All Topics → Forum: Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment → Topic: List of Estrogen Mimickers?
Posted on: Feb 4, 2009 07:37PM
I am trying to compile a list of all the known estrogen mimickers that can be used topically or injested and should be avoided by E.R. positive folks like myself. Here are some that I am aware of:
soy (yes, but must be in quantities greater than 50mg/day)
flax seed (again, in high doses)
There's the extent of my estrogen avoidance. Can anyone supply some more substances we E.R./P.R. positive gals should avoid? Thanks!Log in to post a reply
Posts 1 - 23 (23 total)
Feb 5, 2009 09:11AM LaurelS wrote:
Below you will find a few links regarding tea tree and lavender. I happen to love tea tree, but have decided to err on the side of caution so I use it sparingly and infrequently. Another problematic product is supposedly perfume which contains an element that mimics estrogen. I read that in a book that I have loaned to a friend. I will try to follow up on that also.
Hope this links help.
Feb 17, 2010 04:54PM PS73 wrote:
TraciEllen - word!
Everything that is living has estrogen - a seed, a fruit, a plant. Dairy and meat from the host and even bread in some cases. I don't know about packaged and canned food (dead food). Would be interesting if our drs started pushing us to only eat these types of foods.
Feb 17, 2010 04:59PM Padiddle wrote:
Just a thought: If we can't avoid estrogen mimickers, would the AI block them anyway? Jean
Feb 17, 2010 05:13PM fairy49 wrote:
Estrogen is not bad for you! the issue is estrogen dominance and having your hormones out of whack and not balanced, if estrogen is balanced by progesterone and your other hormones, estrogen dominance won't be an issue.
Feb 17, 2010 06:00PM PS73 wrote:
Fairy - I agree with you about the balance and I don't think estrogen is bad - the bad xenos or the artificial hormone induced estrogens yes. I think it will come down to doctors telling people to avoid all plant based foods until its studied by a panel, a dr and a clinician and patients realizing that their doctors may not know much about nutrition and demanding answers. Hopefully a dietician who knows about hormones will join the ranks for each oncologist since BC is considered a hormone disease. I am hopeful but personally there is no way I am waiting around for that to happen. Its logical that plants/fruits/nuts/seeds should be incorporated into a daily diet. Look at pomegrante and soy and the back and forth - these have mega amounts of phytoestrogens and isoflavones and both have been scrutinized and then popularized again. My point is that anything living has (phyto)estrogen -I personally wouldnt get rid of foods that are naturally grown.
Feb 17, 2010 06:24PM , edited Feb 17, 2010 06:51PM by mathteacher
I wonder when doctors will discover breast cancer isn't about too much estrogen????
If estrogen was the culprit, wouldn't my three college-age daughters be more likely to get breast cancer than little ole menopausal me?
Feb 17, 2010 06:44PM fairy49 wrote:I agree that its not all about the estrogen, I do firmly believe its about the imblance of the hormones. If you don't counteract estrogen with progesterone, there will be a problem.
Feb 17, 2010 06:49PM Timothy wrote:
As mentioned, not all substances previously believed to be phytoestrogens are in fact estrogenic. Phytosterols for example. They jumped to conclusions from testing wood pulp extract. When various tests were later performed on phytosterols in isolation, betasterol for example, it had none of the estrogenic properties of the wood pulp extract. Something else in the mixture was estrogenic aside from the phytosterols. So make sure the research you rely upon is up to date.
Feb 17, 2010 06:56PM , edited Feb 17, 2010 06:56PM by mathteacher
I think you're right, Fairy. Progesterone is the first hormone to wane in our 30s. Estrogen stays up there for a while. I wish researchers would look more to progesterone deficiency in relation to estrogen as the problem.
I would hate to think all these poor women suffering on Tamoxifen and AIs will find out in ten years that they were suppressing estrogen when they should have been raising progesterone.
Feb 17, 2010 07:05PM fairy49 wrote:mathteacher, in my very humble opinion, that is EXACTLY what is going to happen...............when I first had my hormones tested with a naturopathic MD (oncologist wouldn't do it), my estradiol was high, but my progesterone was almost ZIP, I supplement with progesterone now to get it into the reference range, therefore balancing my estrogens, I am no longer estrogen dominant, I am about to add estriol to the mix, a "safe" protective estrogen, I refuse to get rid of all my estrogen!!
Feb 18, 2010 09:27AM PS73 wrote:
Plants have phytoestrogen or they would not develop.
Tim you mention phytosterols - what is interesting is that phytosterols have a similar molecular structure as cholesterol and therefore compete with cholesterol in the blood stream and over time, lower a persons LDL profile. Foods with high phytosterols: nuts, whole grains, fruits, vegetables.
It is concluded that dietary phytosterols retard the growth and spread of breast cancer cells. [in rats]
phytosterols could be incorporated in diet not only to lower the cardiovascular disease risk, but also to potentially prevent cancer development.
Feb 18, 2010 09:43AM Yazmin wrote:
Also: Let's go back and read that excellent link we got from CryunchyPoodleMama a while ago: that link does an excellent job out of explaining the difference between PHYTOestrogen and XENOestrogen. That might be the key to understanding what's going on. I
find it hard to believe that ALL these plants (including turmeric?) are dangerous when, in fact, they have been shown time and again to reduce risk dramatically.
Feb 18, 2010 10:05AM , edited Feb 18, 2010 10:08AM by PS73
They aren't dangerous - they are the opposite but because BC has an ER attached to it, out of fear many run away from anything with estrogen in the name. All plants have it in one form or another. I cant find the link but it prob has some good info in it. The plant estrogens have the good 2OH/weak estrogens aka phytoestrogens aka plant estrogens that counteract the bad 16OH from toxins like plastics which contain xenoestrogens plus other industrial chemical type estrogens. There are also the animals which were fed artifiicial hormones and no plants in their diet and the estrogens found in their fat. Some of the phytoestrogen containing plants are also considered to be natural AIs and will funtion similarly but on a weaker level as the AIs by rx.
*edited for grammar
Feb 18, 2010 12:08PM fairy49 wrote:nice explanation PS73!
Feb 18, 2010 04:38PM leta17 wrote:
Here is a list I had found...there are apparently foods that naturally inhibit Estrogen as well see list:
Also, on Soy, a friend had sent me this...
On Progesterone...I can't put my hands on an article I recently read, but progesterone in foods isn't as easily found as Estrogen, so many use progesterone creams. I remember Yams and Egg yolks containing Progesterone....The article I remember reading about hormones talked about BALANCE in all things and they used an Egg as an example...The white is high in Estrogen while the Yolk is high in Progesterone ... so diets that say you should only eat the whites are ignoring natures 'balance'! Hmmm, I remember eating many egg whites and no yolks...not anymore!!
With Breast Cancer what does the PR+ mean, isn't that progesterone?? Why is everyone only focused on ER+???
Mar 17, 2010 06:51PM Suembala wrote:
leta17 I posted a question similar to this under another topic because I also wondered what the PR+ status means. In my short BC experience all the attention is placed on the ER status. In trying to make some sense of the hormone receptor stuff I came across this: "The female hormone progesterone also can affect some breast cancer tumors by stimulating them to grow. A PR+ tumor is 'progesterone receptor' positive. The progesterone receptor is regulated by the estrogen receptor, which is usually also present or active in these tumors. Therefore, when the tumor is PR+, it is usally responding to estrogen. This means that medicines that block estrogen binding to the cancer cell, such as tamoxifen, or that decrease estrogen production, such as aromatase inhibitors, can be helpful in treating the tumor." This info is taken from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy895
So... I'm still wondering does this mean if a cancer has both high ER & PR values then there is serious estrogen dominance as compared with an ER+ only tumor?
Is my thinking correct when I assume that by eating estrogen mimicking foods I will keep my body from overproducing estrogen because I will now be getting this from food and this will block the binding sites thereby letting my estrogen dominant hormone situation become more balanced? Will this somehow help my progesterone level to become more balanced also? Or do I need to eat more estrogen blockers? It seems I'm like a dog chasing her tail on this one.
Jun 16, 2010 06:36AM Majdula wrote:
I believe that the role of phytoestrogens in the development and treatment of breast cancer is unclear - at leas that's what I found here: envirocancer.cornell.edu/FactS... I didn't ask my onco about that yet, but a friend of mine says that one should be "nice to their body", which means eating what you like and keep your diet as balanced as possible.