Mel Siff Blog

Here are some interesting studies which indicate that (unfermented) soya may
not be a sensible dietary replacement for dairy products or lean meat in the
diet of the anyone suffering from cardiovascular disease.

————————

Soy Can Increase Heart Disease Risk

<http://www.mercola.com/2001/nov/24/soy.htm>

Loma Linda University 2001

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was measured in four groups of ambulatory adults ages
17 to 94 at our lifestyle enhancement center for chronic degenerative
diseases because of our preliminary evidence that soy milks made of soy
protein isolate included in the basic total vegetarian diet of unrefined
foods was associated with an elevated LP(a) as measured by enzyme immunoassay
on fasting serum samples.

The authors concluded that powdered soy milk significantly increases the
LP(a) and should be excluded from the diet.

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

Yet further evidence of the potential danger of eating soy and being a
vegetarian who relies on large amounts of soy products. This research comes
out of the Seventh Day Adventist hospital and therefore would be biased
toward the opposite conclusion, since large percentages of Seventh Day
Adventists are vegetarian.

——————

Soy Protein Diet Increases Lipoprotein (A) Concentrations Compared with
Casein Diet

Am J Clin Nutr March 1999;69:419-425

It’s known that dietary substitution of soy protein for casein decreases LDL-
and increases HDL-cholesterol levels. Danish researchers have now discovered,
however, that soy protein appears to increase lipoprotein (a) levels, which
suggests that use of soy protein might not be advisable in antiatherogenic
diets.

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

Elevated Lp(a) levels are a very strong risk factor for heart disease. It is
well established yet very few physicians ever check for it in their patients.
I routinely screen for this in all of my heart disease patients. This is an
interesting study that provides us with further evidence that soy is not all
it is cracked up to be.

Most of the positive studies on soy were funded by the edible oil industry
which has strongly vested multi billion dollar incentives to promote soy.
There are only several forms of soy I would recommend. Tempeh and miso are
fine for most people. One half teaspoon twice a day of tofu would also
benefit women with breast cancer as the soy has powerful lectin binders (not
isoflavones) that bind to the breast cancer cells and remove them from the
body.

—————–

The following website discusses the history of soy consumption, with special
reference to the fact that Oriental folk do not eat much soya at all:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/9/truth_about_soy.htm

Just How Much Soy Did Asians Eat?

In short, not that much, and contrary to what the industry may claim soy has
never been a staple in Asia. A study of the history of soy use in Asia shows
that the poor used it during times of extreme food shortage, and only then
the soybeans were carefully prepared (e.g. by lengthy fermentation) to
destroy the soy toxins. Yes, the Asians understood soy all right!

Many vegetarians in the USA, and Europe and Australia would think nothing of
consuming 8 ounces (about 220 grams) of tofu and a couple of glasses of soy
milk per day, two or three times a week. But this is well in excess of what
Asians typically consume; they generally use small portions of soy to
complement their meal. It should also be noted that soy is not the main
source of dietary protein and that a regime of calcium-set tofu and soy milk
bears little resemblance to the soy consumed traditionally in Asia…….

In short, not that much, and contrary to what the industry may claim soy has
never been a staple in Asia. A study of the history of soy use in Asia shows
that the poor used it during times of extreme food shortage, and only then
the soybeans were carefully prepared (e.g. by lengthy fermentation) to
destroy the soy toxins. Yes, the Asians understood soy all right!

Many vegetarians in the USA, and Europe and Australia would think nothing of
consuming 8 ounces (about 220 grams) of tofu and a couple of glasses of soy
milk per day, two or three times a week. But this is well in excess of what
Asians typically consume; they generally use small portions of soy to
complement their meal. It should also be noted that soy is not the main
source of dietary protein and that a regime of calcium-set tofu and soymilk
bears little resemblance to the soy consumed traditionally in Asia….

Perhaps the best survey of what types/quantities of soy eaten in Asia comes
from data from a validated, semi quantitative food frequency questionnaire
that surveyed 1242 men and 3596 women who participated in an annual health
check-up program in Takayama City, Japan. This survey identified that the soy
products consumed were tofu (plain, fried, deep-fried, or dried), miso,
fermented soybeans, soymilk, and boiled soybeans. The estimated amount of soy
protein consumed from these sources was 8.00 ± 4.95 g/day for men and 6.88 ±
4.06 g/day for women (Nagata C et al; J Nutr 1998, 128:209-13)………

The chief concern we have about the consumption of large amounts of soy is
that there is a risk of mega-dosing on isoflavones. If soy consumers follow
the advice of Protein Technologies International (manufacturers of isolated
soy protein) and consume 100 grams of soy protein per day, their daily
genistein intake could easily exceed 200 milligrams per day. This level of
genistein intake should definitely be avoided. For comparison, it should be
noted that Japanese males consume, on average, less than 10 milligrams of
genistein per day (Fukutake M et al; Food Chem Toxicol 1996, 34:457-61)….

Mel Siff

Milk advertisements have so long proclaimed that milk is a healthy food, that
it is a “complete food”, that it provides an excellent source of calcium, and
that one should drink it for preventing osteoporosis that most people believe
all of this to be true. On one side, we have been exposed to endless TV
commercials with healthy-looking people displaying parts of their faces
smothered with milk, and parents have come to believe the dairy industry
marketing claims to such as extent that most children are forced to drink
milk or have it on their morning cereals. Bodybuilders and many athletes
have been convinced that various milk derivatives such as whey serve as an
unrivalled source of highly concentrated protein.

On the other side, from the anti-milk lobby, we have heard that milk
consumption is associated with a great increase in the incidence of allergy,
stomach disorders, heart disease, cancer and various other diseases.

Who is correct? Can we really accept the biased proof of the healthful
aspects of milk from the huge dairy industry with its vested interests
everywhere? Equally well, can we trust that the anti-milk activists have not
grossly exaggerated the dangers of milk? Haven’t many of us, especially in
the strength and sporting world consumed huge quantities of milk since our
earliest years, without any obvious ill-effects? Isn’t the greater incidence
of heart disease and allergy among those who drink milk not due to other
possible factors?

As a dedicated and passionate milk product lover, I was convinced for much of
my life that the anti-milk lobbyists were way off track and were probably a
bunch of skinny runts who never drank large quantities of milk to help in
their quest for size and strength. However, more recently I began to
discover that both factions may be correct. Yes, milk may be both good and
bad for you, whether you are “lactose intolerant” or not!

My first clues came when I noticed how differently I responded to drinking
raw milk and pasteurised milk back in S Africa, then later when I drank milk
in the USA. I always found that certified raw milk tasted better, was very
easily digested even in large volume, and never putrefied when left
unrefrigerated, but simply became pleasantly sour, like a good yoghurt. I
simply could not understand why I consistently could not tolerate milk in
amounts greater than a cupful in the USA, until I noticed that the milk that
I drank in S Africa separated into a thick creamy layer at the top, unlike
the far less palatable milk in the USA. Then I noticed that all the milk
that I bought in the USA was “homogenized” and also found out that the
pasteurization process here may not be carried out under the same heating
conditions as my sources in S Africa.

I also noted that the milk here does not and cannot go sour, but putrefies
and becomes impossible to drink after a few days out of the refrigerator,
suggesting that it contains none of the natural bacteria which allow it to
become sour and palatable.

My feint suspicions grew far stronger that milk of itself may not be the
problem. Instead the way in which it is prepared may be the real problem, as
is the case with all other foods. That would explain quite simply why and
others have responded so differently to raw milk, pasteurised milk and
*pasteurised and homogenized* milk – clearly the processing involved must be
playing a central role in the whole affair. That should be not at all
surprising, since we all know that other foods can be overcooked, dried out
when reheating after storage in the refrigerator, become tough by poor
preparation or marinating, taste very different when microwaved compared with
roasted, and so forth. Often the digestibility can also be profoundly
affected by the manner of preparation. Why should milk be any different?

Before I go any further, here are some technical details about pasteurisation
and homogenization:

<http://www.howstuffworks.com/question147.htm>
<http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/homogenization.html>

Now, the major rationale behind pasteurisation is that it eliminates the risk
of contracting TB (tuberculosis), but the statistics have never shown that
pasteurised milk is any safer than certified raw milk. On the contrary,
studies have shown that pasteurised milk often contains a percentage of pus
from the cow’s udders (at least it is pasteurised!).

If one wishes to use certified raw milk in many States in the USA, you just
do not have that freedom of choice, because it is often legislated against on
the grounds of health risk. I cannot begin to understand or accept this
reasoning at all, because if the milk is certified, then it is TESTED for any
harmful bacteria. On the other hand, every single batch of pasteurised milk
is not tested, but merely ASSUMED to be bacteria-free after its heat
treatment. In the light of this, legislation against the sale of certified,
tested raw milk is illogical and suspect.

To help you understand more about the pros and cons of milk consumption, here
is a random collection of resources presenting myths and facts about milk in
its various forms:

———————————

Review of book Cohen “Milk the Deadly Poison”

<http://www.vegsource.com/books/milk_poison.htm>

Enter Robert Cohen, with rich experience in biological research and a risk
taker–one of his pursuits is mountain climbing. …….. Cohen divulged his
suspicions that the FDA’s approval of the bovine growth hormone represented
not only collusion between Monsanto and the FDA, but a cover-up of epic
proportions by the scientific establishment. His three-year fact-finding
journey proved him chillingly right.

Reading this book, you will learn that milk contributes to heart disease and
increases your risk of breast cancer. You will learn that milk is a poor
source of calcium and why, and that milk is a prime cause of allergies and
much more. You will learn that milk can even kill your infant.

Cohen doesn’t expect you to accept these shocking findings on faith. He
takes you by the hand as he uncovers layers of scientific fraud perpetuated
by the FDA, with assistance from JAMA, Science News, and even the Cadillac of
scientific publications, Science. In digging for scientific facts, Cohen
found that the web of deception concerning the bovine growth hormone involved
not only key players– FDA and Monsanto –but reached members of Congress as
well as a respected medical authority turned Monsanto lobbyist. At times
this book reads like a detective story…….

———————–

The Effect of Processed Milk on Calves

<http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p17.htm>

I am a retired Veterinarian; I doctored horses and cattle for 25 years and
then I did only the Small Animals. The article I read in Discover Magazine
on milk brought back many memories. When the farmers kept a milk cow on the
farm to feed the weaner calves, there were few digestive problems. But when
no dairy cows were available they went to the local store and got “Store
Bought” milk for the calves to drink. Soon the calves died with diarrhea. I
thought milk was milk but I soon found out that the Pasteurized and
Homogenized milk could not be digested by these calves. Homogenization broke
the fat globule into such a small bit that it wouldn’t curd in the stomach
and passed directly into the small intestine where it created severe
inflammation. I called it toxic enteritis. I learned to treat these cases
with Goats milk which has the largest fat globule of any milk found on the
farm. The calves made a quick recovery if the patient hadn’t gotten too
debilitated.

I too drank a lot of milk when we milked cows on the farm. I never Had any
adverse effects from drinking a quart or more at one time. When I went on to
college and I was using “store bought milk” I got so I drank very little milk
and what I did drink reacted in my system like a poison. I was told I was
allergic to milk. Now 50 years later, a friend, who has a milk cow out in
the country, asked me if I could use some milk. I accepted and for three
years now I can drink milk like I did when I lived on the farm. I have no
adverse side effects. This milk is raw milk, also not Homogenized. The only
other question I have to answer has to do with the effect pasteurization has
on the natural enzymes. The destruction of these during the pasteurization
process could effect the digestibility of milk.

————–

Myths and Deceptions about Raw Milk:

<http://www.realmilk.com/realmilk.html>

Research and Other Articles on Raw Milk:

<http://www.realmilk.com/indexpage.html>

The Crime against Raw Milk

<http://www.realmilk.com/Summer2000.html>

The Dangers of Processed Milk:

<http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20000208.htm>

Milk – The Perfect Food?

<http://www.lammd.com/A3R_brief_in_doc_format/2003-No2-Milk.cfm>

————————–

MILK DECREASES HEART ATTACKS?

<http://www.realmilk.com/heart_disease.htm>

<England– Some data just released by the Medical Research Council (MRC)
should create some interesting controversy among medical circles during the
next several months. Peter Elwood, director of the Epidemiology Unit at
Landough Hospital in Penarth, South Glamorgan, dropped a bombshell. His
ongoing life-style study of 5000 men produced some startling and very
unpopular findings. He discovered that men who drank the most full-fat milk
and ate butter (rather than margarine) had a lower risk of suffering from
heart attacks! (New Scientist 1991; 129(1759):17) ……..

In 1929, Dr. J.E. Crewe with the Mayo Foundation reported “uniformly
excellent” success using raw milk in treatment programs for high blood
pressure, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, prostate problems and
tuberculosis. He later stated that the only problem with using raw milk to
treat these ailments was that it was too simple. As such, it didn’t appeal to
the medical profession. Only raw milk seemed to be of benefit. Pasteurized
forms seemed to make most conditions worse…>

——————

Top Ten Reasons why Milk is not the Perfect food:

<http://www.ivillage.com/diet/experts/wlcoach/qas/0,5090,221846_65386,00.html>

1. It’s a great source of unwanted antibiotics.

2. Ditto for recombinant bovine growth hormone.

3. Eighty percent or more of the world’s people are lactose-sensitive or
-intolerant.

4. The homogenization process (which allows the fat to stay in suspension, so
that the cream, for example, doesn’t rise to the top) makes the fat and the
cholesterol more subject to oxidation (and therefore free-radical
generation).

5. The nations that consume the most milk also, incidentally, have the
highest rates of oesteoporosis.

6. The top 10 reasons why you should drink it have been brought to you by the
dairy industry, not by independent assessors.

7. It is very high in phosphorus, which is a calcium antagonist, so the
calcium in it is not particularly well absorbed.

8. The calcium-magnesium ratio is not particularly good.

9. It is one of the top allergens, probably the number one allergen for
children, and it is filled with (milk) sugar.

10. Calcium is not as well absorbed in the absence of some fat; hence skim
milk is an even worse choice…..

————————-

FDA Cover-up about certain aspects of Milk Industry

<http://www.hungerstrike.com/4613rbut.html>

————————

This and many other sources have convinced me that the effects of milk on the
body are very significantly altered by pasteurisation and homogenization, and
that the understanding of and consumption of milk simply on the basis of its
macronutrient and micronutrient analysis can be seriously misleading. It is
high time that the public were educated about the difference between safe
certified raw milk and the highly processed product that they buy from the
average supermarket. It would appear that many of the adverse side-effects
of milk consumption, even with a full fat content, have far more to do with
the aggressive processing of the product than any inherent ‘unhealthiness’.

Mel Siff

Here is some interesting information on the protein needs of vegetarian
athletes from Tim Wilbur’s Nutrition and Weightlifting page
(http://www.sover.net/~timw/fitness.htm). Any comments?

————————–

<http://www.sover.net/~timw/vegprotn.htm>

Two of the most pervasive myths about vegetarian diets concern protein:

Myth 1: It is hard to get enough protein on a vegetarian diet

Myth 2: Plant protein does not contain all essential amino acids and you have
to carefully combine plant foods in your diet in order to get the “right”
protein.

Both of these are false……..

The protein requirement can also be affected by the amount of carbohydrate in
the diet. Nonessential amino acids can be made from glucose, for example.
Sometimes a significant amount is made. Adequate carbohydrate supplies
reduces the need for the liver to synthesize glucose from amino acids. The
liver will make sure the blood sugar is at a minimum level, and it will break
down proteins to supply glucose if the glycogen reserves aren’t kept at an
adequate level. Brain tissue and red blood cells use 140 to 150 grams of
glucose over the period of a day for example. These two tissues require
glucose and the liver will make sure they get it, either from food or from
converting internal protein to sugar. Long duration exercise can also lead to
the burning of BCAAs. One of the effects of carbohydrates, then, is to
“spare” protein.

So what’s the daily protein requirement? Well, the average theoretical losses
amount to about 0.34 g of protein per kg body weight per day. Clearly a
recommendation to replace this loss has to have an adequate safety margin.
With 2 standard deviations added to this value, it comes to 0.45 g/kg per day
of “ideal” protein. Adding safety margins for digestibility and protein
quality, the requirement is thus in the region of 0.75g/kg……

One of the most common questions vegetarians hear is “So where do you get
your protein?”. The answer is “from everything I eat”. It is a commonly held
belief that we need lots of protein in our diet and the foods that supply
these proteins are meat, fish and dairy products. Any diet that excludes
these foods must be deficient in protein. This is false. We’ve discussed that
safe and adequate level of protein intake for the average male adult is about
56 grams. This can be just about met by eating nothing else but 1 cup of rice
and 1 cup of beans three times a day. One package of Loblaw’s tofu contains
53 grams of protein (not quite 1.5 cups). As I pointed out, it doesn’t matter
where the requisite amino acids come from — tofu can supply it just as well
as beef can, maybe even better………

———————
Mel Siff

Someone anonymously sent us this information:

———-

Creatine May Help Strengthen Older Men

Study Shows Supplement Improves Muscle Mass and Power When Combined With
Exercise
By Jayne Garrison , MS
WebMD Medical News

Dec. 28, 2001 — Creatine supplements are often used by body builders, and
there’s some evidence they help increase muscle
mass. So the question arose: Could this substance help maintain muscle in
elderly people? One new Canadian study indicates
the answer is yes.

Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan studied 33 men aged 60 to 84 who
had similar lifestyles and muscle tone.
All the men began the same weight training program. Half were given creatine and
half were given placebos. Creatine is
produced by the body and contributes to muscle growth, but our natural levels
decline as we get older.

At the end of the 12-week study, the elderly men who exercised and took creatine
had more leg strength, endurance, power,
and lean tissue mass than the men who just exercised. The study is published in
the journal Medicine & Science in Sports
& Exercise.

The news is promising for all of us as we age. Most of us, of course, have no
desire to be geriatric body builders. But
increased muscle mass and strength would help us maintain our independence well
into old age. The study did not look
at how long the benefits lasted or whether people would need to keep taking
creatine supplements indefinitely. That,
researchers say, is the next step.

Medically Reviewed
By Charlotte Grayson
© 2001 WebMD Corporation.