Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 I wrote this response to someone else who thinks that phytoestrogens are dangerous. Though I'd share this since I get a lot of questions about it. ~Doh > Notes: > phyto = plant > pseudo = false (a.k.a. artificial, chemical, or hormone mimickers) > endogenous = native, or in this case, the body's own > > *phytoestrogens are more mild than endogenous estrogen > *pseudoestrogens are stronger than endogenous estrogen > > If I may gently contradict common misconceptions about soy and > phytoestrogens.... > > Recent studies have shown that the PHYTOestrogens (not " artificial " estrogens) > are not harmful and do not have the effects that people have been blaming on > them. > I'm not saying that everyone should be living on soy, or that soy might not be > an allergen for some people. But there is very little understanding of how > phytoestrogens work in the body amongst the general population and many > doctors and scientists, as well. Recent studies (I'll try to find them, but > my memory is short) have shown that boys raised on soy formula have no health > concerns that can be blamed on the formula (though they may have health > concerns for not being raised on breastmilk!). None of the warnings about soy > estrogens bore out in the adults in the study. > > However, if > a person has been exposed to too much *artificial* estrogen - chemical, that > is, from the environment, prescription drugs, and tainted foods - then yes, > that can cause estrogen dominance. But these pseudoestrogens are structurally > and functionally different from phytoestrogens. > > If I may go further..... > > In the body when all is going smoothly, estrogen is made from progesterone and > delivered to various sites, where it attaches to hormone receptors. Pregnancy > and breastfeeding causes the body to produce less estrogen. If *nature* had > its way, females (of all mammalian species) would have babies starting roughly > at puberty, continue through the childbearing years, interrupted only to > breastfeed or to try to get pregnant again. Breastfeeding, by nature's > design, would continue for some extended time, such as we call child-led > weaning or sustained breastfeeding. Or at least until the menses return. If > these conditions happened, about 2/3 of a female's pre-menopausal life would > be spent getting a rather low exposure to endogenous estrogen. This is > somewhat simplified, but basically if we were not autonomous thinkers, if we > acted on instinct and hormones alone, that's about what would happen. We can > see some proof of that, in that the menses typically (not always! don't jump > on that statement if it wasn't true for you!) don't return for some time after > childbirth if the body is producing milk, and that one risk factor for breast > cancer is never being pregnant (i.e. estrogen dominance). > > Having fewer babies, and breastfeeding for less time than nature intended, > exposes the human body to more estrogen than it is designed to accommodate. > On top of that, in our poisoned world, pseudoestrogens come in many forms, > from cosmetics to household cleaners and chemicals, from airborne pollution to > foodborne sources, from birth control pills to HRT. These accumulate in the > body and take up the receptor sites that our endogenous hormones would > otherwise use. These stronger pseudoestrogens are *not* the same as ours and > are *not* a safe replacement for endogenous hormones. > > Plant-based hormones, on the other hand, are weaker than endogenous hormones. > Phytoestogen can take the place of our estrogen only if ours in deficient, and > even then, are mild enough that the body can tolerate them more easily than > its own endogenous estrogen. Following that line of reasoning, phytoestrogens > are considered as safe as, if not safer, than endogenous estrogen. Some > researchers are considering this as a preventative or therapeutic treatment of > breast cancer!! (If you can take up all receptor sites with mild plant > estrogens, you perhaps can prevent over-exposure to the stronger estrogens > that can lead to cancer, so goes the thinking.) > > Does this make sense? > > I can recommend some books that are not medical text (so you don't have to > drag yourself through them!) and thoroughly explain some of the above in > easy-to-understand language. > Dr. John Lee's What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer > Dr. Christine Northrup's Women's Bodies Women's Wisdom > Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book > > Having said all of that, let me reiterate that for some people this may not > bear out. Every body is different, and we don't even know how many ways we're > exposed to pseudohormones, or even what all the hormone mimickers in our > environment are. Some bodies can't produce enough estrogen, some may produce > too much. Some bodies may treat phytoestrogen as an allergen. But I think > there is a huge misunderstanding about the role of phytoestrogens in the body > because it's so easy to say, " if too much estrogen is problematic, then *all* > estrogens are problematic. " But I think research is starting to show that > that's far too oversimplified. > > HTH, > Doh > ----------- > " Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end. " > ~Anonymous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.