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
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