Soy Phytoestrogens, or Why I Don't Eat "Staples"

[ThisDinosaur]

When trying to significantly reduce food costs, the two highest yield strategies I can think of are 1) growing your own or 2) buying large, bulk quantities of nutrient dense foods that store easily. It seems to me that both strategies result in eating the same groups of foods. Specifically, staples like beans, wheat, and potatoes. So the choice of staple should come down to protein mass-per-dollar (since you only need trace amounts of vitamins and essential fatty acids, and there are no essential carbohydrates.)

Here's the problem; beans and legumes consistently top the list of protein/dollar and protein/calorie among plant foods. And they are all loaded with phytoestrogens. These are chemical compounds produced by the plant as natural pesticides; and we are the pests. They evolved, apparently, to reduce the fertility of grazing animals by disrupting the mammalian reproductive system of both male and female animals.

Spinach and broccoli would be my next choice of core foods, because they both have extremely high protein/calorie (higher than beans), but you have to eat a prohibitively large quantity per day to meet those protein requirements. And you can't store them in a pantry.

So, my question is as follows. Given the above, what food should form the core of your diet, has good protein content, is easily grown and stored, and isn't involved in a chemical warfare evolutionary arms race against us?

[7Wannabe5]

I think phytoestrogens are good if you are a middle-aged female.If you are not a middle-aged female, earthworms are very easily and cheaply raised and provide a very high quality protein percentage.

http://www.cooks.com/recipe/46m94rl/earthworm-chow.html

[Spartan_Warrior]

I have not followed this that closely and you didn't give any references, but my understanding from my bodybuilding days (aka back when I cared about such things) was that there were no conclusive studies showing a detrimental impact from phytoestrogens on testosterone production, and only tenuous evidence suggesting an increased risk for breast cancer in women. The fertility effect you are referring to has been found in ruminant digestive systems, like livestock, but AFAIK has not been shown to exist in monogastric systems like ours. Thus, while I am wary of artificial xenoestrogens, I've chosen to put the natural stuff in the "more important things to worry about" category. Particularly, I think healthy greens and legumes have far too many documented benefits to avoid over (IMO) a seemingly small amount of risk/downside.

Regardless, you might consider hunting and/or keeping animals (chickens, rabbits... earthworms) for lean protein. I started threads on these ideas a while back, but found it cost/time-prohibitive and never pursued either option to date.

[sky]

eggs, small animals, fish

We were born to eat ruminants, don't rule them out.

[Ego]

Humans are 10,000 times more reactive to animal estrogen than to xenoestrogens such as phytoestrogen.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dairy-e ... fertility/
and
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/soy-hor ... fertility/

That said, you are right to be worried about getting too much soy but for other reasons. How much is too much?

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-muc ... -too-much/

They evolved, apparently, to reduce the fertility of grazing animals by disrupting the mammalian reproductive system of both male and female animals.

I am not sure that is true. Typically plants evolved to be unattractive to insects and attractive to ruminants in order to spread the seed. I would be interested in evidence to the contrary.

[ThisDinosaur]

@Spartan_Warrior
All nutritional research is full of inconsistencies and conflicts, but this review of phytoestrogens was pretty comprehensive and even-handed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/
And you're right that there is no evidence that ingesting a xenoestrogen lowers serum testosterone, but that doesn't mean it doesn't activate/inhibit/disrupt the system at other points.

Ultimately, the conclusion seems to be that soy shouldn't be avoided, but getting the majority of your calories from it might not be as healthy as popularly believed.

With regard to animal protein, I love it. But, with regard to this exercise, I'm trying to figure out what foods could be sustainably produced at high yield on a relatively small property. That seems to rule out animal protein, as it has to be filtered through the food chain to get to me, and would necessarily result in less efficiency per unit land.

@sky
Although, I think that chicken eggs are close to a perfect food, consider how much space/how many chickens would be needed to feed a small family consistently. Or how much space would be needed to grow chicken feed, etc. Same for most other animals. Short of starting a full-sized farm, the low impact, low cost answer seems to be plant food.

@Ego
You are completely right about Humans being more reactive to animal steroids than plant steroids, which may be a compelling case against eating mammals I suppose. But, part of the problem with plant estrogens is that they are Partial agonists at some receptors, competitive inhibitors at other receptors, and full agonists at others. Meaning the resulting action on a human being is damn near chaotic. Which, again, I think is their purpose. No organism wants to be eaten. Plants avoid it by being either toxic or developing and unappealing taste. Animals avoid it by fight or flight.

@7Wannabe5
I confess that your earthworm answer took me back. It might be the closest thing I could find to the right answer, but I confess that I'm held back by the "yuck" factor. Also, if I told anyone I was considering switching from a "mostly Omelette and Casserole" diet to an earthworm-based diet, DCF would take my children away. Still, if the peak oil apocalypse happens, worms are a good fallback I suppose.

[7Wannabe5]

Oh, if you are willing to eat meat and you have a small family to feed, the answer is meat rabbits in your basement. Details can be found in "Possum Living." If I really thought the apocalypse was coming next year, I would be totally focused on meat rabbits and potatoes, because you can always gather something like dandelion greens to supplement. Don't worry, DCF will never take your children away. You have too much cultural capital for that to happen.

[Ego]

But, part of the problem with plant estrogens is that they are Partial agonists at some receptors, competitive inhibitors at other receptors, and full agonists at others. Meaning the resulting action on a human being is damn near chaotic.

Often in nature what appears to be chaos is actually a finely tuned system. The complexity is beyond our comprehension until it is not. Then it is obvious.

A berry is sweet because it 'wants' to be eaten.

[sky]

Jacob has progressed beyond lentils. He is giving away excess earthworms.

[ThisDinosaur]

I'm flabbergasted how much this forum resembles a race to reach bottom a la Project Mayhem. Its like a competition to escape civilization. I'm not sure what answer I was expecting to get, but I admit to being surprised that the conversation has quickly moved toward eating composting earthworms. Bravo, team.

In all seriousness, though. Has anyone here made earthworms a staple of their diet? Or seriously considered it?

[enigmaT120]

I think most of us don't worry about eating legumes.

[ThisDinosaur]

Touche

[7Wannabe5]

I have seriously considered processing earthworms into food, but I find that it is easier to just trade sex for steak within my polyamorous circle in alignment with post-feminist, permaculturist philosophy. Nobody is going to survive harder than me!!!

[ThisDinosaur]

Ok, "sex for steak" and "worm-eating" are now to be moved to the "Worst Case Scenario" thread.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4800

[JasonR]

o

[ThisDinosaur]

@JasonR
I may have to consider changing my username to "combat-lentils."

The traditional diet of the highest-longevity populations on earth is probably worth looking at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

Sweet Potatoes have much better vitamin content than rice, so that's a win for them.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/veg ... cts/2667/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cer ... sta/5707/2

I am somewhat wary of a bias on nutritionfacts.org toward a vegan diet. It may very well be that veganism is a legitimately ideal human diet, but research is so conflicting that I am distrustful of sources that seem to evaluate the evidence with their mind already made up.

I have my own bias in favor of foods that get most of their calories from protein, but I may have to reevaluate that in favor of my other criteria (easily grown and stored, complete nutrition with less variety,etc.)

Also, I should aknowledge that I am aware that the fastest growing and largest populations on earth all live on the staples that I'm vilifying. Their fertility does not seem to be suffering.

[sky]

I'm flabbergasted how much this forum resembles a race to reach bottom a la Project Mayhem.

So the choice of staple should come down to protein mass-per-dollar...

...what food should form the core of your diet, has good protein content, is easily grown and stored, and isn't involved in a chemical warfare evolutionary arms race against us?

I think that the question was posed in a way that lead to a price based comparison, and as good capitalists we raced our way to the bottom very quickly. It is not easy to beat the cost of factory farmed protein by growing it at home.

I think that a good low cost source of protein would be a fishing trot line, if that is legal where you live. Once you get started you can use fish parts for bait, and the cost is perhaps a half hour a day, if you check the line once a day. Add some time to clean fish for a true opportunity cost.

Another opportunity is trapping rabbit and squirrel, if that is legal where you live.

As far as growing it at home, rabbit, chicken and pig, all fed with food scraps and garden waste will be most economical.

[George the original one]

For the average person, rabbits are definitely the easy sustainable protein source. No refrigeration needed as a single rabbit is only 2-4 meals and grass is bountiful in most states unless you live in the desert.

If you live near the correct coastal area (Pacific NW), then fish, crabs, and clams are there for the taking. One person taking a day for crabbing can definitely provide a large family's protein for the week; you can choose to do the traditional crab pots with bait or just stroll the shallows with a rake. Fishing is a little less reliable, but when it's good, it's good! [I've caught one adult chinook this fall and that was 10 meals; the jack chinook I caught was 4 large meals prepared as salmon patties because he was overripe. Last year I caught 4 adult coho which yielded about 24 meals. For myself, fishing is as much an exercise program as it is nutrition.]

[jacob]

Damn, you guys have way too much spare-time

OTOH, I guess everyone needs a hobby

I haven't eating lentils in years. Does anyone know if red wigglers actually taste good? Do they taste better than lobsters(*)?

(*) "Insects of the sea". Starvation food. Thoroughly ... weird, compared to mammalian muscle tissue. Considered gourmet. For strange reasons.

Seriously, though ... what's being optimized here? If it's longevity, is the low-calorie diet worth living another decade? If it's cost, isn't food so cheap that gathering another $20k is worth being able to spend another $50/month to introduce some variety if it bothers you?

[jacob]

Beans, rice, pasta, garden produce (mainly kale, lettuce, radishes, green beans, tomatoes), chicken, potatoes, eggs, ... In short, lentils went out of fashion, locally. Not a big deal. Not a commitment. Maybe we'll change back in a few years.

FWIW, I'd rather sacrifice a few years of potential lifespan to feel happy/blissful after each meal than optimize for healthy/longevity or a well-defined six-pack if so be it. Individual mileage may vary.