You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Low Carb Lifestyle’ category.
Now that celiac disease has been allowed official entry into the pantheon of established medical conditions, and gluten intolerance is no longer entirely a fringe medical concept, the time has come to draw attention to the powerful little chemical in wheat known as ‘wheat germ agglutinin’ (WGA) which is largely responsible for many of wheat’s pervasive, and difficult to diagnose, ill effects. Not only does WGA throw a monkey wrench into our assumptions about the primary causes of wheat intolerance, but due to the fact that WGA is found in highest concentrations in "whole wheat," including its supposedly superior sprouted form, it also pulls the rug out from under one of the health food industry’s favorite poster children. More……
Opening Pandora’s Bread Box: The Critical Role of Wheat Lectin in Human
A new double blind, randomized, placebo controlled study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology confirms the presence of gluten sensitivity in the absence of celiac disease. This is the first study of its kind confirming the existence of gluten intolerance in the absence of celiac disease. More…
Science Finally Confirms Gluten Sensitivity | Gluten Free Society
Originally printed by The Alternative Research Foundation
It puzzles me why the simple concept "sugar feeds cancer" can be so dramatically overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment plan.
Of the 4 million cancer patients being treated in America today, hardly any are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy beyond being told to "just eat good foods." Most patients I work with arrive with a complete lack of nutritional advice.
I believe many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their outcome if they controlled the supply of cancer’s preferred fuel, glucose.
By slowing the cancer’s growth, patients allow their immune systems and medical debulking therapies — chemotherapy, radiation and surgery to reduce the bulk of the tumor mass — to catch up to the disease.
Controlling one’s blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements, exercise, meditation and prescription drugs when necessary can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer recovery program. The sound bite — sugar feeds cancer — is simple. The explanation is a little more complex.
The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells.
The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in anaerobic glycolysis — a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic byproduct — compared to normal tissues.
The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid buildup. Thus, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic pH.
This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared to 38 moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose.
By extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the available energy in the food supply and the body’s calorie stores, the cancer is "wasting" energy, and the patient becomes tired and undernourished. This vicious cycle increases body wasting.
It is one reason why 40 percent of cancer patients die from malnutrition, or cachexia. Hence, cancer therapies should encompass regulating blood-glucose levels via diet, supplements, non-oral solutions for cachectic patients who lose their appetite, medication, exercise, gradual weight loss and stress reduction. Professional guidance and patient self-discipline are crucial at this point in the cancer process. The quest is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates from the diet but rather to control blood glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer and bolster immune function.
The glycemic index is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the digestion and absorption process, which provides a healthier, more gradual infusion of sugars into the bloodstream.
Conversely, a high rating means blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. This rapid fluctuation of blood-sugar levels is unhealthy because of the stress it places on the body
Sugar in the Body and Diet
Sugar is a generic term used to identify simple carbohydrates, which includes monosaccharides such as fructose, glucose and galactose; and disaccharides such as maltose and sucrose (white table sugar). Think of these sugars as different-shaped bricks in a wall.
When fructose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index registers as healthier, since this simple sugar is slowly absorbed in the gut, then converted to glucose in the liver. This makes for "time-release foods," which offer a more gradual rise and fall in blood-glucose levels.
If glucose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index will be higher and less healthy for the individual. As the brick wall is torn apart in digestion, the glucose is pumped across the intestinal wall directly into the bloodstream, rapidly raising blood-glucose levels.
In other words, there is a "window of efficacy" for glucose in the blood: levels too low make one feel lethargic and can create clinical hypoglycemia; levels too high start creating the rippling effect of diabetic health problems.
The 1997 American Diabetes Association blood-glucose standards consider 126 mg glucose/dL blood or greater to be diabetic; 111 to 125 mg/dL is impaired glucose tolerance and less than 110 mg/dL is considered normal.
Meanwhile, the Paleolithic diet of our ancestors, which consisted of lean meats, vegetables and small amounts of whole grains, nuts, seeds and fruits, is estimated to have generated blood glucose levels between 60 and 90 mg/dL.
Obviously, today’s high-sugar diets are having unhealthy effects as far as blood-sugar is concerned. Excess blood glucose may initiate yeast overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, heart disease and other health conditions.
Understanding and using the glycemic index is an important aspect of diet modification for cancer patients. However, there is also evidence that sugars may feed cancer more efficiently than starches (comprised of long chains of simple sugars), making the index slightly misleading. A study of rats fed diets with equal calories from sugars and starches, for example, found the animals on the high-sugar diet developed more cases of breast cancer.
The glycemic index is a useful tool in guiding the cancer patient toward a healthier diet, but it is not infallible. By using the glycemic index alone, one could be led to thinking a cup of white sugar is healthier than a baked potato.
This is because the glycemic index rating of a sugary food may be lower than that of a starchy food. To be safe, I recommend less fruit, more vegetables, and little to no refined sugars in the diet of cancer patients.
What the Literature Says
A mouse model of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are sensitive to blood-glucose levels. Sixty-eight mice were injected with an aggressive strain of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce either high blood-sugar (hyperglycemia), normoglycemia or low blood-sugar (hypoglycemia).
There was a dose-dependent response in which the lower the blood glucose, the greater the survival rate. After 70 days, 8 of 24 hyperglycemic mice survived compared to 16 of 24 normoglycemic and 19 of 20 hypoglycemic.
This suggests that regulating sugar intake is key to slowing breast tumor growth.
In a human study, 10 healthy people were assessed for fasting blood-glucose levels and the phagocytic index of neutrophils, which measures immune-cell ability to envelop and destroy invaders such as cancer. Eating 100 g carbohydrates from glucose, sucrose, honey and orange juice all significantly decreased the capacity of neutrophils to engulf bacteria. Starch did not have this effect.
A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients.
Furthermore, an epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.
Limiting sugar consumption may not be the only line of defense. In fact, an interesting botanical extract from the avocado plant (Persea americana) is showing promise as a new cancer adjunct.
When a purified avocado extract called mannoheptulose was added to a number of tumor cell lines tested in vitro by researchers in the Department of Biochemistry at Oxford University in Britain, they found it inhibited tumor cell glucose uptake by 25 to 75 percent, and it inhibited the enzyme glucokinase responsible for glycolysis. It also inhibited the growth rate of the cultured tumor cell lines.
The same researchers gave lab animals a 1.7 mg/g body weight dose of mannoheptulose for five days; it reduced tumors by 65 to 79 percent. Based on these studies, there is good reason to believe that avocado extract could help cancer patients by limiting glucose to the tumor cells.
Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Cancer Research Institute and former U.S. Air Force research physician, surmised that a chemical called hydrazine sulfate, used in rocket fuel, could inhibit the excessive gluconeogenesis (making sugar from amino acids) that occurs in cachectic cancer patients.
Gold’s work demonstrated hydrazine sulfate’s ability to slow and reverse cachexia in advanced cancer patients. A placebo-controlled trial followed 101 cancer patients taking either 6 mg hydrazine sulfate three times/day or placebo. After one month, 83 percent of hydrazine sulfate patients increased their weight, compared to 53 percent on placebo.
A similar study by the same principal researchers, partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., followed 65 patients. Those who took hydrazine sulfate and were in good physical condition before the study began lived an average of 17 weeks longer.
The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and its role in tumorigenesis. Consider the million-dollar positive emission tomography device, or PET scan, regarded as one of the ultimate cancer-detection tools. PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. PET scans are used to plot the progress of cancer patients and to assess whether present protocols are effective.
In Europe, the "sugar feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that oncologists, or cancer doctors, use the Systemic Cancer Multistep Therapy (SCMT) protocol. Conceived by Manfred von Ardenne in Germany in 1965, SCMT entails injecting patients with glucose to increase blood-glucose concentrations.
This lowers pH values in cancer tissues via lactic acid formation. In turn, this intensifies the thermal sensitivity of the malignant tumors and also induces rapid growth of the cancer. Patients are then given whole-body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature) to further stress the cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or radiation.
SCMT was tested on 103 patients with metastasized cancer or recurrent primary tumors in a clinical phase-I study at the Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany. Five-year survival rates in SCMT-treated patients increased by 25 to 50 percent, and the complete rate of tumor regression increased by 30 to 50 percent.
The protocol induces rapid growth of the cancer, then treats the tumor with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in outcome.
The irrefutable role of glucose in the growth and metastasis of cancer cells can enhance many therapies. Some of these include diets designed with the glycemic index in mind to regulate increases in blood glucose, hence selectively starving the cancer cells; low-glucose TPN solutions; avocado extract to inhibit glucose uptake in cancer cells; hydrazine sulfate to inhibit gluconeogenesis in cancer cells; and SCMT.
A female patient in her 50s, with lung cancer, came to our clinic, having been given a death sentence by her Florida oncologist. She was cooperative and understood the connection between nutrition and cancer. She changed her diet considerably, leaving out 90 percent of the sugar she used to eat.
She found that wheat bread and oat cereal now had their own wild sweetness, even without added sugar.
With appropriately restrained medical therapy — including high-dose radiation targeted to tumor sites and fractionated chemotherapy, a technique that distributes the normal one large weekly chemo dose into a 60-hour infusion lasting days — a good attitude and an optimal nutrition program which included Sam’s formula nine times/day, she beat her terminal lung cancer.
I saw her last month, five years later and still disease-free, probably looking better than the doctor who told her there was no hope.
Published on July 25th, 2008
By Consumer Health Advocate, Frank Mangano
When it comes to losing weight, there’s no shortage of options on how best to go about it. The grapefruit diet was a bit too “sour” a diet to stand the test of time, but diets like Jenny Craig, Slim Fast, Atkins and Weight Watchers have been around for what seems like time immemorial.
While each of these diets has its own “personality,” all of them are variations of being either low in fat, low in carbohydrate or at least resembling “Mediterranean” – i.e. diets based on consuming lots of fruits, vegetables, seafood for protein and healthy fats found in olive oil and nuts.
That said, inquiring minds want to know: which diet variation is the most effective one? To answer this, researchers from several different universities and schools of medicine collaborated and conducted their research in Israel. The study involved 322 participants living in Israel and the researchers followed their eating behaviors over the course of two years. The participants were split into three groups; each one assigned a low-fat diet plan, a low-carb diet plan or a Mediterranean diet plan.
The goal of the study? Simple: Find out the average weight loss among the participants, and hopefully put to rest the argument of which diet’s best for losing weight.
Food manufacturers are hiding MSG so you don’t know where it is. Lately, food manufacturers mention a “clean label” when referring to soy sauce and other processed flavor enhancers that already contain MSG in the form of glutamic acid. Food manufacturers use these ingredients so they can claim “no added MSG”. Hence a “cleaner” label. They know it’s in there, they are just hoping you don’t.
See exactly how food manufacturers are trying to use free glutamic acid without telling you about it:
Food Product Design article
In the lastest pro-MSG “news” article in the Wall Street Journal – everything old is new again as the writers try to make “umami” [the name for the flavor enhancing effect MSG has had since it was isolated in 1908] seem like something newly discovered. What is truly appalling is that in the article, MSG is said to be something consumers are trying to avoid, and at the same time, the writers tout “umami” foods while at the same time admitting that they are high in the glutamate – the business end of MSG.
The makers of MSG, Ajinomoto, accurately point out that what makes an “umami” food is it’s glutamate content. The “chefs” in the article KNOW that diners are trying to AVOID MSG in their food. These “chefs”, like Jean-Georges Vongerichte are actually trying to INCREASE the use of MSG, not decrease it, and they find that OK because the food has a “Clean Label”.
The recent Cambell’s soup commercial where “sea salt” is used instead of regular salt leads one to assume that “umami” figures into their motives. At least the Wall Street Journal has done us all a favor and let us in on what they are planning for your dinners. You may want to pass on their “umami bombs”. And note that they don’t think they can even come close to the MSG hit young men take when they eat Doritos.
The “umami” pushers will continue to add straight MSG to Doritos, because they are afraid of a “riot” should the young men get less glutamate in their “umami bomb” snacks.
Just because the tongue can detect sugar, fat, and salt as well as the presence of protein – because even bound glutamic acid is typically found on the outer surface of a protein molecule, is not a mandate to add simple sugar, trans fat, and an unbalanced amount of free glutamic acid to all of our foods at the expense of other nutrients. Tell a diabetic they can eat as much sugar as they want in any food simply because their tongues were designed to taste it and let us know what they tell you, after they are done laughing at your ignorance.
The most blatant example of a so-called “clean label”:
Unilever appears to be in trouble in Vietnam for marketing a product called Knorr Dam Dang as a substitute for MSG. Unfortunately for Unilever, the product was actually tested and found to have 30% MSG in it. Despite clearly misleading consumers in Vietnam, the company representatives argue that they are legally allowed to do this due to current labeling laws allowing it.
Vietnam news story.
Vietnam News Update
MSG by any other name…….
In Japan, MSG is labeled as アミノ酸 or Ajinomoto
In China, MSG = wie jing
In the Phillipines, MSG = Vetsin
In Thailand, MSG = phong churot
In Germany, MSG = Natriumglutaminat
In Europe – MSG = E621, but avoid E620-625 as they also contain glutamate
In the US – “umami”, MSG, glutamate, free glutamic acid
See also:[ MSG and Aspartame ] [ MSG as Crop Spray ]
The following Fast Food menu items contain MSG:
The Following McDonald’s® Items:
Grilled Chicken Filet
Hot and Spicy Chicken Patty
Grilled Chicken Ceasar Salad
Grilled Chicken California Cobb Salad
Seasoned Beef
Sausage Scrambled Egg Mix, Sausage, and Sausage Patty
French Fries – a “seasoning” made from beef, wheat and milk, processed to break down the proteins into free amino acids like glutamate) is added to the oil the fries are precooked in. US laws allow “natural flavoring” to consist of “protein hydrolysates” containing free glutamic acid. (That’s why they do it – to free glutamate to act like MSG so they can declare a “clean label” while misleading the consumer.)
The Following Burger King® Items:
Breaded Chicken Patty
Spicy Chicken Patty
Breaded Tendercrisp Chicken
Chicken Tenders
BK Chicken Fries
Garden Veggie Patty – contains hydrolyzed corn, soy and wheat – which contains free glutamate
Sausage Patty
Ranch dipping sauce
Ken’s Fat Free Ranch Dressing
The Following KFC® products:
Roasted Ceasar Salad (WITHOUT dressing and croutons)
Crispy Ceasar Salad (WITHOUT dressing)
Roasted BLT Salad (WITHOUT dressing)
Crispy BLT Salad (WITHOUT dressing
Hidden Valley – The Original Fat Free Ranch Dressing
KFC Creamy Parmesan Ceasar Dressing – contains parmesan cheese – very high in MSG naturally
KFC Garlic Parmesan Croutons Pouch – contains parmesan cheese – very high in MSG naturally
KFC Famous Bowls – Mashed Potatoes with Gravy
Gravy
KFC Famous Bowls – Rice with Gravy
Rice
Seasoned Rice
KFC Snacker – Chicken
KFC Snacker – Honey BBQ
Honey BBQ Sandwich
Double Crunch Sandwich
Crispy Twister
Oven Roasted Twister
Oven Roasted Twister (WITHOUT sauce)
Tender Roast Sandwich
Tender Roast Sandwich(WITHOUT sauce)
Original Recipe Chicken (its in the marinade – it’s literally soaked in MSG and salt)
Extra Crispy – MSG is in both the marinade AND the breading
Colonel’s Crispy Strips
Popcorn Chicken
Chicken Pot Pie
Boneless HBBQ Wings
Boneless Fiery Buffalo Wings
Sweet and Spicy Boneless Wings
Hot Wings
Green Beans (yeah, this shocked us too)
Mashed Potatoes with Gravy
Potato Wedges
Chick – fil – A® we’ll examine this menu next, but we’re not optimistic, the Chicken Sandwich has MSG in it.
The best advice to anyone visiting a Fast Food establishment if you have to:
AVOID all CHICKEN items
AVOID all SAUSAGE items
AVOID all PARMESAN products
AVOID all Ranch dressings – stick to oil and vinegar Italian
AVOID Croutons
AVOID KFC altogether – we’re not kidding
AVOID Dipping Sauces
AVOID Gravy
AVOID TOMATO AND MUSHROOM soups
Certain food companies described in the Wall Street Journal article are experimenting on how to put more MSG in your MSG-free foods. We recommend you avoid ANY and all products from the following food companies – since they will NOT have a label that will alert you to the presence of free glutamic acid. Blatant misleading advertising.
Nestle’
Campbells
Frito-Lay
Unilever
Dairy Management Inc.
The Mushroom Council
Ajinomoto Food Ingredients
Senomyx
The following foods contain MSG or its business end – the free amino acid glutamate – in amounts large enough to cause reactions in those sensitive to it.:
Taco Bell® – seasoned meat – contains autolyzed yeast – which contains free glutamate
Other menu items that contain soy sauce, natural flavors, autolyzed yeast or hydrolyzed protein which can contain up to 20% free glutamic acid – the active part of MSG.
Hamburger Helper Microwave Singles® (targeted towards children)
Doritos®
Campbell’s® soups – all of them – based on their commitment to add “umami” (read – MSG) to their products
Pringles® (the flavored varieties)
Boar’s Head® cold cuts and most of their hotdogs
Progresso® Soups – all of them
Lipton® Noodles and Sauce
Lipton® Instant soup mix
Unilever or Knorr® products – often used in homemade Veggie dips.
Kraft® products nearly all contain some free glutamate
Gravy Master®
Cup-a-soup® or Cup-o-Noodles®
Planters® salted nuts – most of them
Accent® -this is nearly pure MSG
Braggs® Liquid Aminos – sold at Whole Foods
Hodgson Mill Kentucky Kernel Seasoned Flour®
Tangle extract (seaweed extract) – found in sushi rolls (even at Whole Foods) Seaweed is what MSG was first isolated from.
Fish extract – made from decomposed fish protein – used now in Japanese sushi dishes – very high in free glutamate.
sausages – most supermarkets add MSG to theirs
processed cheese spread
Marmite®
supermarket poultry or turkeys that are injected or “self-basting”
restaurant gravy from food service cans
flavored ramen noodles
boullion – any kind
instant soup mixes
many salad dressings
most salty, powdered dry food mixes – read labels
flavored potato chips
restaurant soups made from food service soup base or with added MSG
monopotassium glutamate
glutamic acid
gelatin
hydrolyzed vegetable protein (found in many processed AMERICAN foods, like canned tuna and even hot dogs)
hydrolyzed plant protein (found in many processed AMERICAN foods, like canned tuna and even hot dogs)
autolyzed yeast (found in many processed AMERICAN foods, read labels)
sodium caseinate
textured protein
beet juice – it is used as a coloring, but MSG is manufactured from beets and the extract may contain free glutamic acid – Yo Baby – organic baby yogurt has just changed the formula to include beet extract
yeast extract
yeast food or nutrient
soy protein isolate
soy sauce
Worcestershire sauce
Kombu extract
dry milk and whey powder
“natural flavors” – may contain up to 20% MSG
carageenan
dough conditioners
malted barley
malted barley flour – found in many supermarket breads and all-purpose flours including: King Arthur, Heckers, and Gold Medal flour
body builder drink powders containing protein
Parmesan cheese – naturally high in free glutamate
over-ripe tomatoes – naturally high in free glutamate
mushrooms – naturally high in free glutamate
Medications in gelcaps – contain free glutamic acid in the gelatin
Cosmetics and shampoos – some now contain glutamic acid
Fresh produce sprayed with Auxigro in the field. (Yes the EPA approved this. It appalled us too.)
Be aware it is not just the brand names mentioned, but many similar products to the ones listed also contain MSG. You must read labels. These product names were given as examples of the many products that contain MSG.
Four good rules of thumb are:
The more salty a processed food is, the more likely it is to contain MSG or free glutamate.
The more processed a food is, the more likely it is to contain MSG or free glutamate: powdered stuff that used to be food is likely to have added MSG because the original flavor has been degraded.
The more ingredients in a packaged food, the more likely MSG is present. Read labels carefully if a food has more than five ingredients.
Do not trust something simply because it is in a health food store and the label states it is natural or even organic.
The next wave of hastily approved “MSG replacers” you may wish to avoid will be Senomyx.
According to the New York Times April 6, 2005 article “Food Companies Test Flavorings That Can Mimic Sugar, Salt or MSG”:
” Since Senomyx’s flavor compounds will be used in small proportions (less than one part per million), the company is able to bypass the lengthy F.D.A. approval process required to get food additives on the market.
Getting the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association status of generally recognized as safe, or GRAS, took Senomyx less than 18 months, including a 3-month safety study using rats.
In contrast, the maker of the artificial sweetener sucralose spent 11 years winning F.D.A. approval and is required to list the ingredient on food labels.”
And Senomyx DOESN’T have to be labeled as such. It will be grouped under “artificial flavors”. They still don’t believe the consumer should know what they are eating. In fact, that is exactly the strategy. Here is one last quote from the NYT article to leave you with:
“We’re helping companies clean up their labels,” said Senomyx’s chief executive, Kent Snyder.
Mr. Snyder, that is EXACTLY what we are afraid of.
Original Article:
[link to http://www.msgtruth.org]
By John MacArthur
“Tofu Shrinks Brain!” No science fiction scenario, this sobering soybean revelation is for real. But how did the “poster bean” of the ’90s go wrong? Apparently, in many ways–none of which bode well for the brain.
In a major ongoing study involving 3,734 elderly Japanese-American
men, those who ate the most tofu during midlife had up to 2.4 times the risk of later developing Alzheimer’s disease. As part of the three-decade long Honolulu-Asia Aging Study, 27 foods and drinks were correlated with participants’ health. Men who consumed tofu at least twice weekly had more cognitive impairment than those who rarely or never ate the soybean curd.1, 2
“The test results were about equivalent to what they would have been if they were five years older,” said lead researcher Dr. Lon R. White from the Hawaii Center for Health Research. For the guys who ate no tofu, however, they tested as though they were five years younger.
What’s more, higher midlife tofu consumption was also associated with low brain weight. Brain atrophy was assessed in 574 men using MRI results and in 290 men using autopsy information. Shrinkage occurs naturally with age, but for the men who had consumed more tofu, White said “their brains seemed to be showing an exaggeration of the usual patterns we see in aging.”
Phytoestrogens–Soy Self Defense
Tofu and other soybean foods contain isoflavones, three-ringed molecules bearing a structural resemblance to mammalian steroidal hormones. White and his fellow researchers speculate that soy’s estrogen-like compounds (phytoestrogens) might compete with the body’s natural estrogens for estrogen receptors in brain cells.
Plants have evolved many different strategies to protect themselves from predators. Some have thorns or spines, while others smell bad, taste bad, or poison animals that eat them. Some plants took a different route, using birth control as a way to counter the critters who were wont to munch.
Plants such as soy are making oral contraceptives to defend themselves, says Claude Hughes, Ph.D., a neuroendocrinologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. They evolved compounds that mimic natural estrogen. These phytoestrogens can interfere with the mammalian hormones involved in reproduction and growth–a strategy to reduce the number and size of predators.
Toxicologists Concerned About Soy’s Health Risks
The soy industry says that White’s study only shows an association between tofu consumption and brain aging, but does not prove cause and effect. On the other hand, soy experts at the National Center for Toxicological Research, Daniel Sheehan, Ph.D., and Daniel Doerge, Ph.D., consider this tofu study very important. “It is one of the more robust, well-designed prospective epidemiological studies generally available. . . We rarely have such power in human studies, as well as a potential mechanism.”
In a 1999 letter to the FDA (and on the ABC News program 20/20), the two toxicologists expressed their opposition to the agency’s health claims for soy, saying the Honolulu study “provides evidence that soy (tofu) phytoestrogens cause vascular dementia. Given that estrogens are important for maintenance of brain function in women; that the male brain contains aromatase, the enzyme that converts testosterone to estradiol; and that isoflavones inhibit this enzymatic activity, there is a mechanistic basis for the human findings.” 3
Although estrogen’s role in the central nervous system is not well understood, White notes that “a growing body of information suggests that estrogens may be needed for optimal repair and replacement of neural structures eroded with aging.”
One link to the puzzle may involve calcium-binding proteins, which are associated with protection against neurodegenerative diseases. In recent animal studies at Brigham Young University’s Neuroscience Center, researchers found that consumption of phytoestrogens via a soy diet for a relatively short interval can significantly elevate phytoestrogen levels in the brain and decrease brain calcium-binding proteins.4
Concerns About Giving Soy to Infants
The most serious problem with soy may be its use in infant formulas. “The amount of phytoestrogens that are in a day’s worth of soy infant formula equals 5 birth control pills,” says Mike Fitzpatrick, a New Zealand toxicologist. Fitzpatrick and other scientists believe that infant exposure to high amounts of phytoestrogens is associated with early puberty in girls and retarded physical maturation in boys.5
A study reported in The Lancet found that the “daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant-formulas is 6-11 fold higher on a bodyweight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods.” (This dose, equivalent to two glasses of soy milk per day, was enough to change menstrual patterns in women.6 In the blood of infants tested, concentrations of isoflavones were 13,000-22,000 times higher than natural estrogen concentrations in early life.7 )
From Matt Rosenberg,
much more on soy and it’s affects at this link
Soy ‘link’ to male infertility
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/nort … 513607.stm
Researchers investigated soy in the diet
The humble soy bean may play a role in the problem of male infertility, a team of researchers in Belfast has found.
Soy contains the female hormone oestrogen and too much of it is being linked to poor quality sperm.
Dr Lorraine Anderson says she established the link in research carried out at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast.
“What many men do not realise is that soy is not just consumed by vegetarians, it is contained in a lot of everyday processed foods.
“It is contained in foods such as pizzas, any of those foods that you add hot water to, to reconstitute them, or some of the pre-packaged dinners or your steak and kidney pies,” Dr Anderson said.
“You’ll find that a lot of the meat is not really meat, it is soya protein because it is cheaper and soy has the highest percentage of oestrogens compared to any other foods.”
The director of reproductive medicine at Queen’s University, Belfast, Dr Sheena Lewis, said the findings were clear.
“What we have shown is that if men are consuming large amounts of soy products, for example, there is a negative relationship between the quality of their sperm. “If they already have a slight problem in that area, then it might be better for them not to consume so much.”
Dr Lewis said that the way to avoid excess oestrogen was to eat fresh produce. “In our fast food diets, we are inclined to eat lots of meals and we really don’t know what the ingredients are,” she said. “If we eat fresh fruits, if we make fresh food at home ourselves, which I know is very difficult in today’s busy lifestyle, then we are really aware of what the ingredients are.”
However, the research does not simply have implications for men who wish to start a family.
Dr Anderson said if boys eat a lot of soy when they are growing up, it can damage their reproductive capability. “The key time for that is when a male foetus is developing and in the early toddler years and up to puberty.
“All through that period, if you alter the oestrogen that a man is exposed to, you can not only affect their sperm quality but affect the development of their reproductive tract, so that you can get an increase in structural abnormalities like undescended testes and you can also get other problems later in life, such as testicular cancer.”
Dr Anderson recently came runner-up in a prestigious competition for her work on the link between male fertility and oestrogen in the diet.
June 8, 1999 – Health Minister Allan Rock was called upon yesterday by the Canadian Health Coalition, the Infant Feeding Action Coalition (INFACT Canada), and the National Federation of Nurses Unions, to impose immediate restrictions on the routine use of soy-based infant formulas. They point to studies by the New Zealand government that show soy formulas could to damage an infant’s thyroid, as well as concerns about genetically engineered soy, which forms the basis of commercial formula.
“Currently 20 percent of infants in Canada are fed soy-based infant formulas and are thereby exposed to levels of phytoestrogens up to 22,000 times higher than those normally found in breast milk,” says Elizabeth Sterken, of INFACT Canada. “Statements by Health Canada and the infant food industry that the formulas are safe are false and misleading. The American Academy of Pediatrics states it will take years of research to scientifically establish the safety of phytoestrogens,”
Epidemiological evidence links soy formula consumption to:
disruption of normal sexual development evidenced by changes in onset of puberty
onset of early puberty in the U.S. occurred in tandem with increased sales of soy formulas
thyroid dysfunction and increased incidence of goitre as phytoestrogens act as endocrine disrupters
phytoestrogens are known to induce infertility in animals and possibly in some birds
possible links between soy phytoestrogen genistein and infantile leukemia
“Rather than protecting the health of the most vulnerable, babies and children, Canada’s Health Protection Branch and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are protecting the infant formula, food, pesticides, and biotech industries. This is a grotesque betrayal. The use of the soy-based formula must be restricted immediately until the industry demonstrates the safety of phytoestrogens,” insists Sterken.
All infant formulas sold in Canada are manufactured with genetically mutant soy beans. Safety of genetically manipulated food in human populations is untested. Infants fed soy-based formulas are fed these products as their exclusive food for the first six months of life and as part of the weaning diet for up to two years. Babies have unique nutritional and development needs. Damage to health, immune capacity, physical and neurological development at an early age is irreversible.
Since 1995 leading scientists in New Zealand have been calling for a ban on general sales of soy-based infant formulas. The New Zealand Ministry of Health has publicly acknowledged the potential of soy formulas to damage an infant’s thyroid. These same researchers informed Health Canada and the Minister of Health, Allan Rock, of their research results and concerns. However, no action was taken to protect babies in Canada or warn parents of the risks.
According to Dr. E. Ann Clark, a professor in the department of Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph, “Canadians have become the unwitting test subjects of a mass, uncontrolled experiment with products whose safety is unknown and untested. A precautionary approach must be taken rather than continuing to produce, approve, and market genetically engineered products until damage is proven. Have we learned nothing from the debacle of the tobacco industry?”
Clark and colleagues at other universities have examined the process by which genetically engineered field crops are approved for release into commerce. She concluded, “These crops have been approved based on faulty assumptions and without any independent scientific research to assess the safety and environmental risk.”
“According to its statutory duty, the Health Protection Branch must exercise due diligence and protect infant health from potentially irreversible damage,” says Kathleen Connors, President of the National Federation of Nurses Unions. “This means adopting a precautionary approach whereby soy formula manufacturers bear the burden of demonstrating the safety of phytoestrogens and genetically mutant food. Immediate preventative action to restrict the use of the soy-based formulas is critical and legally required.”
By Don Matesz
The soy bean is the darling of the health food industry these days, and soy products are most highly and fraudulently touted of all health food products. Reading all the popular press on soy products, one would naturally believe that soy is a panacea and ideal substitute for animal protein in human diets. It is claimed that soy protein is of the same quality as animal protein, yet lower in fat and devoid of cholesterol. Soy promoters make many unsubstantiated claims, especially regarding soy isoflavones, estrogen-like molecules (called xenoestrogens) found the bean. It is claimed that these isoflavones from soy products will prevent breast cancer and osteoporosis and serve as estrogen replacements for post-menopausal women. In fact, according to some prominent soy researchers, the evidence for these claims is very weak (see below).
Promoters of soy commonly point to the low rates of heart disease, breast and prostate cancer, osteoporosis, and symptoms of menopause in Asia and claim that this is due to the “soy-based” Asian diet. But it is a stretch of imagination to call the Asian diet “soy-based”. According to the non-profit Soy On Line Service (http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz), the typical Japanese diet contains only 0.08 to 0.13 mg isoflavones per kg of body weight per day. That means only 5.6 to 9.1 mg of isoflavones per day for a 70 kg/154 lb. person. This amount is found in about 8 grams-less than one third of an ounce-of whole soybeans! Compare this to the average 3 to 4 pounds of food eaten daily by the typical individual. One-third of an ounce represents only 0.5 percent of the Japanese diet; one ounce is 1.5 percent of the diet.
This pattern of soy consumption is found throughout Asia, where soy is consumed primarily as a part of very salty fermented seasonings, in the form of shoyu (wheat and soy sauce), tamari (wheat-free soy sauce), or miso paste. Asians are not snacking on soy “nuts”, drinking soy milk, using isolated soy protein, and eating tofu burgers or soy hot dogs three times per day. Thus, Asians do not eat a soy-based diet! It includes some soy but it is not a major article of diet as implied by the word “based.”
This casts doubt on the claim that soy is the secret to Asian health. Consuming only as little as 9 grams of soy and 9 mg of isoflavones per day, Asians purportedly have much lower rates of heart disease, breast and prostate cancer, osteoporosis, and menopause compared to Americans. Nevertheless, promoters of soy are suggesting that protection from heart disease, etc. requires consumption of 25 grams of soy protein per day, which can provide up to 5 times as much isoflavones as found in the typical Asian diet.
In addition, traditional fermented soy foods are quite different from the processed soy foods promoted in “health food” markets. Soy beans contain various harmful anti-nutrients, including trypsin inhibitors that block protein digestion and phytates that block mineral absorption. Traditional long term fermenting (3 to 48 months) of soy beans to produce soy sauces and miso pastes destroys significant amounts of these anti-nutrients, whereas modern factory processing to produce soy sauces, soy milk, tofu, and mock meats does not remove those harmful elements.
Recently, in response to a petition submitted to the FDA by Protein Technologies International (PTI), a division of DuPont corporation that manufactures Supro® brand soy protein, the FDA has allowed the following health claim to be attached to soy products containing soy protein: “Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease.” This claim was allowed supposedly based on some clinical trials which show adding soy protein to a diet low in fat and cholesterol will result in decreases in cholesterol beyond what occurs as a result of a low-fat, low cholesterol diet alone. However, other studies have not shown such a benefit.
Therefore, the allowed claim conveys uncertainty, by the phrase “may reduce the risk…” Also note that the possible benefit of soy consumption is promised only in conjunction with a diet low in fat and cholesterol, which itself “may” reduce the risk of heart disease (another uncertainty)-so if your risk goes down when consuming soy as part of a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet, is this due to the soy, or the diet?
Similar uncertainty exists with regard to soy and other putative health benefits. Some studies have suggested that consuming soy reduces hot flashes and other menopausal symptoms and increases bone density among post-menopausal women-while others have not.
Clearly, this is an experiment untried on a large scale. Promoters of soy suggest that it is safe to consume soy in almost any quantity but this has not been proven true. In fact, there is some rather strong evidence that ingesting soy on a daily basis, even in rather modest quantities, and certainly in large quantities, may have serious adverse effects on endocrine functions, immune system functions, and brain cell repair.
Here are the details:
Protein Quality
Soy salesmen claim that soy protein is equal to animal protein. Their claims are aided by the FDA’s endorsement of the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), which uses soy protein as the standard. However, the PDCAAS disregards digestibility, rating proteins only by their amino acid score; and further, the FDA simply defined soy protein as the standard, even though animal proteins have superior digestibility and amino acid profiles. Outside the FDA, nutritional biochemists still rate proteins according to biological value, and the standard for biological value is human milk protein (an animal protein), which is given a score of 100. The biological value of soy protein is only 73, and all animal proteins rate superior to soy protein on the scale of biological value, with egg and whey protein at the top of the heap, equal to human milk.
Reproductive Function
Soy isoflavones are estrogen-like molecules. Environmental toxicologists refer to such things as xenoestrogens. Many health care professionals are extremely concerned that human health is adversely affected by increasing intake of xenoestrogens, including soy isoflavones, because they stimulate various undesirable growth processes in girls and women, and may interfere with normal hormone dependent development of boys and functional capacities of men.
In 1997, researchers reported that “The daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant formulas is 6- to 11 fold higher on a body weight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods. Circulating concentrations of isoflavones in the seven infants fed soy-based formula were 13000-22000 times higher than plasma oestradiol concentrations in early life, and may be sufficient to exert biological effects, whereas the contribution of isoflavones from breast-milk and cow-milk is negligible.”
In 1998 researchers from New Zealand reported that the rate of isoflavone intake in infants fed soy-based formulas, cereals, dinners, and biscuits “is much greater than that shown in adult humans to alter reproductive hormones.” They advised: “Since the available evidence suggests that infants can digest and absorb dietary phytoestrogens in active forms and since neonates are generally more susceptible than adults to perturbations of the sex steroid milieu, we suggest that it would be highly desirable to study the effects of soy isoflavones on steroid-dependent developmental processes in human babies.
Previous to these recent studies, in 1982, pediatric endocrinologists in Puerto Rico reported an increase in the incidence of premature breast development in girls under eight years of age. Of 130 cases studied, 85 involved breast development in girls under 18 months of age. Of those 85 cases, 22 were found associated with use of soy formula, rich in isoflavones.
The evidence for cancer preventive properties of soy foods and isoflavones is rather weak.1 Some epidemiological studies have shown a relation between soy consumption and protection from breast and endometrial cancer, but they have not been able to separate the effect of soy from that of other significant factors of Asian diets, such as low fat and high fiber, fish, whole grain, vegetable, fruit and non-soy legume intake-especially since soy is such a small part of Asian diets. Meanwhile, some clinical evidence suggests that high doses of isolated soy protein and isoflavones (not parts of traditional Asian diets) actually may be cancer promoters.
In 1996, one group of researchers fed 38 grams of soy protein isolate containing 38 mg of isoflavones to both pre- and post- menopausal women for five months. It is of interest to note that these researchers reported “No changes were found in plasma prolactin, sex hormone binding globulin, cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations.” Perhaps the women weren’t also on a low fat, low cholesterol diet? Or maybe they were on such a diet and that doesn’t reliably reduce cholesterol or tryglycerides either?
They did find, however, that there was a greater production of breast fluid in premenopausal women during the months of soy consumption, and “plasma estradiol concentrations were elevated erratically throughout a ‘composite’ menstrual cycle during the months of soy consumption.” Further, they reported “Of potential concern was the cytological detection of epithelial hyperplasia in 7 of 24 women (29.2%) during the months they were consuming soy protein isolate” and they concluded “this pilot study indicates that prolonged consumption of soy protein isolate has a stimulatory effect on the premenopausal female breast, characterized by increased secretion of breast fluid, the appearance of hyperplastic epithelial cells, and elevated levels of plasma estradiol.”
In 1997, another group of researchers studied the effect of soy isoflavone genistein on breast cancer cells and reported that “dietary estrogens at low concentrations do not act as antiestrogens but act like DDT and estradiol to stimulate human breast cancer cells to enter the cell cycle” .
In the September 1998 issue of Cancer Research, William G Helferich, Ph.D., from the University of Illinois, reported that human estrogen-dependent breast cancer cells injected into mice multiplied if the mice were fed genistein. Helferich says “We’ve seen a lot of good research that genistein is a cancer preventer, but it is dangerous to people who already have cancer….Caution is warranted.”2
An epidemiological study done in China found that high soy intake did not provide protection from breast cancer <”Diet and breast cancer in Shanghai and Yianjin, China,” Br J Cancer 1995 71: 1353-8>. At a recent conference on soy foods and health, soy advocate and author of The Simple Soybean and Your Health Mike Messina Ph.D. stated, “It’s simply not possible as yet to draw any conclusions about soy consumption and cancer prevention, but further research is certainly warranted”
http://starbulletin.com/1999/11/19/news/story4.html>.
This is completely contrary, of course, to the image of soy presented by advertisers who would like women to believe that ingesting soy will prevent breast cancer.
Other research has shown that some premenopausal women ingesting 60 grams of soy protein daily (45 mg isoflavones) have leutenizing hormone levels 33% of normal and follicle stimulating hormone levels only 53% of normal levels . These levels are low enough to inhibit ovulation in some individuals. In 1994 a team of researchers reported that in vitro “Genistein, and inhibitor of tyrosine kinases, including c-kit, blocked oocyte growth and disrupted follicle morphology.” In translation, genistein blocked egg growth and caused abnormal changes in the shape of the follicle .
There is good reason to suspect soy estrogens as a cause for male infertility. Over the past 30 to 50 years, as human exposure to xenoestrogens (including soy isoflavones, in so many processed foods containing soy protein) has increased, there has also been an increase in incidence of developmental disorders of male reproductive organs and a decrease in sperm counts. Researchers have found that soy isoflavones genistein and daidzein inhibit the activity of an enzyme required for proper metabolism of steroids critical to hormonal functions-in particular, this enzyme is required for the production of testosterone.
Soy isoflavones have been shown to interfere with normal reproductive functions on the cellular level. In 1996, researchers showed that genistein is a strong inducer of DNA strand breaks, thus clastogenic and mutagenic. In 1998, researchers reported that “coumestrol and genistein are clastogenic in cultured mammalian cells and lead to gene mutations.” Below we will report how this may affect the immune and nervous systems.
Soy and Thyroid Function
A significant body of research has suggested that the estrogen-like soy isoflavones in 25 grams of soy protein can seriously disrupt other endocrine functions. In the late 1950s and early 1960s there were reports that infants fed soy formula developed goiter (enlarged thyroid). A study done in Japan in 1991 found that diffuse goiter and hypothyroidism appeared in half of the subjects after consuming 30 gm per day of pickled roasted soybeans for three months .
In 1997 it was shown that the supposedly healthful soy estrogens/isoflavones suppress thyroid activity.3 As thyroid inhibitors, soy isoflavones are considered to be somewhat more potent than common anti-thyroid drugs, working to inhibit action of an enzyme that converts the amino acid tyrosine to thyroid hormone. Daniel R. Doerge, Ph.D., one of the researchers from the FDA National Center for Toxicological Research involved in the study that isolated and studied the anti-thyroid mechanism of the soy isoflavones, says: “I don’t think you can get into trouble if you eat a few soyfoods within the bounds of a balanced diet…But I see substantial risks from taking soy supplements or eating huge amounts of soy foods for their putative disease-preventive value. There is definitely potential for interaction with the thyroid.”4
Soy and Immune Function
Several studies have shown that soy isoflavones suppress the immune system. In fact, genistein has been studied as a potential drug to give to transplant recipients, who are always given immune suppressant drugs to prevent their bodies from rejecting the foreign transplant tissues. One team of researchers studied the immunosuppressive potential of genistein and reported, “Our data suggest that genistein is a powerful immunosuppressive agent, with no toxic effects on T cells, and has the potential for use in the prophylaxis and treatment of allograft rejection” . In other words, genistein has a immune suppressant effect comparable to that of immune suppressant drugs given to transplant patients.
Other researchers have found that genistein works as an immune suppressant by causing chromatin fragmentation . In 1998 researchers reported that “Exposure of mammalian cells to genistein results in DNA damage that is similar to that induced by the topo-II inhibitor and chromosomal mutagen, m-amsa.” These researchers found that “genistein is a chromosomal mutagen” that causes mutations and cell death of human lymph cells .
Soy and Brain Function
According to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin (11/9/99) newspaper, ingestion of soy products has recently been strongly linked to development of dementia. The National Institute of Aging sponsored a study of 3, 634 Japanese-American men in Hawaii, which found that those who ate the most tofu had the most advanced dementia and on autopsy the brains of men who ate more than two servings per week of tofu weighed less than the brains of men who consumed fewer than two servings of tofu per week. The rate of impairment was also found correlated with soy intake.
Those who ate no tofu showed mental abilities of men five years younger, while those who ate the most tofu tested as if they were five years older. Of 27 dietary items checked, including meat, only soy was found consistently correlated with increased incidence and severity of dementia
http://starbulletin.com/1999/11/19/news/story4.html.
This finding is supported by experimental evidence which has shown that soy isoflavones decrease DNA repair and synthesis in the brains of rats and mice .
According to the Star-Bulletin, this study linking tofu to dementia was presented at a conference on soy and health sponsored by soy foods producers such as DuPont and Archer Daniel Midlands. Commenting on the conference, the lead investigator in the Hawaii study, Dr. Lon White, stated “The majority of scientists said the data they were talking about for beneficial effects on health is very weak” and doesn’t really support health claims for soy foods.
The Money Game
Thus, right now it appears that there is sufficient contradictory evidence to conclude that we don’t really know yet whether ingesting soy in large amounts as food or as isoflavone supplements will be beneficial or harmful. Obviously it is best not to consume soy or its isoflavones in the large amounts recommended by soy product manufacturers and “approved” by the FDA. Until more is known, it would be best not to exceed the levels of soy food consumption found in the typical Asian diet, about 8 to 10 grams (one-third ounce) daily-and certainly one should avoid using isolated soy protein or high dose soy isoflavone supplements.
So why are soybeans so highly touted in the popular media? Here is my hypothesis: Up until about 10 years ago, most of the soy grown in the U.S. was fed to cattle or used for industrial purposes, such as making margarine, paints, plastics, drugs, cleaners, emulsifiers, and so on. However, there is a limit to the profit to be made in this use of soy. You can make much more money if you can get people to eat the soy-and especially if you can get people to believe that it is the panacea for many ills, since people willingly pay dearly for panaceas.
The soy pushers are some of the largest, wealthiest corporations in the U.S. For example, Monsanto (the same corporation behind rBGH mentioned above) markets its “Round Up Ready” genetically engineered soybean along with its Round Up pesticide-the soybean is engineered, not to be more nutritious or delicious, but to be capable of withstanding larger doses of Round Up! Another example is Archer Daniels Midland (a.k.a. ADM), which advertises itself as “supermarket for the world,” and is heavily invested in producing soy products. DuPont Chemical is also involved in the soy market, through its subsidiary Protein Technologies International, a soy protein powder maker. Green Giant is selling soybean mock meats.
All of these big boys are interested in getting you to eat soy, drink soy, and take soy pills. They don’t really care about your health, only about their profits. So you should take all soy advertisements and popular articles and books with a big grain of salt.
*** ***
Don Matesz, M.A., C.N., C.R.T. is an associate member of the International Association of Resistance Trainers and graduate of the American Academy of Nutrition. Don resides in Toledo, Ohio, and is available for fitness consultation by phone and e-mail, and personal training in Toledo. Call (419) 476-2967 for rates and details. You can also reach Don by E-mailing: matesz@earthlink.net
1 Fitzpatrick M, “Soy Isoflavones: Panacea or Poison?”, submitted to the FDA in an effort to block GRAS status for soy isoflavones, published in Health and Healing Wisdom, Volume 22, No 3, p. 3. Also available at
2 Osborne SE, “Does Soy Have a Dark Side?”, Natural Health, March 1999, p. 158.
3 Divi RL et al., “Anti-thyroid isoflavones from the soybean,” Biochem Pharmacol (1997)54:1087-1096.
4 Osborne SE, op cit, p. 113.
Tatiacha
Randy
Blog Admin
Comments