Author Topic: gyno and soy  (Read 16768 times)

Offline bennj51189

  • Bronze Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
Hey guys I just recently became vegetarian and wanted to know how true is it that soy is linked to raising hestrogen levels and therefore growing more gynecomastia or man boobs. I already have a little gynecomastia, and I dont want it getting any bigger. I read for the first time about this myth on a body building site forum about 12 seconds ago. Really scares me. Any truth to it?

I just almost accepted my gyno and am going to work on ever other part of my body for now, and possibly get surgery when im looking great otherwise. Still not sure my stance on the surgery. But anyways I would not be able to handle any growth in gyno...Please credible answers thank you guys so much!

Offline mmaman

  • Silver Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
There have been studies showing that very large amounts of soy can cause breast enlargement within a few months.  You don't need to eat a lot of soy to be a vegetarian.  I have been one for 3 years and I rarely if ever eat soy.  Are you a vegan?   

Offline Dr. Elliot Jacobs

  • Elliot W. Jacobs, MD, FACS
  • Senior Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4740
    • Gynecomastia Surgery
Soy is known to contain phyto (plant) estrogens.  I would certainly minimize your intake of soy.

Dr Jacobs
Dr. Jacobs 
Certified: American Board of Plastic Surgery
Fellow: American College of Surgeons
Practice sub-specialty in Gynecomastia Surgery
4800 North Federal Highway
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
561  367 9101
Email:  dr.j@elliotjacobsmd.com
Website:  http://www.gynecomastiasurgery.com
Website:  http://www.gynecomastianewyork.c

Offline skyhawk

  • Gold Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
When eating processed foods, we are consuming more soy than we realize. Its in just about everything. Difficult to avoid. Watch out for those energy bars. Most contain a bunch of soy protien. I make a daily effort to avoid soy, still I know I get some.

 

Offline Paa_Paw

  • Senior Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4779
There are many vegetables that contain phytoestrogens, Soy is only one of them.

Phytoestrogens are plant compounds that are similar to estrogen. They are weaker than Estrogen by factors of many hundreds. In some cases they may act like estrogen if you consume large quantities of them. Conversely, there is some belief that they might block Estrogen receptors and minimize feminization in some cases.

I think your best bet is to not worry too much about Phytoestrogens and simply eat a varied diet. I don't think they are a big deal unless you consume a lot of one thing such as a soy isoflavone concentrate.

Good Luck!
Grandpa Dan

Offline bennj51189

  • Bronze Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
Soy is known to contain phyto (plant) estrogens.  I would certainly minimize your intake of soy.

Dr Jacobs

How small should my soy intake be?

Offline Grandpa Bambu

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5444
  • 31 Year Gynecomastia Victim...


I think your best bet is to not worry too much about Phytoestrogens and simply eat a varied diet. I don't think they are a big deal unless you consume a lot of one thing such as a soy isoflavone concentrate.

Good Luck!

Agree 100%.  Moderation is the key...

Good advice Paw...

GB
Surgery: February 16, 2005. - Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Surgeon: Dr. John Craig Fielding   M.D.   F.R.C.S. (C) (416.766.8890)
Pre-Op/Post-Op Pics

Offline headheldhigh01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4079
  • destined to stand on a beach shirtless
i'm going to respectfully disagree with the dr on this one, having taken a look at this issue as a vegan myself.  moderation with anything is good, but my soy intake is probably well above normal, with, anecdotally, no ill effects on my existing gyne one way or the other in almost 20 years.  here's my take, reprinted from a past post.

the “estrogen” you hear about is actually phytoestrogens which are actually generally good for you, they have something like 1/500th the effect of regular estro and as i understand it actually compete with regular for chemical receptors and could therefore actually inhibit the estro effect.

this always smells like scare tactics from the frightened boys in the dairy and beef industry who i think are the REAL culprits.  since this comes up from time to time, excuse me if i quote from a past post on the subject. i left out the parts on recent studies of arsenic in chicken, pcb's in fish, etc., though that was nasty too.  for the record, i'm also vegan, meaning pure vegetarian, no eggs or dairy (for ethics reasons more than the health, though that's a plus too), so see if you find this interesting.  from the 2/04 monthly newsletter of dr. michael greger:

Quote

V. MAILBAG: "Why did the Ukraine ban our meat?"
 
I just got an email from someone who read the hilarious column in Friday's San Francisco Chronicle (online at http://tinyurl.com/2b2qr) . Her questions was "I've heard about bovine growth hormone in the milk supply, but I didn't know that we used hormones in meat."
 
For more than fifty years, U.S. farmers have used both natural and artificial hormones to increase the growth rates of livestock. Just like bodybuilders can bulk up on steroids, these steroid hormones make cattle grow bigger and faster. Of course the USDA doesn't like to call them growth hormones, they call them "meat quality enhancers," which they note is a "more consumer friendly term."
 
According to the USDA, these hormones can eliminate as many as 21 days of feeding time-same weight, 21 days earlier-which saves lots of money. But Europe in the eighties had just gotten over this thing where little babies started growing breasts and menstruating after eating baby food made from veal calves pumped with the hormone DES and then there were all these cancers and genital deformities and so January 1st, 1989 Europe banned the production and consumption of hormone laden meat.
 
Major beef exporters such as Argentina. Australia, New Zealand, Brazil all agreed to ship hormone free meat to Europe, but the U.S. was not going to be stopped. Not only would the profits of the beef industry suffer (and we know how much the beef industry doesn't like to see things suffer Wink, but the profits of the hormone manufacturers- Monsanto, Eli Lilly, Upjohn-would take a hit. And as powerful as the beef lobby is, you do not mess with the pharmaceutical industry.
 
The US took the European Union before the World Trade Organization demanding that Europe drop its ban on American beef. And of course, the World Health Organization struck down Europe's public health law, and demanded Europe drop the ban or face stiff penalties. And Europe decided to maintain the ban and stomach the financial consequences, which it has for years now.  They are willing to pay $50 million dollars a year to protect their citizens from American beef.
 
Growth promoting hormones, with names like "Steer-oid" are fed, implanted or injected into more than 95% of U.S. cattle. They implant estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, and a number of synthetic steroids. The FDA insists that, when properly used, these sex steroids pose no risk to humans.  This is the same agency, though, that, under pressure from the poultry industry, took 20 years to ban DES, the hormone that caused all the v.aginal cancers in the daughters of mothers exposed to it.
 
The European Union commissioned their own panel of scientists review the available research on the hormones in American meat and concluded that they "may cause a variety of health problems including cancer, developmental problems, harm to immune systems, and brain disease.  Even exposure to small levels of [hormone] residues in meat and meat products carries risks."
 
The European Commission identified one hormone in particular as a "complete carcinogen," acting as both a tumor initiator and a tumor promoter. They explained, "In plain language, this means that even small additional doses of residues of this hormone in meat, arising from its use as a growth promoter in cattle, has an inherent risk of causing cancer." The French Agriculture Minister simply declared that the United States had the, "worst food in the world." Even research done here by National Cancer Institute has found that some of the synthetic estrogen-like hormones U.S. ranchers continue to implant can indeed stimulate the growth of human breast cancer cells.
 
The U.S. government was not happy with Europe's report. The U.S. Agriculture Secretary held a press conference and said 'The European Commission has issued yet another misleading report."
 
In response the European Union replied, "The commission is deeply concerned about the US attempt to belittle the risk which scientists have identified. [We] cannot understand why the US has not reacted in a more responsible way to the conclusive findings of the scientific committee. It is all the more incomprehensible as pre-pube[scent] children are the population group most at risk from the hormones."
 
Indeed, because children they have such low baseline levels, an 8 year boy, for example, eating two burgers increases his level of sex hormones by almost 10%. And lifelong exposures like that might increase the risk of developing cancer.
 
The incidence of reproductive cancers has skyrocketed since U.S. farmers started using these sex steroids in meat. Compared to 1950, we have 55% more breast cancer, 120% more testicular cancer, and 190% more prostate cancer here in the United States. Now that's not to say that the hormones in meat are the cause, but as one prominent cancer researcher noted, "The question we ought to be asking, is not why Europe won't buy our hormone-treated meat, but why we allow beef from hormone-treated cattle to be sold [here in America]..."

so far from being a culprit, i bet soy would keep us safer from gyne that i suspect has taken off in the last half century specifically because of the same meat and dairy industry, who time might just prove are to blame for this curse instead.
 

« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 12:16:02 AM by headheldhigh01 »
* a man is more than a body will ever tell
* if it screws up your life the same, is there really any such thing as "mild" gyne?

Offline Joey101

  • Posting Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
This may be coincidental, but around the time when I started noticing my gyne I was drinking a lot of soya milk. I was trying to eat more healthily and soy milk is apaprently very nutritious - I also read an article that claimed soy could prevent male hairloss, something which I'm worried about - stupid really.

I've cut down on it now, in the hopes it might help the gyne

Offline outertrial

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
This thread is giving me deja vu. Look just dont eat or drink anything and you'll be fine.

Offline Bman41

  • Gold Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
Yup... can't drink the water either.... 

http://chicagoist.com/2008/03/10/ill_have_the_wa.php


This thread is giving me deja vu. Look just dont eat or drink anything and you'll be fine.

Offline chubbyfats

  • Posting Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
what about after gyne operation and my boobies are removed. would i be able to eat any ammount of soy and be safe from them growing back?

Offline headheldhigh01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4079
  • destined to stand on a beach shirtless
yes.  by "any" i wouldn't recommend 5 kg at a sitting, but read the article in reply 9 on this thread, it shows you even a large amount by normal standards doesn't put you in the danger zone.  and if you didn't read my post above, look at it too. 

Offline captklenk

  • Posting Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Soy made my gyno worse, no question about it. However I was taking 2-3 soy shakes a day before I found out the link between the two and stopped. I couldn't figure out why the gyno was getting worse. Some people have no issues but I certainly did.

Offline KE25

  • Posting Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
i'm going to respectfully disagree with the dr on this one, having taken a look at this issue as a vegan myself.  moderation with anything is good, but my soy intake is probably well above normal, with, anecdotally, no ill effects on my existing gyne one way or the other in almost 20 years.  here's my take, reprinted from a past post.

the “estrogen” you hear about is actually phytoestrogens which are actually generally good for you, they have something like 1/500th the effect of regular estro and as i understand it actually compete with regular for chemical receptors and could therefore actually inhibit the estro effect.

this always smells like scare tactics from the frightened boys in the dairy and beef industry who i think are the REAL culprits.  since this comes up from time to time, excuse me if i quote from a past post on the subject. i left out the parts on recent studies of arsenic in chicken, pcb's in fish, etc., though that was nasty too.  for the record, i'm also vegan, meaning pure vegetarian, no eggs or dairy (for ethics reasons more than the health, though that's a plus too), so see if you find this interesting.  from the 2/04 monthly newsletter of dr. michael greger:

Quote

V. MAILBAG: "Why did the Ukraine ban our meat?"
 
I just got an email from someone who read the hilarious column in Friday's San Francisco Chronicle (online at http://tinyurl.com/2b2qr) . Her questions was "I've heard about bovine growth hormone in the milk supply, but I didn't know that we used hormones in meat."
 
For more than fifty years, U.S. farmers have used both natural and artificial hormones to increase the growth rates of livestock. Just like bodybuilders can bulk up on steroids, these steroid hormones make cattle grow bigger and faster. Of course the USDA doesn't like to call them growth hormones, they call them "meat quality enhancers," which they note is a "more consumer friendly term."
 
According to the USDA, these hormones can eliminate as many as 21 days of feeding time-same weight, 21 days earlier-which saves lots of money. But Europe in the eighties had just gotten over this thing where little babies started growing breasts and menstruating after eating baby food made from veal calves pumped with the hormone DES and then there were all these cancers and genital deformities and so January 1st, 1989 Europe banned the production and consumption of hormone laden meat.
 
Major beef exporters such as Argentina. Australia, New Zealand, Brazil all agreed to ship hormone free meat to Europe, but the U.S. was not going to be stopped. Not only would the profits of the beef industry suffer (and we know how much the beef industry doesn't like to see things suffer Wink, but the profits of the hormone manufacturers- Monsanto, Eli Lilly, Upjohn-would take a hit. And as powerful as the beef lobby is, you do not mess with the pharmaceutical industry.
 
The US took the European Union before the World Trade Organization demanding that Europe drop its ban on American beef. And of course, the World Health Organization struck down Europe's public health law, and demanded Europe drop the ban or face stiff penalties. And Europe decided to maintain the ban and stomach the financial consequences, which it has for years now.  They are willing to pay $50 million dollars a year to protect their citizens from American beef.
 
Growth promoting hormones, with names like "Steer-oid" are fed, implanted or injected into more than 95% of U.S. cattle. They implant estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, and a number of synthetic steroids. The FDA insists that, when properly used, these sex steroids pose no risk to humans.  This is the same agency, though, that, under pressure from the poultry industry, took 20 years to ban DES, the hormone that caused all the v.aginal cancers in the daughters of mothers exposed to it.
 
The European Union commissioned their own panel of scientists review the available research on the hormones in American meat and concluded that they "may cause a variety of health problems including cancer, developmental problems, harm to immune systems, and brain disease.  Even exposure to small levels of [hormone] residues in meat and meat products carries risks."
 
The European Commission identified one hormone in particular as a "complete carcinogen," acting as both a tumor initiator and a tumor promoter. They explained, "In plain language, this means that even small additional doses of residues of this hormone in meat, arising from its use as a growth promoter in cattle, has an inherent risk of causing cancer." The French Agriculture Minister simply declared that the United States had the, "worst food in the world." Even research done here by National Cancer Institute has found that some of the synthetic estrogen-like hormones U.S. ranchers continue to implant can indeed stimulate the growth of human breast cancer cells.
 
The U.S. government was not happy with Europe's report. The U.S. Agriculture Secretary held a press conference and said 'The European Commission has issued yet another misleading report."
 
In response the European Union replied, "The commission is deeply concerned about the US attempt to belittle the risk which scientists have identified. [We] cannot understand why the US has not reacted in a more responsible way to the conclusive findings of the scientific committee. It is all the more incomprehensible as pre-pube[scent] children are the population group most at risk from the hormones."
 
Indeed, because children they have such low baseline levels, an 8 year boy, for example, eating two burgers increases his level of sex hormones by almost 10%. And lifelong exposures like that might increase the risk of developing cancer.
 
The incidence of reproductive cancers has skyrocketed since U.S. farmers started using these sex steroids in meat. Compared to 1950, we have 55% more breast cancer, 120% more testicular cancer, and 190% more prostate cancer here in the United States. Now that's not to say that the hormones in meat are the cause, but as one prominent cancer researcher noted, "The question we ought to be asking, is not why Europe won't buy our hormone-treated meat, but why we allow beef from hormone-treated cattle to be sold [here in America]..."

so far from being a culprit, i bet soy would keep us safer from gyne that i suspect has taken off in the last half century specifically because of the same meat and dairy industry, who time might just prove are to blame for this curse instead.
 




Not trying to argue that hormones in meat production are good or bad, but having lived in Europe for way too long I can assure you that they are not willing to pay 50 million dollars (or whatever) to protect their population from US beef but rather they are ok with paying it to protect their markets from superior tasting products. They don't have any problems with their farmers using all sorts of chemicals or even selling rotten beef as long as it happens within their own EU protective and cross-subsidized market. Dispite popular belief, Europeans eat as much junk as we do. The EUs ban on genetically altered food has nothing to do with any serious concerns about health or the environment (which would be questionable in itself) but rather to keep at bay their farming lobby and the quasi religious "green" movement which has grown to be a significant political factor.


 

SMFPacks CMS 1.0.3 © 2024