Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Another Reason Not to Eat Too Much Sugar

To Your Health
November, 2011 (Vol. 05, Issue 11)

People are quick to say that the reason we are so overweight in this country is because we eat too much and don't exercise enough. But if that was so, how do you explain the epidemic of obese six-month old babies? Are they not spending enough time on the treadmill? Any theory that tries to explain the obesity and diabetes epidemic must also be to explain this as well, or it's not a fully accurate theory. Let's look at what actually does explain this.

Everyone knows that fructose is the sugar found in fruit. And if it's found in fruit it must be safe, right? Wrong. This misconception is being perpetrated by the food industry and we are falling for it, simply because most people don't know the details or the impact. Let's take a look at those details.

First, a few basics. Fructose is the simple sugar found in fruit. Glucose is the simple sugar that our body runs on, and is the result of carbohydrates being broken down. Sucrose (white table sugar) is a 50-50 makeup of fructose and glucose. So the first thing to remember is that white table sugar also has fructose in it. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which everyone demonizes, is a combination of 55-45 makeup of fructose to glucose (typically), and since fructose is quite a bit sweeter than glucose, that little bit makes HFCS sweeter as well. You'll see in a moment, though, why white table sugar and HFCS should be viewed with the same suspicion.

The corn industry has a campaign that argues that sugar and HFCS are basically the same, which is accurate. But they're arguing that they are both safe, and that we cause health problems because we all eat too much of both. The 1986 FDA report said sugar was safe when consumed in the current amounts, which, at the time, was an average of 40 pounds per year of added sugars. It would be great if people were eating 40 pounds per year — the average these days is 140 pounds. The health problems we see are coming because of the overload and because fructose metabolizes differently and with different damage, than glucose.

We have forgotten that nature designed fruit so that we couldn't overeat fruit because one, the fiber would fill you up, and two; fruit was seasonal (you'll notice now it's not — we have blueberries available all year) so it's easy to eat too much. Keep in mind also that fruit and vegetables have been bred over the years to have a much higher sugar content than their wild counterparts.

We've been trained to think that sugar merely causes your teeth to rot, makes PMS worse, and makes people fat. But those things are mere inconveniences compared to the bodily damage glucose and fructose do — some of the results are the same for the two sugars, and some are substantially different. You could eat the same amount of calories for glucose and for fructose, but the health consequences are quite different.

Let's talk about how fructose behaves in your body. For starters, it's not at all like glucose — it doesn't trigger insulin at all, but goes directly to the liver to be metabolized. The term "low-glycemic" is often used with high fructose products (like agave nectar) which is totally accurate — it doesn't put glucose into the bloodstream at all because it has no glucose; it's all fructose. That doesn't mean it's safe, though. Because it doesn't trigger insulin, the body can't tell that it's full. And fructose also suppresses leptin (which would tell you if you were full) and does NOT suppress ghrelin (which makes you think you're hungry). The end result? Fructose has you eat more.

Fructose is also seven times more likely than glucose to make AGE's — Advanced Glycation Endproducts. They are named AGE's for a reason — they cause you to age faster. You know how if you cook sugar long enough it caramelizes? That's basically what happens in your body with glucose and fructose. When proteins in your body are caramelized like that (glycated), they are permanently damaged and can never recover. And AGE's are implicated quite strongly in Alzheimer's, cardiovascular disease, stroke, cataracts, nephropathy, heart attacks, atherosclerosis, arthritis, etc. The list is quite long. This is one of the main reasons diabetics have such health problems.

The liver takes the biggest beating in the metabolization of fructose, even more so if the fructose coming into the system is in liquid form (juice or soda, for example), as it hits the liver all at once (versus an apple, which has fiber to slow the fructose down).

The chemical reactions in the liver result in a few things, one of which is higher uric acid (which increases inflammation, and also causes high blood pressure), and the other of which is a fatty liver. A fatty liver is one of the major causes of insulin resistance, as the liver is the first tissue to become resistant. Studies are being done at the University of California to see how quickly a high fructose diet can cause a fatty liver in adults. The researchers are estimating that, with three juice or soda drinks a day; it could be as quickly as in two weeks. The research hasn't been released yet, but it has already been shown in lab animals.

The implications start to become staggering, because, between the damage that simply glucose and insulin do from high carb diets, the addition of fructose damage is starting to be linked to the shocking increase of obesity and diabetes in the last three decades. In damaging the liver, this speeds up the process of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is the conglomeration of severe health impacts from insulin resistance: high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, and a higher incidence of cancer. About 75 million Americans have metabolic syndrome — that's 1 in 4 people. And the very first symptom? An expanding waistline. Why is that? The one big fact that people often don't know is: fructose turns into fat faster than any other sugar.

Fruit juice, next to soda, is one of the biggest offenders of high fructose intake (and that's the 100% juice drinks — the ones that are 10% juice, for example, are sweetened with sucrose or HFCS). Juice has been directly correlated to increasing BMI scores in children and low-income children ingest the most, as government programs cover the cost of processed, inexpensive food.

Many people argue that HFCS is much more damaging than regular sugar but that's only slightly true in the sense that it has more fructose than glucose. But since the average American is eating 140 pounds of sugar a year (and remember, sugar is a 50-50 mix of fructose and glucose), does it really matter? It's simply an overload. It's not the bit of sugar in the holiday cookies you ate, it's that there is also fructose in the bread they had that morning (try finding a supermarket bread that doesn't have HFCS in it's ingredients), in the crackers/snack food they had that afternoon, in the soda they drink, in the spaghetti sauce out of a jar they used for dinner.

Children have it even worse. It starts with drinking formula: over 40% of formula is corn syrup solids, and over 10% is sugar (and a high sugar intake as an infant is linked to increase sugar cravings as an adult). As they get older, they are presented more and more with processed foods — fruit roll-ups, juice, candy, popsicles, lemonade, crackers, cereals... it just goes on and on. Then they go to school and with sodas in most schools, they add to the fructose load. This would be why nearly 1 in 5 children is obese.

Diabetics used to be advised to use fructose as a sweetener because it didn't trigger insulin, but you can see that the evidence is now showing that it accelerates all the health problems of diabetes, and has now stopped being recommended. And for those of us who aren't as sick, it's basically impossible, without a lot of intention, to grow up (and be an adult) and not have a high fructose intake.

So what do you do? Read the labels — most processed foods have sugar or HFCS added. Remember that sucrose is half fructose. Make as much of your own food as you can. Avoid all fruit juice and soda — this is key. Avoid crystalline fructose, which is now being added to sodas and juices — this is an even more concentrated form of fructose.

And remember not to fall for the marketing. Sugar and high fructose corn syrup are basically the same thing — and the fructose in both will, or already has, damaged you faster than you think.

Marlene Merritt, DOM, LAc, is a licensed acupuncturist and runs a wellness center in Austin, Texas. She specializes in Oriental medicine and nutritional protocols.

http://www.toyourhealth.com/mpacms/tyh/article.php?id=1488

http://cwcenter.com

Friday, November 11, 2011

Wiggles and Chiropractic

Wiggling His Way To Wellness

By Brenda Duran, Senior Associate Editor


Anthony Field is one of the founding members of "The Wiggles," whose popular children's television show has spawned CDs, DVDs and even live concerts. Entertaining and teaching children is Field's passion, but the rigors of the job were taking a toll on his health. That's why Field - and the entire Wiggles group - turned to chiropractic care as a way to improve their health and keep doing what they love to do.


Eight years ago, Anthony Field, also known as the "Blue Wiggle" of the most popular and successful children's performing act out of Australia, "The Wiggles," was smiling in front of the cameras and the crowds, but grimacing in pain backstage.


 "I was more of a wobble," Field said. "I would go backstage during a show because my back was hurting so much, my knees also hurt and I had a bad neck. It was always the same; I would miss a couple of songs and then go back on."


Back in those days, Field, now 48, was also overweight and taking daily Valium and anti-inflammatory drugs for pain to get through the day. He said he was depressed and lost.


"I was eating poorly and I was slouching and not strengthening my core, and my back gave way and I got into a terrible cycle of pain. I didn't know any better until chiropractors came into my life," said Field.


Fortunately, Field has never had to return to this low point in his life, thanks to a friend's tip about trying chiropractic.


"When I first starting seeing chiropractors, it was mainly to get me out of pain. I thought, I am just going to go and get myself out of pain ... that's what I thought it was all about," Field said. "Later on, I realized they [chiropractors] can help rebuild you into the $6 million man. That's what I feel like now."


Continue to read at



http://www.toyourhealth.com/mpacms/tyh/article.php?id=1473&pagenumber=1






http://cwcenter.com

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Millions of Kids' Antibiotic Prescriptions Unneeded

Children's Health - HEALTH

Study: Millions of Kids' Antibiotic Prescriptions Unneeded

Published November 08, 2011

| Reuters

 


Pediatricians write more than 10 million unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions—for conditions like the flu and asthma—every year, suggests a new study.

Those ailments, and others not caused by bacteria, don't respond to the drugs. But misuse of antibiotics contributes to drug resistance—so those same medications might not work in the future when they're really needed.

"Antibiotics are wonderful. There are times you really need them, the question is just being judicious about when we use them," said Betsy Foxman, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor who was not involved in the research.


The new study involved a nationally-representative sample of almost 65,000 outpatient visits by kids under 18 in 2006 through 2008. Using medical codes, researchers were able to determine the type of diagnosis kids were given, as well as what kind of drugs, if any, they were prescribed.

In total, doctors prescribed an antibiotic at one in every five visits. Most prescriptions were given out for kids with respiratory ailments, including sinus infections and pneumonia.

Some of those infections are caused by bacteria, and antibiotics are warranted. But almost one-quarter of all antibiotic prescriptions were given to kids with respiratory conditions that probably or definitely do not call for antibiotics—such as bronchitis, the flu, asthma and allergies.

That translates to more than 10 million antibiotic prescriptions each year that likely won't do any good but might do harm, Dr. Adam Hersh of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and his colleagues reported today in Pediatrics.

Half of all antibiotics prescribed were "broad-spectrum" drugs—meaning they act against a wide range of bacteria. Those "kill more of the good bacteria in our bodies and can set the child up for infections with antibiotic resistant bacteria down the road," Hersh wrote in an email to Reuters Health.

"In many of these instances antibiotics are not indicated at all," he added.

Broad-spectrum antibiotics include macrolides and certain types of cephalosporins and penicillins.

Foxman said that wiping out the non-harmful bacteria in the intestines has been linked to asthma and, recently, to obesity.

"We think of antibiotics as being wholly beneficial, but they are not very specific, they hit everything in your body," she said. "By making our microbes that are supposed to be with us disappear, we can be causing other health problems we don't know about."

And even when the drugs are prescribed for just a few days, giving them to lots of kids unnecessarily raises the risk of antibiotic-resistant infections in the kids themselves, and for society as a whole, she added.

"It's been known for a very long time... that people are prescribing antibiotics for upper respiratory infections where they have no benefit," Foxman told Reuters Health.

"To me this wasn't a big surprise, though it's certainly disturbing."

Hersh said that there are a number of reasons why doctors might prescribe antibiotics when they're not likely to help. "One reason overuse occurs is because the diagnosis is often unclear—this is common with ear infections. The decision is made to prescribe an antibiotic even though the diagnosis isn't certain, just 'to be on the safe side,'" he said.

In those cases, a "wait and see" approach in which the kid comes back to the office a couple days later might avoid an unnecessary prescription, he added.

"If your doctor suggests an antibiotic prescription, for instance for an ear infection, ask how certain the diagnosis is. If the diagnosis is still a little unclear, ask if it would be safe to wait a day or two with close follow up rather than starting the antibiotic right away," Hersh advised.

Dr. Aditya Gaur, who has studied antibiotic prescribing at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, said that parents should ask doctors why their kids are getting whatever particular medication, including antibiotics, they're being prescribed.

"Parents and families should be part of the decision and ask why (something) is being done," Gaur, who wasn't linked to the study, told Reuters Health. They should also know "not to expect an antibiotic every time an infection is diagnosed."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/08/study-millions-kids-antibiotic-prescriptions-unneeded/?test=latestnews#ixzz1d83UNn1O


http://cwcenter.com

Friday, November 4, 2011

Why MSG is unhealthy

MSG masquerades on food ingredient labels under many names: including glutamic acid, glutamate, autolyzed yeast, autolyzed yeast protein, yeast extract, textured protein, monopotassium glutamate, sodium caseinate, natrium glutamate, flavours, so-called `natural` flavours, hydrolyzed corn, yeast food and ultra-pasteurized and any enzyme-modified ingredients. Many manufacturers of medications use MSG as a filler ingredient in tablets and other medications.

Even personal care products like shampoos, soaps and cosmetics are not exempt from containing MSG. Look for ingredients that include the words `hydrolyzed,` `protein` and `amino acids.`

MSG has been known to cause an extreme rise or drop in blood pressure, arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat), depression, dizziness, anxiety or panic attacks, migraines, mental confusion, stiffness, muscular swelling, lethargy, seizures, joint pain, flu-like body aches, chest pains, loss of balance, slurred speech, diarrhoea, stomach cramps, sneezing, nausea, vomiting, skin rashes, hives, blurred vision and difficulty in concentrating.

MSG is a glutamic acid which stimulates brain cell activity. This is why it is also known as an excitotoxin. Glutamates are responsible for the signaling of nerve impulses in certain neurons. Tests done in the 1950s showed that when rats were given a single dose of MSG, it destroyed the neurons in the inner layer of their retinas. The hypothalamus of the brain was also severely damaged in the process. It has been shown that humans are up to six times more sensitive to the effects of MSG than rats.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034031_MSG_health_effects.html#ixzz1ckAeISQE

http://cwcenter.com

Friday, May 27, 2011

Finally! A Reversal on Carbs!

A reversal on carbs
Fat was once the devil. Now more nutritionists are pointing accusingly at sugar and refined grains.
·        
Carb consumption has risen over the years. So have U.S. obesity levels. (Kirk McKoy / Los Angeles Times)
December 20, 2010|By Marni Jameson, Special to the Los Angeles Times

Most people can count calories. Many have a clue about where fat lurks in their diets. However, fewer give carbohydrates much thought, or know why they should.
But a growing number of top nutritional scientists blame excessive carbohydrates — not fat — for America's ills. They say cutting carbohydrates is the key to reversing obesity, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and hypertension.
http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif
"Fat is not the problem," says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. "If Americans could eliminate sugary beverages, potatoes, white bread, pasta, white rice and sugary snacks, we would wipe out almost all the problems we have with weight and diabetes and other metabolic diseases."
It's a confusing message. For years we've been fed the line that eating fat would make us fat and lead to chronic illnesses. "Dietary fat used to be public enemy No. 1," says Dr. Edward Saltzman, associate professor of nutrition and medicine at Tufts University. "Now a growing and convincing body of science is pointing the finger at carbs, especially those containing refined flour and sugar."
Americans, on average, eat 250 to 300 grams of carbs a day, accounting for about 55% of their caloric intake. The most conservative recommendations say they should eat half that amount. Consumption of carbohydrates has increased over the years with the help of a 30-year-old, government-mandated message to cut fat.
And the nation's levels of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease have risen. "The country's big low-fat message backfired," says Dr. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The overemphasis on reducing fat caused the consumption of carbohydrates and sugar in our diets to soar. That shift may be linked to the biggest health problems in America today."

To understand what's behind the upheaval takes some basic understanding of food and metabolism.
All carbohydrates (a category including sugars) convert to sugar in the blood, and the more refined the carbs are, the quicker the conversion goes. When you eat a glazed doughnut or a serving of mashed potatoes, it turns into blood sugar very quickly. To manage the blood sugar, the pancreas produces insulin, which moves sugar into cells, where it's stored as fuel in the form of glycogen.
If you have a perfectly healthy metabolism, the system works beautifully, says Dr. Stephen Phinney, a nutritional biochemist and an emeritus professor of UC Davis who has studied carbohydrates for 30 years. "However, over time, as our bodies get tired of processing high loads of carbs, which evolution didn't prepare us for … how the body responds to insulin can change," he says.
http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif
When cells become more resistant to those insulin instructions, the pancreas needs to make more insulin to push the same amount of glucose into cells. As people become insulin resistant, carbs become a bigger challenge for the body. When the pancreas gets exhausted and can't produce enough insulin to keep up with the glucose in the blood, diabetes develops.
The first sign of insulin resistance is a condition called metabolic syndrome — a red flag that diabetes, and possibly heart disease, is just around the corner. People are said to have the syndrome when they have three or more of the following: high blood triglycerides (more than 150 mg); high blood pressure (over 135/85); central obesity (a waist circumference in men of more than 40 inches and in women, more than 35 inches); low HDL cholesterol (under 40 in men, under 50 in women); or elevated fasting glucose.
About one-fourth of adults has three or more of these symptoms.
"Put these people on a low-carb diet and they'll not only lose weight, which always helps these conditions, but their blood levels will improve," Phinney says. In a 12-week study published in 2008, Phinney and his colleagues put 40 overweight or obese men and women with metabolic syndrome on a 1,500-calorie diet. Half went on a low-fat, high-carb diet. The others went on a low-carb, high-fat diet. The low-fat group consumed 12 grams of saturated fat a day out of a total of 40 grams of fat, while the low-carb group ate 36 grams of saturated fat a day — three times more — out of a total of 100 grams of fat.
Despite all the extra saturated fat the low-carb group was getting, at the end of the 12 weeks, levels of triglycerides (which are risk factors for heart disease) had dropped by 50% in this group. Levels of good HDL cholesterol increased by 15%.
In the low-fat, high-carb group, triglycerides dropped only 20% and there was no change in HDL.
The take-home message from this study and others like it is that — contrary to what many expect — dietary fat intake is not directly related to blood fat. Rather, the amount of carbohydrates in the diet appears to be a potent contributor.
"The good news," adds Willett, "is that based on what we know, almost everyone can avoid Type 2 diabetes. Avoiding unhealthy carbohydrates is an important part of that solution." For those who are newly diagnosed, he adds, a low-carb diet can take the load off the pancreas before it gets too damaged and improve the condition — reducing or averting the need for insulin or other diabetes meds.
http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif
Americans can also blame high-carb diets for why the population has gotten fatter over the last 30 years, says Phinney, who is co-author of "The New Atkins for a New You" (Simon & Schuster, 2010).
"Carbohydrates are a metabolic bully," Phinney says. "They cut in front of fat as a fuel source and insist on being burned first. What isn't burned gets stored as fat, and doesn't come out of storage as long as carbs are available. And in the average American diet, they always are."
Here's how Phinney explains it: When you cut carbs, your body first uses available glycogen as fuel. When that's gone, the body turns to fat and the pancreas gets a break. Blood sugar stabilizes, insulin levels drop, fat burns. That's why the diet works for diabetics and for weight loss.
When the body switches to burning fat instead of glycogen, it goes into a process called nutritional ketosis. If a person eats 50 or fewer grams of carbs, his body will go there, Phinney says. (Nutritional ketosis isn't to be confused with ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition that can occur in diabetics.)
Beyond the fat-burning effects of ketosis, people lose weight on low-carb diets because fat and protein increase satisfaction and reduce appetite. On the flip side, simple carbs cause an insulin surge, which triggers a blood sugar drop, which makes you hungry again.
"At my obesity clinic, my default diet for treating obesity, Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome is a low-carb diet," says Dr. Eric Westman, director of the Lifestyle Medicine Clinic at Duke University Medical Center, and co-author of the new Atkins book. "If you take carbohydrates away, all these things get better."
Though the movement to cap carbs is growing, not all nutritional scientists have fully embraced it. Dr. Ronald Krauss, senior scientist at Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute and founder and past chair of the American Heart Assn.'s Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism, says that while he fundamentally agrees with those advocating fewer dietary carbs, he doesn't like to demonize one food group.
http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif
That said, he adds, those who eat too many calories tend to overconsume carbohydrates, particularly refined carbohydrates and sugars. "It can be extremely valuable to limit carbohydrate intake and substitute protein and fat. I am glad to see so many people in the medical community getting on board. But in general I don't recommend extreme dietary measures for promoting health."
Joanne Slavin, professor of nutrition at the University of Minnesota and a member of the advisory committee for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is less inclined to support the movement. The committee, she says, "looked at carbohydrates and health outcomes and did not find a relationship between carbohydrate intake and increased disease risk."
Most Americans need to reduce calories and increase activity, Slavin adds. Cutting down on carbs as a calorie source is a good strategy, "but making a hit list of carbohydrate-containing foods is shortsighted and doomed to fail, similar to the low-fat rules that started in the 1980s."
As nutrition scientists try to find the ideal for the future, others look to history and evolution for answers. One way to put our diet in perspective is to imagine the face of a clock with 24 hours on it. Each hour represents 100,000 years that humans have been on the Earth.
On this clock, the advent of agriculture and refined grains would have appeared at about 11:54 p.m. (23 hours and 54 minutes into the day). Before that, humans were hunters and gatherers, eating animals and plants off the land. Agriculture allowed for the mass production of crops such as wheat and corn, and refineries transformed whole grains into refined flour and created processed sugar.
Some, like Phinney, would argue that we haven't evolved to adapt to a diet of refined foods and mass agriculture — and that maybe we shouldn't try.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Soy Alert!


Soy Alert!

Confused About Soy?--Soy Dangers Summarized

·         High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.
·         Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.
·         Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.
·         Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.
·         Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body's requirement for B12.
·         Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D.
·         Fragile proteins are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.
·         Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.
·         Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods.
·         Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.

 

Here are some of the studies done showing adverse effects of Soy

2000
Nagata C. Ecological study of the association between soy product intake and mortality from cancer and heart disease in Japan. International Journal of Epidemiology Oct 2000; 29(5):832-6. This study contained the following official conclusion: "The present study provides modest support for the preventive role of soy against stomach cancer and heart disease death." However, only the association with lower heart disease death is correct. What the study actually found was that "Soy protein intake was significantly correlated with stomach cancer mortality rate in men" and "soy product intake estimated as total amount as well as isoflavone and soy protein intake were significantly positively correlated with colorectal cancer mortality rates in both sexes." In other words, men who consumed lots of soy had more stomach cancer and men and women who consumed lots of soy had more colorectal cancer. These results are especially interesting as soy proponents often claim that Asians have lower rates of colorectal cancer because they eat more soy.
2001 
Strom BL and others. Exposure to soy-based formula in infancy and endocrinological and reproductive outcomes in young adulthood. JAMA 2001 Nov 21;286(19):2402-3. Although reported in the media as a vindication of soy infant formula, the study actually found that soy-fed infants had more reproductive problems and more asthma as adults.
2001
Massey LK and others. Oxalate content of soybean seeds (Glycine max: Leguminosae), soyfoods, and other edible legumes. J Agric Food Chem 2001 Sep;49(9):4262-6. Soy foods were found to be high in oxalates and likely to contribute to kidney stones.
2002
Khalil DA and others. Soy protein supplementation increases serum insulin-like growth factor-I in young and old men but does not affect markers of bone metabolism. J Nutr 2002 Sep;132(9):2605-8. Men consuming soy protein had higher levels of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) than those consuming milk protein. According to many other studies (but not stated in the report), high levels of IFG-I are also found in rBGH milk and have been implicated in causing hormonal cancers.
2002
Sun CL and others. Dietary soy and increased risk of bladder cancer: the Singapore Chinese Health Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Dec;11(12):1674-7. People who consumed 92.5 grams of soy per 1000 Kcal were found to be 2.3 times more likely to be at risk for bladder cancer. The results were calculated to factor in levels of education and cigarette consumption in study participants.
2003
Lack G and others. Factors associates with the development of peanut allergy in childhood. N Engl J Med 2003 Mar 13;348(11):977-85. The number of children with life-threatening peanut allergies has tripled during the last decade. This study suggests a link between consumption of soy-based formula and the development of peanut allergies. Scientists at the University of Bristol monitored 14,000 babies in the southwest of England. Among the 49 children who developed a peanut allergy, almost a quarter had consumed soy milk during their first two years. (Less than 5 percent of babies overall receive soy formula in the UK.) According to lead researcher Gideon Lack, "These results suggest that sensitization to peanut may possibly occur. . . as a result of soya exposure."
2004
Conrad S and others. Soy formula complicates management of congenital hypothyroidism.Archives of Disease in Childhood 2004 Jan;89(1):37-40. Soy formula was found to increase the level of thyroid stimulating hormones in infants.
2008
Hogervorst E and others. High Tofu Intake Is Associated with Worse Memory in Elderly Indonesian Men and Women. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 2008;26(1):50-7. The study found that those who ate tofu regularly had worse memory than those who did not. The study also found that tempe consumption increased memory, possibly due to its high levels of folate caused by fermentation.
2008
Banta JP and others. Whole soybean supplementation and cow age class: Effects on intake digestion, performance and reproduction of beef cows. J Anim Sci 2008.86: 1868-78. Experiments conducted found that whole soybean supplement caused increased luteal activity in mature cows at the start of the breeding season . In 2 year old cows it caused less luteal activity than normal.