Talk:Estrogen dominance

REGARDING FERMENTATION
I have a concern regarding the following excerpt from this main article.

"Fermented soy foods like soy sauce, miso, tempe, and soy lethicin (in small amounts) are not a concern, but soy oil, edamame beans, soy infant formula, soy milk, soy protein and soy flour as well as tofu (because it is consumed in high amounts) can be a problem."

I spoke with a food and nutrition PHD who works for the Soybean Council about fermented soy foods. He said fermentation has no impacts on the concentration of phytoestrogens (the cancer culprits) in soy.

So again, I am wary of the claims this article is making, this time regarding fermentation.

I have a healthy wariness regarding the veracity of a representative for the Soybean council since it's a little like asking the fox to watch the henhouse. None-the-less, his claim, given his credentials, bears some follow through.

And it is entirely possible that fermentation provides some other protective factors, even if it does NOT reduce phytoestrogen concentrations.

At any rate, let's CAN this entire article and publish material that is backed up by cited materials.

James Aslan (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

MORE RESEARCH

I've done significant research since my July 23 discussion comments. I reviewed nearly 20 research articles on the impacts of soy phytoestrogen/isoflavenoids on breast cancer.

Then I called and talked with a Food and Nutrition professor who was a lead on many of the key research projects addressing this issue.

He believes that the soy products made from soy flour are very safe for public consumption. Soy flour has lower concentrations of the phytoestrogens and also retains other food co-factors that make it safe for the body. His concern is with the soy protein isolates. These strip out the co-factors and highly concentrate the phytoestrogens.

So I stand by my comments of July 23. The original article needs to be corrected or REMOVED. It uses faulty logic and plagiarizes someone else's OPINIONS. Claims are NOT backed by research.

James Aslan (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Estrogenic Foods" section in the Wikipedia article on Estrogen Dominance is incomplete, plagiarized, NOT well documented, and I believe, may be very misleading and misinformative. It states evidence suggesting that the phytoestrogens in unfermented soy may contribute to "estrogen dominance" which may increase the risks for cancer, etc. This may or may NOT be so.

In particular, it states:

"According to an article published in the China Post in March 2009, the incidence of breast cancer has seen a 22% increase in Taiwan, uterine cancer increased by 31%, while prostate cancer saw a rise as well. In 2007, China announced it too was experiencing an increase in cases of breast cancer (Reuters). >>> These new findings, along with a study conducted on Japanese males living in Hawaii who consumed large amounts of soy and which had increased rates of Alzheimer's disease, suggest that soy foods are not the panacea they were thought to be."

FIRST, the >>> conclusion that the China Post articles supports the >>> conclusion that soy may cause cancer, is misleading. The China Post article says NOTHING AT ALL about SOY. I read it.

SECONDLY, the claim that phytoestrogens can lead to cancer is contested by many sources. The following quote from Dixie Mills, M.D., refutes this negative claim about phytoestrogens:

"Much research has shown that phytoestrogens, such as those found in soy, are not disruptive to the natural workings of the endocrine system. The reason behind this is that the human body has co-evolved over time with plants and generally moderates the impact of phytoestrogens through an adaptogenic response. Some plant estrogens are naturally neutralized, others are easily excreted, and most do not accumulate in body tissue (unlike synthetic compounds and heavy metals). The half-life of a phytoestrogen is measured in minutes, while the half-life of various synthetic compounds, like DDT, may be years or even decades. -– source http://www.womentowomen.com/detoxification/endocrinedisruptors.aspx

SO  I believe the "jury is out" on this issue and that this article requires better research. Almost ALL the material in this section on "Estrogenic Foods" was plagiarized from the following source: Anisa Abeytia, who seems to have made the fore-mentioned "leap" in logic regarding the China Post article. She may know way more than I, but I am concerned about her leap in logic and cautious about her claims --- and therefore, about the claims in this Wikipedia article.


 * Anisa Abeytia's article maybe found at http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1242759312070&pagename=Zone-English-HealthScience%2FHSELayout#**1

James Aslan (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your concerns are very reasonable. I have started a section about this article at WP:FTN. Looie496 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability
I've traced this back to one John Lee who got some press coverage starting around 1997 (Laufenberg, Kathleen. "Alternative approaches to menopause gain in popularity". Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. August 06, 1997). Unfortunately my connectivity is a bit limited here so I can't really pursue this right now. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream medicine
Is there any discussion of this in mainstream medical sources? All I can find on google is altmed forums, spam and "Premarin is evil" blogs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Even the article by Watt et. al. that is used as a reference is itself from an alternative medicine journal. 2804:14D:5CEF:8213:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Balance
The lede says:
 * Lee's theories have been criticized for being inadequately supported through science, being primarily based on anecdotal evidence with no rigorous research to support them.

It sounds like this theory is not supported by mainstream medicine or science. But those criticisms and counterevidence (or simple lack of evidence) are not discussed in the article, which provides only supporting opinions for the theory. This seems to give a fringe theory undue credence. Seems like the article could be more balanced. -- Avocado (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)