive
to dietary protease inhibitors as found in soy. This
effect has not been demonstrated in other species
such as hamsters, mice, dogs, pigs, and monkeys
and is "not expected to occur in humans," says the
report. Human populations that consume high levels
of soy exhibit decreased rates of pancreatic cancer.
[Cancer Research 49: 499-502, 1989] While the
enzyme (protease) inhibitors in soy protein increase
the weight of the pancreas, they do not appear to
produce lesions, abnormal growths or DNA
abnormalities among rats. [Journal Nutrition 117:
247-52, 1987]
One wonders why Fallon and Enig included in their
anti-soy epitaph the story of New Zealand bird
breeders Richard and Valerie James. The James'
apparently purchased a new type of bird food that
contained soy, which made their birds sick, impaired
their fertility and changed the coloring of their
feathers. The James' related these symptoms of
illness to those of their young children, who had
been fed soy-based formula. The flock of birds
under their care was restored to health by the
elimination of the soy-based bird food. But heavens,
you don't see birds naturally eating soybeans. They
know better. It's obvious the James' knew less about
bird feed than their feathered pets! That the James'
children were intolerant to soy and may have had
soy allergy, or that they may have had health
problems unrelated to soy, serve as more likely
explanations.
Fallon and Enig go on to quote Dr. Claude Hughes'
animal research concerning soy isoflavones and
thyroid function. Hughes claims his work will be
"somewhat predictive of what occurs in humans."
But there are differences between animal and
human studies, particularly when it comes to soy.
Scientists cannot infer that animal data applies to
humans. Remember Thalidomide, the drug that
caused all the birth defects in Europe? The data on
that drug checked out on animals, but among
pregnant women interfered with their offspring's
development.
Fallon and Enig cite 68 scientific references in their
Nexus Magazine report. The 40 scientific journal
reports cited were published on average 13 years
ago, with many dating back to the 1970s. Among
the authoritative references listed in support of their
report were "Cheese Marketing News" and "Natural
Health News published by L & H Vitamin Company."
The Weston Price Foundation website, of which
Fallon is president, claims their purpose is to dispel
health myths. Yet a report on their own website
indicates "the New Zealand government is
considering removing soy formula from the market
and making it available only by prescription," and
lists a citation number #58. Their claim may be true,
but when the reader looks for the citation in the end
notes, it is missing. So the reader has to wonder
why. It appears that Fallon and Enig are making a
career out of bashing soy, but are they backing up
their opinions with good science?
Much of Fallon and Enig's criticism is generated
from reports on the use of soy infant formulas. In
1998, K.O. Klein of the Department of Clinical
Science at the A.I. duPont Hospital for Children in
Wilmington, Delaware, reported that soy-based
infant formulas had been used for over 60 years
and fed to millions of infants worldwide and studied
in controlled research. Klein says the medical
literature provides "no evidence of endocrine effects
in humans from infant consumption of modern
soy-based formulas. Growth is normal and no
changes in timing of puberty or in fertility rates have
been reported in humans who consumed soy
formula as infants." [Nutrition Reviews 56: 193-204,
1998] The Journal of Pediatrics also conducted an
earlier study that came to a similar conclusion.
[Journal Pediatrics 124: 612-20, 1994]
With no supporting evidence, Fallon and Enig state
that learning disabilities among male children have
reached epidemic proportions and that soy infant
feeding, which began in the 1970s, "cannot be
ignored as a probable cause for these tragic
developments." Yet no citations are listed to back
up their claim. They go on to say that one percent of
all girls show signs of puberty before the age of
three and quote a 1997 report in the Journal of
Pediatrics. But that report makes no mention of soy.
Fallon and Enig also make the claim that Asians
have lower rates of osteoporosis than Westerners,
not because of soy consumption but because their
diet provides plenty of vitamin D from shrimp and
seafood and plenty of calcium from bone broths.
They provide no references for this claim. They go
on to claim that high rates of osteoporosis in
Western society are attributed to the substitution of
soy oil for butter. They advocate butter as a
traditional source of vitamin D that helps to build
strong bones.
Butter only provides about 56 units of vitamin D,
and shrimp about 152 units of vitamin D per 100
gram serving, which are almost insignificant
according to the latest reports on the need for
vitamin D. [US Department of Agriculture data] Skin
exposure to sunlight is the primary source of vitamin
D. Even sunlight-deprived women who consume a
diet that provides 600 IU of vitamin D/day have
been found to be lacking in this essential nutrient.
[Journal Internal Medicine 247: 260-68, 2000]
Recent reports indicate blood levels of vitamin D
don't even begin to rise till 4000 IU of vitamin D is
consumed. [American Journal Clinical Nutrition 69:
842-56, 1999] The textbooks need to be re-written
for vitamin D, and Fallon and Enig are using
out-dated information. Furthermore, butter raises
cholesterol. [European Journal Clinical Nutrition 52:
650-54, 1998]
Did all of these negative scientific reports on soy
somehow escape the attention of the FDA
reviewers? Is the FDA run by individuals who are
completely beholden to commercial interests? The
Federal Register, October 26, 1999, Volume 64,
Number 206, provides a 66-page discussion on the
positive and negative reports concerning soy and
health in relation to the approval by the Food &
Drug Administration that soy protein helps to reduce
cardiovascular risk by lowering cholesterol. The
report, written by the Food & Drug Administration,
cites 167 pertinent scientific studies.
According to an FDA scientific review, soy does not
interfere with childhood growth, does not cause
pancreatic or breast cancer, does not significantly
interfere with mineral absorption as long as dietary
consumption is adequate, does not induce early
puberty, and does not interfere with fertility. Soy
may induce allergies, but that is not sufficient
reason to ban it from the marketplace.
Epidemiological studies do not confirm that soy
accelerates the rate or incidence of brain aging nor
does soy increase the prevalence of thyroid
disorders. There is a consistent body of scientific
evidence that soy protein consumption results in a
significant reduction in total and LDL cholesterol for
those whose cholesterol is elevated (above 250 mg
per deciliter blood sample).* Approximately 25
grams of soy is needed to produce this health
benefit. This is the asterisk noted earlier in this
report. Soy doesn't lower cholesterol among
individuals with normal blood fats.
It's not like soy hasn't been investigated thoroughly.
Health reporter Jack Challem notes that in a
three-year period from 1996-98, over 1000 articles
on soy isoflavones were published in medical
journals. But once the gate was opened for a health
claim for soy (cholesterol reduction), the rest of the
still-to-be-confirmed health claims were ushered in.
Some scientific reports indicate soy can reduce hot
flashes among menopausal females, promote bone
formation and may reduce the risk of cancer.
Consumers are likely to think that if a little bit of soy
is OK, then more is even better.
The natural health gurus are correct on one point.
Soy is being over-promoted by billion-dollar
companies that grow the beans. Estrogenic
compounds are found in other natural foods such as
alfalfa sprouts and sunflower seeds, but they aren't
being aggressively marketed by multi-national
agricultural companies. One of these corporate
giants uses shill companies as a front to their soy
promotion efforts so as to hide their involvement.
The United Soybean Board works more openly to
get more soy into the diets of school lunch
programs. [www.soyfoods.com] Because the FDA
approved soy as a healthy food that reduces
cholesterol among adults with high blood fats is no
reason to promote it as an alternative source of
protein for growing children. Its growth inhibitors
and mineral chelators aren't ideally appropriate for
children.
But to show you how confusing the debate on soy
gets, consider the following two quotations from
health experts:
On December 9, 1999, Doctor's Guide on the
internet reported that there is no clear-cut evidence
that estrogens from plants such as soy actually
prevent breast cancer. Walter Willett, MD, DrPH,
Chairman of the Department of Nutrition and
Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard
School of Public Health in Boston said "a few
studies even found that phyto (plant) estrogens
promote cancer. We do not know if plant estrogens
increase or decrease risk."
Yet Herman Adlercreutz MD of the University of
Helsinki says there is "no evidence in the literature
suggesting that phytoestrogens, present in amounts
found in human foods, could have biological effects,
or stimulate already existing cancer, and there is
also no evidence that such phytoestrogens could
initiate cancer." [Annals of Medicine 29: 95-120,
1997]
So what are we to conclude? Soy does/doesn't,
prevent cancer. With that kind of doubt being
created on its cancer prevention benefits, and its
safety being clouded by reports that allege soy
causes brain disease, one wonders if consumers
will even feed soy to their pets. Who knows, some
environmentalists may soon ask for the soy toxin to
be removed from garbage dumps.
Who is behind the scenes in the soy debate? Who
can profit? Pharmaceutical companies don't like the
idea of a food competing with the patented hormone
blockers, like raloxifene and Tamoxifen. In the
September 1998 issue of Nutrition Science News,
health reporter Jack Challem notes that tamoxifen
and raloxifene reduce the risk of breast cancer but
tamoxifen increases the risk of endometrial cancer
and blood clots in the lungs, and with raloxifene are
more likely to suffer from hot flashes and leg
cramps. Tamoxifen increases the risk of going blind
from cataracts by about 400%. [American Journal
Ophthalmology 125: 493-501, 1995]
Let's see if we can make some sense of the soy
debate.
1. The reason why soy gained the attention of
Western health researchers is because the
American diet is almost completely devoid of
phytoestrogens. Hormones can get out of balance,
and hyperthyroid and over-production of estrogen
can produce symptoms and pose health problems
as much as low hormone levels. A small amount of
plant estrogens in the diet may act as hormone
controlling agents.
2. Like any food, soy may induce allergies. So does
cow's milk, eggs, wheat, corn and fish. But nobody
is warning the public away from these foods.
3. While mother's milk is widely promoted for
newborns, when baby needs to be weaned, cow's
milk or soy-milk formulas are often relied upon.
Cow's milk appears to result in superior bone
mineral content, but soy formula appears to produce
similar bone mineral content to breast milk. [Journal
Pediatrics 113: 205-07, 1988; Journal Pediatrics
110: 687-92, 1987] Soy milk formula appears to
produce similar weight gain (growth rates) as
produced with cow's milk formula in young infants.
[Pediatric Research 15: 1240-44, 1981] Soy infant
formulas can be modified to suspend minerals and
thus improve bone mineral content. Modified soy
formula has been shown to improve bone mineral
content among infants comparable to cow's milk
formula. [American Journal Diseases Children 146:
1302-05, 1992]
For infants who are allergic to cow's milk, soy milk is
the alternative of choice. But even one in four
allergic infants have problems tolerating soy
formula. Better to look into whey milk formulas.
Whey milk is probably superior to soy milk when it
comes to minimizing allergic reactions among
infants. [Arerugi 46: 1044-51, 1997] In one study
84-99% of infants who were allergic to cow's milk
were able to consume whey protein formula without
allergic reaction. [Journal Pediatric
Gastroenterology Nutrition 26: 398-401, 1998] In
another study, whey milk formula reduced the
incidence of allergy among 6-month old infants by
over 5 times compared to cow's milk. [European
Journal Pediatrics 154: 488-94, 1995] Furthermore,
whey appears to produce the same growth rates as
cow's milk. [Allergy 51: 192-95, 1996]
4. Some of the components of soy have been
mistakenly identified as anti-nutrients. For example,
IP6-phytic acid, the primary mineral chelator in soy,
was branded as an anti-nutrient because it blocks
mineral absorption. Minerals, particularly iron,
calcium and zinc, are important during childhood
growth. It is easy to improve iron absorption in soy
infant formulas by adding some vitamin C. [Pediatric
Research 36: 816-22, 1994] But adults tend to
over-mineralize as they grow older. The threat of
iron overload is universal in male adults and
postmenopausal females. Calcium tends to
accumulate in the joints (arthritis), heart valves
(mitral valve), kidneys (kidney stones), blood
vessels (atherosclerosis) and lens of the eye
(cataracts) with advancing age. So there is a need
for dietary mineral chelators, to prevent
calcifications and iron-induced oxidation in living
human tissues, particularly with advancing age. In
1987 Ernst Graf, PhD, was the first to describe
IP6-phytic acid, found in whole grains and nuts, as a
potent antioxidant and mineral chelator. It is the only
antioxidant known that can completely counter the
adverse effect posed by the hydroxyl radical, a free
radical species involved in all cancers. [The Lancet,
September 19, 1987] Most soy protein products
already have undergone processing to remove most
of the IP6-phytic acid anyway. [Acta Paediatrica
402: 105-08, 1994] The removal of IP6-phytic acid
from soy increases iron absorption. [American
Journal Clinical Nutrition 60: 567-72, 1994]
The IP6-phytic acid in soy has been found to reduce
the risk of colon cancer in an animal study via its
ability to chelate iron. [Proceedings Society
Experimental Biology & Medicine 221: 80-86, 1999]
The IP6-phytic acid in soy may be the primary
ingredient that helps to control cholesterol. [Journal
Nutrition 125: 606-611S- 1995]
IP6-phytic acid is not only found in soy, it is
provided in other whole grains, particularly bran. But
no one is proposing that bran is toxic because of its
IP6-phytic acid content. Cow's milk (probably due to
its lactoferrin content), and eggs also tend to
decrease the bioavailability of iron from plant foods.
[Federal Proceedings 42: 1716-20, 1983]
The primary reason why adults do not get enough
of some minerals with advancing age is the
diminished production of hydrochloric acid, not the
inclusion of IP6-phytic acid in whole grains and soy.
[Advances Experimental Biology Medicine 249:
173-84, 1989] Soybean compounds such as
IP6-phytic acid, protease inhibitors and isoflavones,
among others, appear to reduce the incidence of
colon, prostate and breast cancer. [Journal Nutrition
125: 733-743S, 1995]
5. Why get so bothered about soy? Indeed, spices
such as thyme, oregano and turmeric bind with
estrogen or progesterone and are thus known to be
hormone blockers. [Proceedings Society
Experimental Biology Medicine 21: 369-78, 1998]
Even though the American diet is said to be lacking
in soy phytoestrogens, beer contains significant
amounts of isoflavones (probably from hops).
[Steroids 63: 14-20, 1998]
6. Science backs the consumption of soy protein
and/or soy extracts (phytoestrogen-isoflavones) for
males with prostate tumors. In immune-depressed
rodents whose prostate glands were inoculated with
human cancer cells, soy significantly reduced the
size of tumors and the number of blood vessels that
feed tumors. [Journal Nutrition 129: 1628-35, 1999]
7. There is a great difference between animal and
human studies. Soybean cereal has been shown to
interfere with the growth of young rodents.
[Medicina 59: 747-52, 1999] But in infants, there
was no difference noted in weight gain nor
pancreatic enzyme production when fed soy or a
whey protein formula. [Scandinavian Journal
Gastroenterology 32: 273-77, 1997] Be wary of
so-called experts who only quote animal data to
support their claims that soy is toxic or unhealthful.
8. The fact that isoflavones in soy are reduced
significantly by their first pass through the liver
following ingestion, limits their hormonal effects,
particularly on children. [Proceedings Experimental
Biology Medicine 217: 386-92, 1998] Recent data
shows that neither soy, nor soy isoflavones, exert
estrogenic effects on vaginal tissues in
postmenopausal females. [Journal Clinical
Endocrinology 84: 3479-84, 1999] In monkeys, soy
phytoestrogens reduced cholesterol but did not
affect the reproductive hormones. [Journal Nutrition
126: 43-50, 1996]
9. A recent study conducted among 31 patients with
high cholesterol, who were provided 33 grams per
day of soy protein (providing 86 mg of isoflavones),
reveals that LDL "bad" cholesterol levels were
significantly reduced even among subjects who
were already taking vitamin E supplements
(400-800 IU). The soy protein did not increase the
risk of hormone-induced cancers. [Metabolism 49:
537-43, 2000]
10. Soy is a known goiterogen. It may interfere with
iodine, a trace mineral required for thyroid function.
[Biochemical Pharmacology 54: 1087-96, 1997]
Infants with congenital low thyroid output, when
placed on soy formula, need to have their thyroxine
dose increased. [Journal American College Nutrition
16: 280-82, 1997] Infants with normal thyroid output
need not be concerned. But adults who are on
thyroid hormone replacement would be wise to
review their consumption of soy with their physician
and to be aware of symptoms such as fatigue and
loss of hair, which may occur with low thyroid.
11. What about the link between brain shrinkage
and soy consumption? Dr. Lon White MD, the lead
researcher who reported this link, compromised his
own credibility when he was quoted as saying:
"Those who ate a lot of tofu, by the time they were
75 or 80 looked five years older." Tell us Dr. White,
did you count the wrinkles? We await corroborative
research studies.
12. Stephen Holt, MD, writing in Natural Pharmacy,
has done the best job of sorting out information
about soy. He says soy protein should be
distinguished from the soy extracts or isoflavones.
Consumption of up to 120 milligrams of soy
isoflavones from soy foods should not be
considered worrisome. He says phytoestrogens in
soy are far weaker than the potent synthetic or
natural estrogens commonly prescribed to women
for menopause symptoms. But he does caution
against excessive consumption of soy isoflavones in
food supplements or from fermented sources
(tempeh, miso) which Fallon and Enig advocate. His
guess is no more than 45 milligrams of conjugated
isoflavones from fermented or supplmental sources
daily. [Natural Pharmacy, April 2000]
While soy has gained the most attention because it
is backed by powerful agribusiness, its cousin
lignan may soon become a more desirable
phytoestrogen. Herman Adlercreutz, one of the
world's top isoflavone researchers, emphasizes the
importance of other phytoestrogens. "Don't forget
the lignans," he says. [Nutrition Science News,
September 1998] We can see why researchers are
turning their attention to lignan.
Lignan is a normal component of the diet, albeit it is
only consumed in small amounts. It is a
phytoestrogen that does not interfere with thyroid
function. Lignan is most abundant in flaxseed.
Lignans in flaxseed have been compared to
Tamoxifen, a hormone-blocking drug often
prescribed in cases of breast cancer. [Cancer
Letters 125: 69-76, 1998] Adlercreutz says the
areas of the world where consumption of
isoflavones and lignans are high have low rates of
prostate, breast and colon cancer. Animal
experiments confirm that lignans and isoflavones
prevent cancer in blood vessel disease. [Annals
Medicine 29: 95-120, 1997] When rates of disease
are investigated by the type of phytoestrogen, both
isoflavones derived from soy, and lignans found in
flaxseed, whole-grain rye bread, berries and some
vegetables, are attributed to the reduction in breast,
prostate and colon cancer. Where consumption of
lignan is low (USA, Finland, Sweden, Australia)
breast cancer levels are high. [Baillieres Clinical
Endocrinology Metabolism 12: 605-23, 1998]
In one study prostate tumor cells were injected into
rodents who were placed on different diets. Only
50% of the sites injected with tumor cells grew
tumors among the animals on soy, and only 30% of
injection sites exhibited tumors among the animals
that consumed lignan-rich rye bran. The tumors that
did grow were smaller in the animals consuming soy
and rye bran and there was less secretion of
prostate specific antigen (PSA). The addition of fat
to the rye bran diet reduced its protective effect
against prostate cancer. [Prostate 42: 304-14, 2000]
In a study where rodents were given a
tumor-promoting agent, a diet enriched in soy did
not reduce the number of colon tumors (1.38 tumors
per animal) compared to a diet low in soy
isoflavones (1.36 tumors per animals. But a
lignan-rich rye bran diet did reduce the number of
tumors! (0.17 tumors per animal). [Carcinogenesis
20: 927-31, 1999]
Summary
Soy is not hemlock. It is not a toxin, nor does it
contain toxins. Soy is like table salt. Overuse can be
troublesome. Learn to use it sparingly. If you are
looking for lignans in your diet, throw in some
flaxseeds, or cold-pressed lignan-rich flaxseed oil.
Lignan may soon create a greater stir among health
advocates than soy.
Correspondence:
Bill Sardi Health Reporter - Knowledge of Health
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright� Townsend Letter for Doctors and
Patients 2000 All Rights Reserved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
}}}> ANOMALOUS RADIO <{{{ - Techno, Ambient, Talk (33k+)
http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=anomalous
}}}> RADIO ANOMALY <{{{ - Techno, Ambient, Jazz (Cable, DSL)
http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=stevew168
Anomalous Images and UFO Files
http://www.anomalous-images.com
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
