[Wahaika]

Accidental_booby,

You are well named. When operating under a misunderstanding and obtaining success, it can only be an accident.

The phytoestrogens, so called, are not plant estrogens. They are not any kind of estrogens and are not converted to estrogen or any other hormone in the body that I am aware of.

Good so far?

They operate because they are similar in molecular structure to real estrogen, and as such, they dock (specifically, they "bind weakly") to receptor sites on the surface of cells that have receptor sites which are meant for estrogen. Since they are "close enough" in structure, they fit. It is not unlike a skeleton key. Some action the RNA sequence for that cell, some don't. Diosgenin is close to estrogen in its molecular structure. Fenugreek has the most diosgenin content of any herb tested at the time that the discovery was made.

Now you can change your name.

Wahaika

[Hazel]

Hey Wahaika, you know a lot about the biology of phytoestrogens. Does it have the same affects as does estrogen? If it only affects the breasts, why does it only bind to receptors in the breast? If it's the same as estrogen throughout the body, then does it have the same side effects as estrogen replacement therapy? Why use plant phytoestrogens instead of synthetic estrogen?

[accidental_ booby]

Wahaika,
Like you, I rely to a large extent on the information provided in the monographs at drugs.com. It is the copyrighted material by Wolters Kluver Health 2009 that indicates the fact the diosgenin is NOT metabolized.
http://www.drugs.com/npp/wild-yam.html
If you have an argument, you must settle it with WKH.
Personally, I am not a biochemist and have no way to verify whether it does or does not metabolize but yielding to them as a higher authority, I continue to believe it does not until I see scientific data to tell me otherwise.


You said
" The phytoestrogens, so called, are not plant estrogens. "

Stedman's medical dictionary says
"phytoestrogen
phytoestrogen Pronunciation: f-t-es-tr-jin A plant constituent with a structure similar to that of estrogen.
Medical Dictionary (Stedman's)
e.g. a plant estrogen

Phyto is the Greek word for plant.

It may be called genistein, diadzein, Glycestein --there are isoflavones from soy, a plant, otherwise known as phytoestrogens because these plant constituents are SIMILAR in their molecular structure to estrogens and they ACT LIKE estrogens. A rose by any other name?
So ,fenugfreek, a plant, may have the most diosgenin of any herb, but it is still a phyto-estrogen and according to the monograph is drugs.com, it does not metabolize.

So I am not certain now how "no tingles" has been disproved. I simply replied to a post with a quote from a scientific article.

If I'm missing something here, I apologize for being THICK headed.

I'll keep my name, thank you.

[Hazel]

Accidental_booby, phytoestrogens do not need to be metabolized to work. It doesn't work by being converted into human hormones, it acts like the estrogen without being broken down.

Think of this analogy;
You have a lock (estrogen receptor), and it only opens with a heart shaped key (estrogen). Another key (phytoestrogen) is shaped like a circle, but is so similar to the other key, that it unlocks the same lock. This way, you can activate these estrogen receptors using fake estrogen (phytoestrogens). They are not metabolized. So the information you have, even though accurate, does not change the effectiveness of wild yam. It is irrelevant.

[Wahaika]

accidental_booby,

I'm sorry for giving you your own attitude right back at you, because it is rude, but if there is one thing that drives me a little crazier than I already am it is a naysayer who is ignorant of the process.

"A plant constituent with a similar structure to that of estrogen."

"e.g. a plant estrogen." (e.g. means "for example." Not exactly concrete support for your argument.)

The context of my statement, in spite of the semantics, is that plants do not produce human estrogen, which is exactly what your quote says. As such, they are not plant [human] estrogens. But yes, I am aware that misnomers like "plant estrogen" and "nutraceutical" are finding their way into the English language because someone for whatever reason put it in their dictionary. It's not unlike chairperson or congressperson, irregardless, etc. Not correct English, but they get used so much that those unaware of what is correct end up adopting them.

Anyway, I think that this clearly states exactly what I was talking about, in the intended scope. I read the entire page that you provided regarding Wild Yam at drugs.com. I see nothing that I do not already agree with. I'm not sure of the point you are making. Please elaborate.

I would have explained further but Hazel has already done a wonderful job of it.

But if you are up to the challenge, go find out exactly how the female body develops breasts, in detail, and report back. I'm sure that the medical community would be equally interested.

My point there is that the process is unknown in detail. The evidence you see on these boards is correlational, not causational. Theories are devised based on known research and proven through trial and error on an individual basis. To do something like a double blind placebo controlled study would yield almost no useful results for reasons already stated - which are that the detailed process of breast development is unknown and there are too many variables in the test subjects to form a useful result - since the process is not yet known. I'm starting to talk in circles here, but I hope that I am making my point.

I will close with this thought. It is one thing to say something cannot be done. It is another thing altogether to claim something cannot be done in the presence of those who have already done it. I find it more productive to refer to the cases where it has worked and say "it works, but we don't know why" and then engage in the discovery of "why."

Wahaika