Not my problem. By the way, I can find many sites that tell us that you can consume as much phytoestrogens as you like, and it will be better, substituting soy and peas for meat.
You asked if I was concerned and I said no. But your first retort is "not my problem." To summarize you care about my opinion only if I agree with you but try to gaslight me when I have a different opinion.
You now are directed to the National Institute of Health links I gave another poster, actual studies, feel free to deny them.
So in another post, directed to another person you made links which I could not see and comment on. But I am somehow supposed to know what they were. Why don't you link them here?
Already it has been found that women raised on soy milk substitute have longer and more painful periods and are at risk of uterine fibroids
Citation needed.
The problem with the idea that phytoestrogens are good for you is that long term studies have not been made.
Shifting the burden argument. Plants have had phytoestrogens forever. Forever. People have consumed them since forever. Your argument is that I must somehow prove to me they are safe instead of you proving they are dangerous.
Red herring argument. First of all your link goes nowhere. Second, what I posted again was has not been any studies that say they are bad. This is the opposite of tobacco where there are numerous studies that show that it was bad for you.
And don't let us forget that the Sugar industry paid Harvard to falsely claim fat was a health culprit, not sugar. The disastrous results are still with us today. Morbidly obese people who think fat caused their obesity. https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org]. Actual Nutritionists knew better. They knew the faked results were just that - fake. They used actual legit research, not bribes.
And what does this have to do with people who have been eating plants since before recorded history? So there was a Big Plant industry in the cavemen era keeping us from learning the truth by bribing Neaderthals? I guess when all you have is a hammer, everything must be a nail.
A friend at an early workplace was the recipient of one of the earliest bypass operations. He was told by the hospital nutritionists that nee needed to limit sugars, and always eat moderate amounts of fats. He lived quite healthily until his mid-90's. All that despite the sugar industry and its claims otherwise.
Let me see if I understand your sentence. A person facing heart bypass surgery was told he should practice moderation in his diet. And?
I'm inclined to trust science, even then, I'm a skeptic.
Your posts say otherwise. Part of science is the recognition of the limits of the research conclusions.
However, I can grok that since our endocrine system plays a powerful role in our health and under normal circumstances, our sex based differences, that proven disruptors might cause problems.
The words "proven" and "might" are the problems in your statement. These disruptors have not been proven to be cause problems. "Might" is the keyword until we know more.
I can look at even handed research like that from the NIH, can consult with nutritionists, can look around results like gynomastia in males, and uterine fibroids in women, and connect some dots.
So you are placing equal weight between even scientific research with your uneven observations and speculations.
But I recommend you eat as much of endocrine disruptors containing plant products as you can. You might be used as part of a long term study some day, helping humanity.
I am not going to listen to anything you recommend. You are a random person on the Internet who has biased conclusions based on little evidence but their own personal observations. It is a lack of humility that you think your opinions means anything to anyone else.
