posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Sat, April 26, 2008 - 8:53 AMi avoid soy as much as possible now that i know what it does to the male endocrine system ...
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Sat, April 26, 2008 - 6:44 PMI skimmed the article quickly, but am a little skeptical. I didn't see anything about providing balance. Arguably, *EVERYTHING* is bad for humans. It's part of the problem of being a parasite on the planet.
That said, moderation in all things seems prudent.
I like soy. A lot. And I eat a good amount of tofu. Probably 2-3 times a week. I also try to eat greens, brown rice, gluten (sparingly), other legumes and nuts several times a week. And more than enough cheese and dairy. The point is that too much of a good thing is bad, but not enough is probably bad, too.
There was also a study out last year that said that eating soy made men homosexual... oops!
xoM -
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Sat, April 26, 2008 - 6:59 PMSo if I hardly eat soy now and am a homo, if I ate it regularly would it make me even more homo? Like way super homo? -
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Sat, April 26, 2008 - 7:55 PMof all the absurd anti soy propoganda, the tofu makes you gay is by far my favorite. That is almost as believable as right wing nutcases saying the Irakis moved the weapons of mass destruction to Syria :)
but many americans actually believe this stuff. scary... -
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Sat, April 26, 2008 - 8:02 PMSo tofu doesnt make you gay? Do real men eat quiche' too? : ) I actually love quiche'.
-
-
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Sat, April 26, 2008 - 8:12 PMOkay, a little moderation goes a long way, with everything.
The truth about soy? It's good for you, in normal amounts. In men, it can help prevent heart attacks and in women it helps with lactation and keeps their cycle regular. Milo, tofu, one of the healthiest, not a problem. It's better to eat pure soy beans, but tofu's okay. The problem that they have is that when soy is processed using cheap, mass methods (there are more expensive, better ways to process it) the amount of phyto-estrogen becomes SOOO concentrated that it causes huge problems in the body. In women, not as bad, usually confined to migraines and thyroid failure. In men, however, who can't normally process that much estrogen, even phyto-estrogen, it causes brain tumors, impotence, thyroid storm (massive amounts of growth hormone that cause systemic tumors) and even strokes.
In some people, it may cause enough thyroid and hormonal issues to make you grow breasts and, possibly, take a life, once a month. However, I seriously don't think it's going to make you want to put on a sailor's costume and head down to the Dirty Dawg for an evening of arguing over Abba lyrics and arm wrestling for Cosmopolitans. The jury may still be out, though...
So, let's sum up:
Soy = good
Tofu = good
Cheap processed soy = bad
Homosexuality = You don't really think I'm answering that, do you?
Now, who's in charge of the floor show in here?
Love and light, dear ones.
Rev
-
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 4:17 PMI'd like to point out that
There was not a single citation in that article, meaning that as far as a credible scientific source of information goes it's a joke.
Here are some other "Featured Stories" from the websites main page
Your Thoughts Are Not Your Own-
Mind Control Through Network Television
Perfect Storm, Perfect Manipulation-
Illuminati Game Plan Moving Along Smartly
Targeting Iran-
JCS Chair - US Preparing 'Military Options' Vs Iran
Have We Secretly Been To Deep Space?-
The Beginning Of The End Of The Coverup - Nicoloff
Astonishing Deep Space Photos - Who Took Them?
I'm not willing to say that none of these are possible, but I'm the kind of person that needs to see some peer edited journal proof before I believe something like this.
(And obviously if you're letting any one substance make up the bulk of your diet, it's going to have negative health consequences) -
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 1:16 AMLinsey, there's a little link at the bottom to Mercola.com that they provide as a reference. Dr. Mercola, while controversial, is a credible resource. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's not an idiot.
www.mercola.com/newpage11.htm
As for the rest. Do you automatically discount everything just because you disagree with some of the other information they provide?
Love and light, dear ones.
Rev -
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 9:55 AMThe issue with Dr Mercola when it comes to being a reliable or objective source is a glaring conflict of interest since he's paid to promote certain ideas and products for a variety of commercial interests. He's not just a doctor, he's a business, and as such he presents and ignores science depending on whether it supports what he's selling. It doesn't mean there isn't all kinds of good info mixed in with the marketing but it's done in such a way that the two are indistinguishable - which puts his ethics and reliability as a source into question. Good marketing though, he comes across as the friendly family doctor who's really pretty conventional when in reality he's doing business with promoters of pseudoscience and cherry picks the science to support the pseudoscience.
-
-
-
Re: Soy it isn't so.
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 3:07 PMit isn't that I automatically disbelieve everything I disagree with, it's just that if someone is going to change my mind, and particularly if they're going to try to use science to do it, they're going to have to present a very sound argument. Especially with things found on the internet, there's a great deal of pseudo-science as Fifi points out. to make such major claims, there needs to be a great deal of study and documentation (with exact numbers, dates, quantities etc.) before I will look at it as fact. The documentation of a trend means nothing if the suspected cause isn't isolated, which I saw no evidence of.
