There is a discussion at Latitudes TS forum on the possible negative impact of soy infant formulae on neurological development and susceptibility to TS

there is so much detailed info posted from articles that, rather than repost all here, I will just link for anyone interested.

I must say that, although my lids never had soy or any other formula, yet this is info I had not seen before and, altho it is still very much just info and not yet verified research reports.....yet it is very interesting I think

anyway
here is the discussion there and I would be interested in what others think

http://www.latitudes.org/forums/inde...showtopic=2340

G'day! I love the way you wrote "lids".

That's rhyming slang here in Australia for kids... the tin lids LOL Not that I'd use rhyming slang too often.

Heck, you probably already know what I'll think about the soy business, but I'll take a peek.

EDITED to ADD:
It's a long thread, I will read it all later.
Just a note though, my children wouldn't have eaten soy at all when they were little as far as I remember. I don't know very much at all about soy milk formula either. Not something I used at all. There was a lot in the news recently about soy and cancer. One minute we were being warned about our consumption, the next minute they backpeddled and said it was ok in moderation. All very confusing this stuff.

aint that the truth


Lids=kids
hehehe well, I am glad to hear my typo actually still meant something

tin lids I love it!

I just thought of something while I was doing something else. I'm trying to cut down my time typing to ease some pain I'm having, but I can't help myself lol

Earlier I noticed someone on that thread mentioned the rise in numbers of people being diagnosed with TS or that TS is on the rise, or something to that effect.

(not everyone with TS does get formally diagnosed, btw, but that's a whole book so I won't write that now. lol)

Apart from a lot of other reasons, one particular reason for that would be because the actual Diagnostic Criteria have changed leaving out the distress clause. DSM IV included that. DSM IV-TR, the current edition of the manual leaves it out. i.e. Leaves out... "The disturbance causes marked distress or significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." There has been a lot of discussion about the benefits or otherwise of this in previous years.

yep.....I agree with chnged diagnostics leading to changed diagnoses!!

what actually got my attention even more with all the soy stuff was not so much any bearing it may or may not have on TS, but rather the issue of babies being exposed to the oestrogenic isoflavones
that, and the issue of high manganese and aluminum in soy formula is sure a bit alarming!!

the phytoestrogens are much weaker physiologically than mammalian estrogen.
So I always get rather confused when articles state the horrors of soy formula.

Soy WILL complex out zinc however, and that is not good.

If formula is the ONLY source of food, I would be concerned as well. If it is a supplement to a toddler, I would expect less effect.

The estrogen issues is complex... try to understand THIS:
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...stract/80/1/14

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/3/396

on rats:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_n14816156

This article gives potencies of various "estrogens"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...32/ai_20153477
Genestein is about 1000 times less potent than Estradiol.
I have read "thousand" before in earlier papers, and perhaps more than a thousand.

I have often wondered how much estrogen we get from meat. ???
Also the environment is full of estrogenic compounds as well. (water)
Some fire retardants are anti-thyroid in actions, for example.

Not an easy subject to understand, with many conflicting studies so far.

sure is a complex subject mrsD

I think the major cause for concern seems to be the infants that are being fed soy from birth and as their main nutritional source for those early developmental years

I was a vegitarian while preggers and beyond, and ate mucho soy. Though I also consumed eggs/milk/cheese.

Very interesting discussion, thanks.

I really take some issue with those scary statements about babies exposed
to estrogen from soy.

You are aware that both sexes are exposed to hormones in the womb.
Male babies have large genitalia and often can even have small breasts when
delivered. This typically resolves with time.

If babies were exposed to the level of estrogen stated in those articles--we'd SEE the effects.
Now isoflavones are very very weak estrogens, thousands of times weaker than the estrogens used in birth control pills.
So these statements are confusing and alarming without backup data, on cause/effect. Just about every living thing has estrogenic compounds in it...plants use these estrogenic related compounds as antioxidants. I recall reading an article in Science News not too long ago that estrogens are in mulloscs (snails). Babies who are breastfed get minute amounts of human hormones as well.

We would SEE the effects on the genitalia of those babies..and I have not seen articles to that effect.
However, if a female fetus is exposed to birth control pills, there can be damage to the developing genitalia of that child.. this is known.

Here is an interesting article on xenoestrogens in the environment...and I think these are much more alarming.
http://www.coem.com/conference-details.asp?confid=18
It is postulated that the increase of early menarche (in some areas in girls 8yrs old) is due to xenoestrogen and estrogen in meat exposures.

I still think we are not receiving accurate data on this topic. And it has been 10 years of controversy sadly.

interesting info mrsD ..........thanks for adding good balance to the controversy.