Mercola, Weston Price wrong on Soy "dangers"

I regularly see research on soy and the vast majority of research papers prove the health benefits of soy. Based on the body of science and the errors evident in his "Facts", what Dr. Mercola has stated is undocumented, unreferenced bull recycled from Weston Price.

All legumes contain significant levels of phytoestrogens; why is soy singled out for this abuse using cherry-picked out-of-context "facts" that aren't really backed them up when the research is reviewed. Do you ever hear such slanders against the #2 source of phytoestrogens (pinto beans)?

In fact, many of the negative studies cited come from the animal feed industry and refer to raw defatted soy meal, the pulp left over after extracting soybean oil. This is not what humans eat! We aren't fed raw defatted soy meal as the major protein source in our diet, and many of the negative issues with raw dried soybeans disappear with proper food preparation (i.e., cooking). They also don't apply to edamame (raw soybean pods with the beans inside), since some of these "anti-nutrient" factors form during drying and are removed during cooking (except for genetically engineered soy that contains exceptionally heat-resistant anti-nutrient compounds).

Here are some actual facts about soy (in contrast to the Mercola/Weston Price data dump of uncritically collected studies); and I have the studies to back this up:

 

• Phytates are common in grains, less in legumes; the supplement IP-6 is this exact compound, useful to stimulate NK cells and immunity
• Trypsin inhibitors are only a problem in raw soy flour and GMO soy products, not the typical uses of non-GMO soy
• Phytoestrogens such as isoflavones are not endocrine disruptors, this is nonsense; have you ever heard of these problems with pinto beans, the #2 most abundant food source and a major component of the Mexican diet? Of course not.
• Soy, like cruciferous vegetablles, only affects thyroid function if one is iodine deficient and the addition of iodine to the diet corrects this symptom. The real problem is a nutrient deficiency.
• Most plant foods are known to be poor sources of bioavailable B-12, not just soy, and this is common knowledge so why single soy out? Bias?
• D-2 is a natural compound found in the food supply and is neither toxic nor a synthetic form; all vitamin D is produced by chemical synthesis, whether in the body or in a lab, but the forms of D-2 and D-3 utilized in supplements and food fortification are both nature-identical natural forms synthesized in labs.
• Most soy protein isolate is not denatured; by the way, another term for denaturing is "digestion" and this is good unless you need intact proteins from food (as in whey protein isolate's valuable immunoglobulins).
• All proteins when digested produce free glutamates; this is natural. Only susceptible people who have had severe chemical exposure or are low in protective nutrients like antioxidants and magnesium suffer from this. I have spoken with and attended lectures by Russ Blaylock for about 20 years and am well versed in this mechanism and its causes and solutions.
• Soy proteins do not test high in heavy metals; rice protein is actually far higher in actual tests at parts-per-billion detection levels.
• Asians consume far more soy products than is claimed by your sources; the typical isolflavone content of the diet there is established to be about 50 mg daily, the amount found in a couple ounces of soy protein at 90% strength, which represents several ounces of unconcentrated soy at about 30% protein.
• Soy is not carcinogenic; review studies confirm that soy protein isolate, not fermented soy, has been proven to reduce cancer rates from breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers by about 30%.
• Soy upregulates Phase 2 liver detoxification, much like cruciferous vegetables, and is actually a detox aid rather than a source of toxins.
• Long term studies of infants fed soy formula find no differences in age of puberty, sexual maturity, or other hormonal measures; soy is 'implicated" only by those unwilling to openmindedly review the research to confirm or prove false their wild theories.
• PS, I was in China recently and they eat plenty of tofu and edamame, both unfermented soy foods, in greater quantities than fermented soy.

Some of Weston A. Price Foundation's citations listed as "evidence" of soy's "toxicity" include these titles that obviously don't fit the negative label; that's why I characterize their list as a "data dump":

 

• "Salt poisoning due to ingestion of soy sauce." (How does this prove that non-fermented soy is toxic?)
• "Hypothesized health benefits of soybean isoflavones." (A study that is positive of soy's health benefits)
• "Rhinitis and dermatitis caused by exotic woods." (This is a non-soy herb: Pterocarpus soyauxii)
• "A nutritional comparison of rapeseed oil and soybean oil."
• "[Concerning the absence of goitrogenic factors in soybean oil for cooking.]" (Exonerates soybean oil from thyroid issues)
• "Eastern black nightshade: An increasing concern for soybean and forage producers." (A farming issue, not a nutritional one)
• "Medicinal Plants of lndia and Pakistan." (Actually refers to a non-soy plant: Indian red wood tree, Soymida febrifuga Adr. Juss.)

More evidence that antioxidant “dangers” are exaggerated (especially beta-carotene)

More evidence that antioxidant “dangers” are exaggerated (especially beta-carotene) By Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA In a study published in 2006, cancer researchers tested daily supplementation of 400 IU of vitamins E as alpha-tocopherol along with 50,000 IU (39 mg) of beta-carotene on 540 head and neck cancer patients for three years after treatment with radiation therapies. Due to safety concerns in previous trials (which I have repeatedly criticized in previous writings, for various reasons), the beta-carotene component was discontinued during the trial. During a median 6 ½ years of follow up, 179 of the patients died. The researchers concluded that high-dose vitamin E supplementation could be harmful to cancer patients, with a 38% increased risk for death. 1 This study has been associated with the hyperbolic warnings against antioxidant use for cancer patients. The same group of researchers published a 2007 study looking at the same group of 540 cancer patients treated by radiation to see if the antioxidant vitamins reduced the toxicity of the treatments. This report investigated the dietary intake, supplementation and plasma levels of beta carotene in the patients to look for correlations in outcomes, specifically acute adverse effects of the radiation therapy and cancer recurrence. A higher beta carotene dietary intake was associated with 39% fewer severe acute adverse effects, and higher plasma levels with 27% fewer severe adverse effects, from the radiation treatments. The researchers reported that, “This study suggests that a higher usual dietary beta carotene intake can reduce the occurrence of severe adverse effects of radiation therapy and decrease local cancer recurrence.” 2 This conclusion is at odds with fears of beta-carotene toxicity that have been massively publicized over the past 14 years. Now, in 2008, we have heard again from this same group of researchers continuing to review the data from the same group of patients. It turns out that the large increase in mortality in the patient group given antioxidants - reported in the 2006 study – was basically limited to those patients who smoked during their radiation treatments. In fact, there was no significant mortality increase in patients who only smoked before or after the course of radiation treatment, or for non-smokers. 3 This new information tells us that the general cautions about antioxidants should be limited to certain narrow conditions or situations, such as active smokers during therapy. This is good information, since we know that 40% of cancer patients actually die of malnutrition; that plasma levels of antioxidants are a far better measure of antioxidant status than supplement intake prescriptions or dietary recall surveys; and that antioxidants are synergistic with inter-related functions and should not be given separately. Now we also can point to numerous benefits of antioxidants in clinical studies that have been far overshadowed by the over-hyped negative conclusions of a relative few prominent-but-flawed studies reported by prestigious institutions, sometimes with NIH funding. I agree with those critics who insist that it should be considered scientifically inappropriate to use the drug model for nutrient research, because the nutrients already exist in the diet and in the body and are clearly impacted by other nutrients; as well as other variables, some of which are quite well known. By contrast, in a drug study a new, foreign chemical is being tested which should not already be present in the diet or the body, making toxicity a bigger issue while eliminating many of the variables that are inappropriately ignored in sensational-but-flawed nutrient studies that get so much media attention and so many undeserved citations in scientific journals. I have previously written about the use of antioxidants for cancer patients, as have others, with the common conclusion that most such warnings are overblown and that much of the published science has been favorable regarding those combinations of factors. REFERENCES

• Bairati I, Meyer F, Jobin E, Gélinas M, Fortin A, Nabid A, Brochet F, Têtu B. Antioxidant vitamins supplementation and mortality: a randomized trial in head and neck cancer patients. Int J Cancer. 2006 Nov 1;119(9):2221-4. PMID: 16841333
• Meyer F, Bairati I, Jobin E, Gélinas M, Fortin A, Nabid A, Têtu B. Acute adverse effects of radiation therapy and local recurrence in relation to dietary and plasma beta carotene and alpha tocopherol in head and neck cancer patients. Nutr Cancer. 2007;59(1):29-35. PMID: 17927499
• Meyer F, Bairati I, Fortin A, Gélinas M, Nabid A, Brochet F, Têtu B. Interaction between antioxidant vitamin supplementation and cigarette smoking during radiation therapy in relation to long-term effects on recurrence and mortality: a randomized trial among head and neck cancer patients. Int J Cancer. 2008 Apr 1;122(7):1679-83. PMID: 18059031