linux123
01-01-2003, 12:24 AM
we have heard about soy's benefits, but if you do a search online for soy, along with the benefits you will also find alot of dangers of consuming soy. now i don't know how legimate both these claims are but think i am going to stay away from soy now.
one of the dangers mentioned of consuming soy is that it shrinks the brain! and can actually cause many cancers!
do a ssearch online for soy danger or dangers.
one of the dangers mentioned of consuming soy is that it shrinks the brain! and can actually cause many cancers!
do a ssearch online for soy danger or dangers.
Sponsor
YesterdaysChild
01-04-2003, 03:38 PM
Hi
I read around the internet and this is what I found:
Soy Protein: Not properly processed in the body will stop digesting of protein, necessary for overall body function.
I guess it depends on what kind of soy, how much of soy you consume and how well your individual body is able to metabolize soy.
I read around the internet and this is what I found:
Soy Protein: Not properly processed in the body will stop digesting of protein, necessary for overall body function.
I guess it depends on what kind of soy, how much of soy you consume and how well your individual body is able to metabolize soy.
auntjudyg
01-06-2003, 10:51 AM
It is impossible to sort out all that is being said about soy. From a personally experience, I am very wary of too much of the stuff.
One area of agreement, even by anti-soy people, is that fermented soy products are okay, at least in moderation. So I stick to tempeh and miso.
One area of agreement, even by anti-soy people, is that fermented soy products are okay, at least in moderation. So I stick to tempeh and miso.
Chelle1977
01-06-2003, 11:11 AM
I'm sure that soy is just like any other food. If you eat too much of it, its not good for you. Use all foods in moderation.
Magpiezoe
01-06-2003, 01:42 PM
Hello, I've never had any problem with it from an adult perspective. I remember seeing that soy baby formula is not good for babies, but I never gave my son that when he was a baby anyway so I can not vouch for the validity on that. My hubby and mother-in-law eat lots of soy products like it's going out of style. They have soy sauce everyday, but they are Chinese. I love the Soy Jerky and the baked tofu in the Chinese grocery stores. I really think that it depends if you are allergic to it just like peanuts, or if it isn't fully cooked or processed like poultry or soft cheese. They even use soy beans as a filler in famous fast food restaurants; even if they claim it's an all beef patty, it still has soy filler in it. My mom used to use breadcrumbs as filler in her hamburgers, so I'm not talking about home-made hamburgers. Soy is very high in protein, so if you have trouble with protein you may not want to eat a lot of it. It's supposed to be good for perimenopausal and menopausal women. I will admit that we never eat the silken or soft tofu. We always eat the firm, hard, baked, or dried tofu/bean curd. We always cook the firm or hard in soup or fry it. The only tofu we will eat right out of the packet or jar are baked or dried. I've seen one of my American friends eat raw (firm) tofu in a salad and she likes it, but it turns my stomach. I have to have it cooked. I also eat those vegie sausages, vegie burgers, and VEAT; but I cook it.
------------------
Magpie
------------------
Magpie
LeoW
03-07-2003, 05:33 PM
One of the best soyfoods is tempeh. (see also http://www.tempeh.info ) I don't know why it's not so popular. Besides having all the good things of soy, tempeh is easy to digest and more of the phytates are broken down. Also it contains all the original fibers.
BanShee
03-08-2003, 11:06 AM
Ya know, I love the internet but please keep in mind that there is a huge amount of misinformation out there.
Try a search for dental amalgam, herbs, fluoride, or antiperspirants and you will find every opinion under the sun - some valid and some pure conjecture.
Use common sense and good investigative skills. Minimally processed soy foods are fine - people have been eating them for decades. Soy supplements are the controversy. Dig a little deeper and you will discover the truth.
Try a search for dental amalgam, herbs, fluoride, or antiperspirants and you will find every opinion under the sun - some valid and some pure conjecture.
Use common sense and good investigative skills. Minimally processed soy foods are fine - people have been eating them for decades. Soy supplements are the controversy. Dig a little deeper and you will discover the truth.
arkie6
03-09-2003, 11:55 AM
Here are some interesting tidbits on the negative aspects of soy:
High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.
Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.
Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.
Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that can cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.
Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body’s requirement for B12.
Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for vitamin D, which is vitally important for healthy bones.
Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.
Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods to cover their bland taste.
Many soy foods, tofu in particular, contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.
Here is some more reading on the subject of soy:
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000609_soy_feature.html
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000609_soyfdaletter_feature.html
High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.
Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.
Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.
Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that can cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.
Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body’s requirement for B12.
Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for vitamin D, which is vitally important for healthy bones.
Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.
Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods to cover their bland taste.
Many soy foods, tofu in particular, contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.
Here is some more reading on the subject of soy:
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000609_soy_feature.html
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000609_soyfdaletter_feature.html
netviper13
03-09-2003, 03:36 PM
You've all read the contadicting articles out there, now I'll give you several personal experiences.
My former debate coach has been a vegetarian for a long time, and has eaten soy for well over 20 years. Her husband is the same way. Her husband coaches the college debate team here, and all members of the debate team are vegan and eat soy quite often.
None of them have experienced any of the bad possible side effects listed in those articles.
I personally have been vegetarian for about 8 months and eat soy very often, and since doing so I have only been healthier than ever before.
I hate to contradict science, but I think the actual results speak for themselves.
My former debate coach has been a vegetarian for a long time, and has eaten soy for well over 20 years. Her husband is the same way. Her husband coaches the college debate team here, and all members of the debate team are vegan and eat soy quite often.
None of them have experienced any of the bad possible side effects listed in those articles.
I personally have been vegetarian for about 8 months and eat soy very often, and since doing so I have only been healthier than ever before.
I hate to contradict science, but I think the actual results speak for themselves.
flexnfx
03-09-2003, 05:54 PM
While I am offering no data to back myself up, I have replaced much of my meat and dairy w/Soy products and have experienced 0 negative side effects.
I am by no means a comitted vegan, but I do love to research nutritional ways of eating and have found that a Soy diet can be much more beneficial than one riddled w/dairy and other such products.
One thing I would alwyas take into account is that NO MATTER what you eat, there will always be some report published by some person that says that this is bad or that is bad. Are they always wrong? No, but if something like Soy was causing people to drop dead or creating a mass cancer movement in our population, I am sure that we'd be hearing about it as people would be suing every Soy distributor left and right.
I am by no means a comitted vegan, but I do love to research nutritional ways of eating and have found that a Soy diet can be much more beneficial than one riddled w/dairy and other such products.
One thing I would alwyas take into account is that NO MATTER what you eat, there will always be some report published by some person that says that this is bad or that is bad. Are they always wrong? No, but if something like Soy was causing people to drop dead or creating a mass cancer movement in our population, I am sure that we'd be hearing about it as people would be suing every Soy distributor left and right.
Farmer Sue Tickle
03-09-2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by arkie6:
Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.
I have to disagree with you there, arkie. Soy is used heavily in the far east where breast cancer is almost non-existent. And if I have it right, it's believed that xenoestrogens are the culprits for breast cancer, and that it's phytoestrogens that save the day for Asians.
There's also no word or concept in Japanese for menopause, possibly because of the beneficial role of phytoestrogens.
Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.
I have to disagree with you there, arkie. Soy is used heavily in the far east where breast cancer is almost non-existent. And if I have it right, it's believed that xenoestrogens are the culprits for breast cancer, and that it's phytoestrogens that save the day for Asians.
There's also no word or concept in Japanese for menopause, possibly because of the beneficial role of phytoestrogens.
Farmer Sue Tickle
03-09-2003, 09:49 PM
Here's perhaps a balanced answer from a website I can't divulge :(
"Soy (especially the bran or hulls) have been vilified in certain alarmist publications and websites as antinutrient factors. This is due to the presence of phytates, compounds capable of binding calcium, magnesium, zinc and iron in the intestines and preventing their absorption. As with most issues in nutrition, one should seek to evaluate both sides of the controversy, keeping in mind the great advantage our understanding of blood type variation offers to us.
As I always like to remind people during 'this food is good' or 'this food is bad' arguments: One person's food is someone else's poison.
For example, phytates are present in many other plant sources; in wheat hulls at quite high rates, for example. In a normal diet in which soy is being consumed with a calcium supplement added into the diet, or dietary calcium sources are emphasized, or as a partial replacement for meat, fish or in combination with other plant protein sources, and where soy is not the sole dependent source for amino acids, such loss can be looked on as minimal.
Yet, as that famous radio announcer used to say: "Now, for the REST of the story!"
It has been proven that because phytates bind excess iron which can promote free radical DNA damage in the colon it can reduce this local oxidative damage. Phytates in plant fiber are also associated with reductions in the incidence of colon cancer, and directly reduce serum cholesterol and triglycerides, a partial risk factor for athersclerosis: Two areas of long term concern for those who are blood groups A and AB.
Phytates prevent absorption of excess iron in its most reactive form. Excess iron systemically, and at the level of the colon, can lead to an enhanced oxidative stress, which is implicated in heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and, of course, cancer. Additionally, phytates enhance NK cells, and can directly control many types of cancer cell growth.
So in summary, if you were a lab animal that was fed soy husks and nothing else for several weeks, you would in fact see a drop in your mineral levels. If you are an A or AB looking to minimize your risk of certain degenerative diseases by adding a rational amount of soy to your otherwise well-balanced diet, you could probably count on lowering your rate of cardiovascular and malignant disease instead. "
"Soy (especially the bran or hulls) have been vilified in certain alarmist publications and websites as antinutrient factors. This is due to the presence of phytates, compounds capable of binding calcium, magnesium, zinc and iron in the intestines and preventing their absorption. As with most issues in nutrition, one should seek to evaluate both sides of the controversy, keeping in mind the great advantage our understanding of blood type variation offers to us.
As I always like to remind people during 'this food is good' or 'this food is bad' arguments: One person's food is someone else's poison.
For example, phytates are present in many other plant sources; in wheat hulls at quite high rates, for example. In a normal diet in which soy is being consumed with a calcium supplement added into the diet, or dietary calcium sources are emphasized, or as a partial replacement for meat, fish or in combination with other plant protein sources, and where soy is not the sole dependent source for amino acids, such loss can be looked on as minimal.
Yet, as that famous radio announcer used to say: "Now, for the REST of the story!"
It has been proven that because phytates bind excess iron which can promote free radical DNA damage in the colon it can reduce this local oxidative damage. Phytates in plant fiber are also associated with reductions in the incidence of colon cancer, and directly reduce serum cholesterol and triglycerides, a partial risk factor for athersclerosis: Two areas of long term concern for those who are blood groups A and AB.
Phytates prevent absorption of excess iron in its most reactive form. Excess iron systemically, and at the level of the colon, can lead to an enhanced oxidative stress, which is implicated in heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and, of course, cancer. Additionally, phytates enhance NK cells, and can directly control many types of cancer cell growth.
So in summary, if you were a lab animal that was fed soy husks and nothing else for several weeks, you would in fact see a drop in your mineral levels. If you are an A or AB looking to minimize your risk of certain degenerative diseases by adding a rational amount of soy to your otherwise well-balanced diet, you could probably count on lowering your rate of cardiovascular and malignant disease instead. "
Magpiezoe
03-10-2003, 12:40 PM
Hello, I have a curiosity question...Since soy is a bean, why aren't other beans villianized?
------------------
Magpie
------------------
Magpie
arkie6
03-10-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Magpiezoe:
Hello, I have a curiosity question...Since soy is a bean, why aren't other beans villianized?
Soy is not a bean, it is a legume (like peas, peanuts, and lentils). And most beans and legumes are also high in phytates like soy. One big difference is that beans and most legumes are eaten mostly unprocessed and close to their natural state, unlike soy, which is higly processed in most forms available for consumption. Soy has also been highly genetically modified/hybridized from its natural form. In addition to high yield, high protein, and high fat characteristics of todays soybeans, most all soybeans grown today are "Roundup Ready" which means the plants have been "designed" to withstand direct applications of Roundup which kills virtually any other plant that is green. This makes it easy for farmers to spray for weeds without damaging their crops.
Hello, I have a curiosity question...Since soy is a bean, why aren't other beans villianized?
Soy is not a bean, it is a legume (like peas, peanuts, and lentils). And most beans and legumes are also high in phytates like soy. One big difference is that beans and most legumes are eaten mostly unprocessed and close to their natural state, unlike soy, which is higly processed in most forms available for consumption. Soy has also been highly genetically modified/hybridized from its natural form. In addition to high yield, high protein, and high fat characteristics of todays soybeans, most all soybeans grown today are "Roundup Ready" which means the plants have been "designed" to withstand direct applications of Roundup which kills virtually any other plant that is green. This makes it easy for farmers to spray for weeds without damaging their crops.
arkie6
03-11-2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Farmer Sue Tickle:
...Soy is used heavily in the far east...
Not according to the studies I have read. Perhaps the best survey of what types/quantities of soy eaten in Asia comes from data from a validated, semi quantitative food frequency questionnaire that surveyed 1242 men and 3596 women who participated in an annual health check-up program in Takayama City, Japan. This survey identified that the soy products consumed were tofu (plain, fried, deep-fried, or dried), miso, fermented soybeans, soymilk, and boiled soybeans. The estimated amount of soy protein consumed from these sources was 8.00 ± 4.95 g/day for men and 6.88 ± 4.06 g/day for women (Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Kurisu Y, Shimizu H; J Nutr 1998, 128:209-13). 8 grams isn't much, less than 1 ounce. And according to KC Chang, editor of Food in Chinese Culture, the total caloric intake due to soy in the Chinese diet in the 1930's was only 1.5%, compared with 65% for pork.
If you have studies to support your claim that soy is used heavily in the East, feel free to list them.
And if I have it right, it's believed that xenoestrogens are the culprits for breast cancer, and that it's phytoestrogens that save the day for Asians..
I don't doubt that xenoestrogens play a part in cancer, all estrogens do. High estrogen levels promote cell multiplication and high levels are associated with increased risk of breast cancer, regardless of the source. Note that Asia has higher rates of stomach cancer and stroke than the US. Could you not attribute that to soy also?
There's also no word or concept in Japanese for menopause, possibly because of the beneficial role of phytoestrogens.
Hmmm. That sounds like something right out of one of Dr. John R. Lee's books on Menopause. I agree with much of what he writes, except regarding soy. I bet their was not much concept of menopause in the US before we started eating all of these highly processed foods and pharmacuetical companies came along to save the day with drugs.
...Soy is used heavily in the far east...
Not according to the studies I have read. Perhaps the best survey of what types/quantities of soy eaten in Asia comes from data from a validated, semi quantitative food frequency questionnaire that surveyed 1242 men and 3596 women who participated in an annual health check-up program in Takayama City, Japan. This survey identified that the soy products consumed were tofu (plain, fried, deep-fried, or dried), miso, fermented soybeans, soymilk, and boiled soybeans. The estimated amount of soy protein consumed from these sources was 8.00 ± 4.95 g/day for men and 6.88 ± 4.06 g/day for women (Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Kurisu Y, Shimizu H; J Nutr 1998, 128:209-13). 8 grams isn't much, less than 1 ounce. And according to KC Chang, editor of Food in Chinese Culture, the total caloric intake due to soy in the Chinese diet in the 1930's was only 1.5%, compared with 65% for pork.
If you have studies to support your claim that soy is used heavily in the East, feel free to list them.
And if I have it right, it's believed that xenoestrogens are the culprits for breast cancer, and that it's phytoestrogens that save the day for Asians..
I don't doubt that xenoestrogens play a part in cancer, all estrogens do. High estrogen levels promote cell multiplication and high levels are associated with increased risk of breast cancer, regardless of the source. Note that Asia has higher rates of stomach cancer and stroke than the US. Could you not attribute that to soy also?
There's also no word or concept in Japanese for menopause, possibly because of the beneficial role of phytoestrogens.
Hmmm. That sounds like something right out of one of Dr. John R. Lee's books on Menopause. I agree with much of what he writes, except regarding soy. I bet their was not much concept of menopause in the US before we started eating all of these highly processed foods and pharmacuetical companies came along to save the day with drugs.
Magpiezoe
03-11-2003, 10:53 AM
Hello, First of all...please remember that Japan and China are 2 different countries and that Asia refers to more than just the oriental people. Asia includes Russa, India, Maylasia, etc. I don't know much about the Japanese, but my household is half Chinese. When we talk soy, we are not just talking about bean curd/tofu. There's soy sauce, fresh soy beans, soy skin, dried soy snacks, roasted soy beans, soy milk, and something you would call soy noodles. Chinese women still eat more soy than U.S. American women. Soy sauce is used everyday. Soy milk is used more in China, because the dairy milk is too watered down there, also a lot of Chinese (Not all Chinese.) are lactose intolerant. So what is the problem with soy? If you want to eat it, eat it. If you don't want to eat it, don't. There is no reason to try to get everyone to eat the same way you do, because we are all different. There's good and bad studies on soy, so everyone will always believe what they feel is true. There are also good and bad studies on meat and potatoes.
------------------
Magpie
------------------
Magpie
auntjudyg
03-11-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Magpiezoe:
Hello, I have a curiosity question...Since soy is a bean, why aren't other beans villianized?
They are by some . . . who hold that they all ought to be fermented before eating.
Hello, I have a curiosity question...Since soy is a bean, why aren't other beans villianized?
They are by some . . . who hold that they all ought to be fermented before eating.
rhody
03-11-2003, 09:54 PM
Don't forget also that smoking in *some* Asian countries is very high - which spikes the cancer rates up much higher than what they could be. Different lifestyles as with smoking tobacco products, combined with dietary differences can make cancer correlations more difficult to establish.
Generally speaking, people who consume a vegetarian diet are less likely to get cancer (all other things being considered equal). Can anyone explain why? My guess is that non-processed soy products consumed in moderation are probably OK, but I'm not an expert in this field. Yes, soy as a food appears to be controversial. I've always wondered about this too, but haven't had the time to research it further.
Generally speaking, people who consume a vegetarian diet are less likely to get cancer (all other things being considered equal). Can anyone explain why? My guess is that non-processed soy products consumed in moderation are probably OK, but I'm not an expert in this field. Yes, soy as a food appears to be controversial. I've always wondered about this too, but haven't had the time to research it further.
linux123
03-13-2003, 02:08 PM
my only source of soy is 'Silk soy milk', I drink it 1-2 times daily and it is all natural (atleast thats what they claim).
more research needs to be done, till than i will consume it moderately.
[This message has been edited by linux123 (edited 03-13-2003).]
more research needs to be done, till than i will consume it moderately.
[This message has been edited by linux123 (edited 03-13-2003).]
Magpiezoe
03-13-2003, 02:32 PM
Hello, I don't see anything wrong with 1-2 servings of soy milk per day. Some people drink the same amount of regular milk. It's not like you're overdosing on the stuff like some people do with potato chips. (I personally consider 1 bag of chips as an overdose, since 1 serving of chips is usually 15-20 chips.) As I said before, my husband was brought up with soy. He drank soy milk everyday when he was a child and nothing happened to him. He does go back to soy milk every now and then when he doesn't feel well. (He drinks cow's milk now, because he likes the taste better.) I like the vanilla soy milk on cereal.
------------------
Magpie
------------------
Magpie
auntjudyg
03-13-2003, 02:50 PM
Magpiezoe,
Do you think there are differences in the processing and production of the soy products your husband was brought up on with those available to most of us today that might account for some of the cautiousness?
Do you think there are differences in the processing and production of the soy products your husband was brought up on with those available to most of us today that might account for some of the cautiousness?
Angelene
03-13-2003, 08:32 PM
Well, I don't have any handy scientific information, but I do know that I have been vegan for about 4 years now, and fully benefit from soy products.
I get most of my protein from soy; I use tofu and soymilk for baking, for cooking, for substitutes in many dishes. I also was lactose intolerant and since switching to soymilk I no longer get the terrible cramping and/or bowel problems that I used to have when I was a child. My boyfriend, also vegan (for longer than I) was SEVERELY lactose intolerant as a child and has since recovered since being vegan. So I personally (from experience) think that soy products aren't out to get you, but can help you.
Now, dairy, on the other hand, I won't go into much detail about, because that will start a war. But I will say that it isn't good for you, and that's not supposed to be a blanket statement. I don't have time to type it all out right now, but if you do a search online you will find much information (and no, not just from PETA) about the misinformation given by the dairy industry to convince you to drink another mammals milk. It's eerie, if you think about it. I did...and that's why I don't.
But I do know the flip side. I have a friend who is allergic to soy, and if she drinks soymilk she gets feverish and breaks out in a rash on her face and arms. That is what I would call an adverse reaction. I happen to be allergic to strawberries. I mean, everyone has their own choice on what to eat, and like someone else said, one mans food is another's poison. Nothing about soy is inherently evil--it's not making people drop dead (I'm also paraphrasing another's point). Now, you could argue that neither is cow's milk...and you're right, it isn't lethal in small doses, but how early are girls hitting puberty these days? I think it directly relates to the amount of dairy products kids ingest, and I'm not a scientist but I can see trends. So no, no one is dropping dead from either, and no one is about to change their minds drastically either.
So no matter what sort of chemicals are in our naturally abundant food sources, whether or not they are gmo, heavily processed, etc, we need to eat. And if one thing or another leads to cancer, well, personally, I'd rather eat plants and get cancer than take the lives of millions of animals along with me. Just food for thought, no pun intended.
------------------
"Never give up, never surrender!"
[This message has been edited by Angelene (edited 03-13-2003).]
I get most of my protein from soy; I use tofu and soymilk for baking, for cooking, for substitutes in many dishes. I also was lactose intolerant and since switching to soymilk I no longer get the terrible cramping and/or bowel problems that I used to have when I was a child. My boyfriend, also vegan (for longer than I) was SEVERELY lactose intolerant as a child and has since recovered since being vegan. So I personally (from experience) think that soy products aren't out to get you, but can help you.
Now, dairy, on the other hand, I won't go into much detail about, because that will start a war. But I will say that it isn't good for you, and that's not supposed to be a blanket statement. I don't have time to type it all out right now, but if you do a search online you will find much information (and no, not just from PETA) about the misinformation given by the dairy industry to convince you to drink another mammals milk. It's eerie, if you think about it. I did...and that's why I don't.
But I do know the flip side. I have a friend who is allergic to soy, and if she drinks soymilk she gets feverish and breaks out in a rash on her face and arms. That is what I would call an adverse reaction. I happen to be allergic to strawberries. I mean, everyone has their own choice on what to eat, and like someone else said, one mans food is another's poison. Nothing about soy is inherently evil--it's not making people drop dead (I'm also paraphrasing another's point). Now, you could argue that neither is cow's milk...and you're right, it isn't lethal in small doses, but how early are girls hitting puberty these days? I think it directly relates to the amount of dairy products kids ingest, and I'm not a scientist but I can see trends. So no, no one is dropping dead from either, and no one is about to change their minds drastically either.
So no matter what sort of chemicals are in our naturally abundant food sources, whether or not they are gmo, heavily processed, etc, we need to eat. And if one thing or another leads to cancer, well, personally, I'd rather eat plants and get cancer than take the lives of millions of animals along with me. Just food for thought, no pun intended.
------------------
"Never give up, never surrender!"
[This message has been edited by Angelene (edited 03-13-2003).]
MizMicke
03-14-2003, 11:29 AM
Soy Bad for me, when ever I tried it. horriable headaches. and upset tummy.
only contact with soy has been threw a frozen treat called tufruitie. (sp) and non dairy creamer for coffee.
so for me. Bad
only contact with soy has been threw a frozen treat called tufruitie. (sp) and non dairy creamer for coffee.
so for me. Bad
NancyH
03-16-2003, 01:09 AM
Some things in moderation, ALL things in consideration! I use to be vegan, (20yrs)but developed pernicious anemia,(where my body can not absorb B12)and osteoporosis so I started to incorporate some foods I was opposed to(dairy). B12 is not easily absorbed from plant as it is from red meat or dairy. Not that is matters to me as I could eat a whole cow and still not retain B12, I need injections. Being Vegan is not without it's own risks and that is just one of them, like it or not(as I didn't)if it catches up to you and it can, you are left with a real problem. I eat soy and lots of dairy to keep my calcium and proteins up along with my injections.
LeoW
03-16-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Magpiezoe:
Hello, I have a curiosity question...Since soy is a bean, why aren't other beans villianized?
Because soy is competing with dairy products, other beans are not.
Hello, I have a curiosity question...Since soy is a bean, why aren't other beans villianized?
Because soy is competing with dairy products, other beans are not.
Magpiezoe
03-17-2003, 12:07 PM
Hello Aunt Judy, In answer to your question about the difference in the Chinese tofu product and the USA tofu products...The biggest difference that I see is aesthetics. The USA tofu products are nicer to look at from a personal perspective. As far as ingredients go I would say that the Chinese processed products contain more MSG and the USA processed products contain other ingredients like cheese, whey, and brown rice that the Chinese porcessed products don't have. You can get fresh tofu from a Chinese grocer, which isn't in a vacum packed bag. (It's floating in water like fresh mozzerlla.) When you store fresh tofu, you have to change the water every day and it has a very sort shelf life. We always cook our fresh tofu. There is no way we will eat raw tofu. That would be like eating raw meat. My family doesn't use silken tofu, but some people do. We use firm or extra firm tofu. It's easier to cook with. The firm is good in shrimp soup and the extra firm fries up really nice and crispy. When we buy packaged tofu, we buy it already baked or dried. You can even buy it already fried if you like. The baked or dried contain some type of flavoring like soy sauce, preservatives, and MSG. The tofu skin is what is formed on the top of the water when tofu is made, and you buy it dried. We rehydrate the skin and make mock duck with it or use it to wrap up some pork filling and cook it. There's nothing in tofu skin except tofu. The snacking tofu is just like beef jerky, except it is meatless. That one contains preservatives, MSG, and soy sauce or sesame oil in it. The mock duck is just tofu skin, soy sauce, sesame oil,and black mushrooms...no preservatives. The soy milk is lousey. It taste nutty like soy. The USA vanilla soy tastes much better and is thicker. That's basically it.
------------------
Magpie
------------------
Magpie
auntjudyg
03-18-2003, 11:24 AM
Hi Magpiezoe, Thanks for responding. Whenever discussions about soy and Asian vs. US eating habits come up, I have always wondered whether the US mass produced tofu/soy milk/cheese, etc. has lost something in the production process (just as many foods lose a lot in the production process here). (Or like the 100 year eggs you get here even in a Chinese restaurant are not made the traditional way.) Plus I have had my own bad experience incorporating soy into my diet (as many have), and find it hard to believe it is some physiological difference with so many Asians.
I live outside Manhattan, so I have seen the stuff you talk about down in Chinatown (will have to try it sometime to see how different it seems).
I live outside Manhattan, so I have seen the stuff you talk about down in Chinatown (will have to try it sometime to see how different it seems).
Magpiezoe
03-20-2003, 03:35 PM
Hello Aunt Judy, You're welcome. I hope you're not allergic to tofu, because it could be a problem then. Remember to cook everything and don't buy it if it's not fresh. The Chinese grocery store stuff does go bad quickly unless it's dried. As far as the thousand year old eggs...I just can't bring myself to eat those things. I even have an original Chinese recipe for them and still won't make them. The eggs are usually duck eggs soaked in soy sauce (Loaded with salt.) and coated with lyme...and I don't mean the lime fruit...It's the same stuff you put in the garden to make things grow. My husband and mother-in-law eat them once a year as a treat. Now jelly fish is another story...I love the jelly fish my mother-in-law cooks!
------------------
Magpie
------------------
Magpie
OHJELJ
03-21-2003, 04:05 PM
OK, I'm new to this board, but have recently been forced to consume a liquid only diet. In an attempt to maintain the level of protein in my diet, I have been drinking shakes made with soy protein powder. I am also within the next six months, going to start a family with my husband. Should I be cautious of using the soy protein? I usually only have one scoop of the powder per day which is the equiv. of 13 gr. of protein...
Thanks for any help in this matter! I'm so new to the alternative methods of supplementing my dient! Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks.
Thanks for any help in this matter! I'm so new to the alternative methods of supplementing my dient! Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks.
Strive to define
03-27-2003, 04:15 AM
Arkiehog-
Is soy one of the "evils" of the Atkins diet? You seem very adament.
I have been eating tofu forever, I have had no problems and my doctor recommends it as well. I haven't seen this "new research" and don't believe soy is evil or causes these problems. It has been consumed for YEARS and nobody has made these claims.
Are these new results sponsored by the beef industry? Oprah beware! ;)
Is soy one of the "evils" of the Atkins diet? You seem very adament.
I have been eating tofu forever, I have had no problems and my doctor recommends it as well. I haven't seen this "new research" and don't believe soy is evil or causes these problems. It has been consumed for YEARS and nobody has made these claims.
Are these new results sponsored by the beef industry? Oprah beware! ;)
auntjudyg
03-27-2003, 10:47 AM
Strive to define,
Excuse me for butting in, but I'm just in the mood. If you read over any number of your posts, I think you will agree that Arkie6 [Arkiehog is a different Arkie] (is passionate about most of his opinions - but personally I have never detected any agenda - he's very clear about how his views are shaped and what has influenced him.
That said, I am not completely up to date on what Dr. Atkins is saying, but as of, say, 18 months ago, I don't think he had said anything negative about soy.
As with many such claims, nobody is saying the soy is going to harm you over night, or even in a couple of months or years, but that there is a cumulative negative effect. So it is up to everyone to research and decide for themselves, share their views, and hopefully not get too antagonistics towards those who make different choices.
The "new results" are really not that new. Various studies about the potential negative effect of soy have been around for years. A quick google would point one in the direction of finding them, if interested. It might be helpful to bear in mind that even many of the anti-soy people are not criticizing the way soy have been processed and eaten in traditional manners through much of Asia. The problem comes with some researcher finding something beneficial about soy and Western companies jumping on the band wagon to mass produce it into any old form of food or identify and isolate the "beneficial" factor and put it in pill form.
Excuse me for butting in, but I'm just in the mood. If you read over any number of your posts, I think you will agree that Arkie6 [Arkiehog is a different Arkie] (is passionate about most of his opinions - but personally I have never detected any agenda - he's very clear about how his views are shaped and what has influenced him.
That said, I am not completely up to date on what Dr. Atkins is saying, but as of, say, 18 months ago, I don't think he had said anything negative about soy.
As with many such claims, nobody is saying the soy is going to harm you over night, or even in a couple of months or years, but that there is a cumulative negative effect. So it is up to everyone to research and decide for themselves, share their views, and hopefully not get too antagonistics towards those who make different choices.
The "new results" are really not that new. Various studies about the potential negative effect of soy have been around for years. A quick google would point one in the direction of finding them, if interested. It might be helpful to bear in mind that even many of the anti-soy people are not criticizing the way soy have been processed and eaten in traditional manners through much of Asia. The problem comes with some researcher finding something beneficial about soy and Western companies jumping on the band wagon to mass produce it into any old form of food or identify and isolate the "beneficial" factor and put it in pill form.
Strive to define
03-27-2003, 04:00 PM
auntjudyg-
"The "new results" are really not that new. Various studies about the potential negative effect of soy have been around for years. A quick google would point one in the direction of finding them, if interested. It might be helpful to bear in mind that even many of the anti-soy people are not criticizing the way soy have been processed and eaten in traditional manners through much of Asia. The problem comes with some researcher finding something beneficial about soy and Western companies jumping on the band wagon to mass produce it into any old form of food or identify and isolate the "beneficial" factor and put it in pill form."
Oh? The Internet is FULL of quackery. One could also say that The Atkins diet falls into the category. Certain folks adopted it as gospel. Funny though, it was around in the 70s, then faded (most fads do) then resurfaced again. Hmmm....
Atkins has proven to be taxing on the kidneys. I can speak from personal experience. NO diet is a good diet.
The best way to go is to eat healthy/clean and exercise. No exceptions.
Let's see, my grandma consumed tofu for years as well and she lived a very long life. Those who have allergies to certain foods should avoid those same foods.
Soy should be the LEAST of peoples worries. People in this country should realize that portion control, caloric intake, exercise are what needs to be watched. The problem I see with this country is that people buy into diets too readily. It could be because they are too lazy and need someone to tell them when to eat, what to eat, etc...
The formula is simple people: eat right and exercise! There is no magic pill, book or diet. Eating healthy and exercising is a LIFESTYLE choice. You can still eat "treats" as long as it is done in moderation. Consistent weight loss stems from eating healthy and exercising...keeping it off will only come from this.
Fad diets are not long term solutions.
"The "new results" are really not that new. Various studies about the potential negative effect of soy have been around for years. A quick google would point one in the direction of finding them, if interested. It might be helpful to bear in mind that even many of the anti-soy people are not criticizing the way soy have been processed and eaten in traditional manners through much of Asia. The problem comes with some researcher finding something beneficial about soy and Western companies jumping on the band wagon to mass produce it into any old form of food or identify and isolate the "beneficial" factor and put it in pill form."
Oh? The Internet is FULL of quackery. One could also say that The Atkins diet falls into the category. Certain folks adopted it as gospel. Funny though, it was around in the 70s, then faded (most fads do) then resurfaced again. Hmmm....
Atkins has proven to be taxing on the kidneys. I can speak from personal experience. NO diet is a good diet.
The best way to go is to eat healthy/clean and exercise. No exceptions.
Let's see, my grandma consumed tofu for years as well and she lived a very long life. Those who have allergies to certain foods should avoid those same foods.
Soy should be the LEAST of peoples worries. People in this country should realize that portion control, caloric intake, exercise are what needs to be watched. The problem I see with this country is that people buy into diets too readily. It could be because they are too lazy and need someone to tell them when to eat, what to eat, etc...
The formula is simple people: eat right and exercise! There is no magic pill, book or diet. Eating healthy and exercising is a LIFESTYLE choice. You can still eat "treats" as long as it is done in moderation. Consistent weight loss stems from eating healthy and exercising...keeping it off will only come from this.
Fad diets are not long term solutions.
Angelene
03-29-2003, 03:32 AM
"The problem I see with this country is that people buy into diets too readily. It could be because they are too lazy and need someone to tell them when to eat, what to eat, etc..."
Exactly!! I completely agree with you on this point! People in the US have a problem with instant gratification--myself included--and when we want results we don't think we can do it ourselves. I'm not trying to insult anyone, and yes, I am making a blanket statement because generally it's true, and you can count yourself out if you feel differently. But in all honesty, diet fads exist b/c people want the fastest, easiest, and most visible results, and health is rarely their primary goal. It is so much easier to rely on a structured diet that someone else, usually a doctor who doesn't know right from left, puts together and says is the Perfect Way To Lose Weight and Feel Great.
That being my point, I still think that if you're allergic to soy you should stay away, the same way if you're allergic to dairy you should stay away.
A new study suggests that the sulfur content in milk prohibits maximum absorbtion of calcium into the bones and the rate is the same if not less than from soymilk. So either way, if you're getting the "same amount", wouldn't you rather do it cruelty-free?? If not, why? *as I open an ENTIRE can of worms...* :(
Exactly!! I completely agree with you on this point! People in the US have a problem with instant gratification--myself included--and when we want results we don't think we can do it ourselves. I'm not trying to insult anyone, and yes, I am making a blanket statement because generally it's true, and you can count yourself out if you feel differently. But in all honesty, diet fads exist b/c people want the fastest, easiest, and most visible results, and health is rarely their primary goal. It is so much easier to rely on a structured diet that someone else, usually a doctor who doesn't know right from left, puts together and says is the Perfect Way To Lose Weight and Feel Great.
That being my point, I still think that if you're allergic to soy you should stay away, the same way if you're allergic to dairy you should stay away.
A new study suggests that the sulfur content in milk prohibits maximum absorbtion of calcium into the bones and the rate is the same if not less than from soymilk. So either way, if you're getting the "same amount", wouldn't you rather do it cruelty-free?? If not, why? *as I open an ENTIRE can of worms...* :(
auntjudyg
03-29-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Strive to define:
Oh? The Internet is FULL of quackery. One could also say that The Atkins diet falls into the category. Certain folks adopted it as gospel. Funny though, it was around in the 70s, then faded (most fads do) then resurfaced again. Hmmm....
Atkins has proven to be taxing on the kidneys. I can speak from personal experience. NO diet is a good diet.
The best way to go is to eat healthy/clean and exercise. No exceptions.
. . .
Fad diets are not long term solutions.
The studies to which I was referring have nothing to do with quackery on the internet. There have been various studies published in peer-reviewed and other journals that can be found at many major libraries.
So you have a doctor certifying that Atkins contributed to your kidney problems? There have been no published reports making that connection, you know, so maybe you and the doctor would want to get it written up.
Now, since your reply was directed at me, please tell me where I (or most other people on this site) are proposing unhealthy/fad diets?
Oh? The Internet is FULL of quackery. One could also say that The Atkins diet falls into the category. Certain folks adopted it as gospel. Funny though, it was around in the 70s, then faded (most fads do) then resurfaced again. Hmmm....
Atkins has proven to be taxing on the kidneys. I can speak from personal experience. NO diet is a good diet.
The best way to go is to eat healthy/clean and exercise. No exceptions.
. . .
Fad diets are not long term solutions.
The studies to which I was referring have nothing to do with quackery on the internet. There have been various studies published in peer-reviewed and other journals that can be found at many major libraries.
So you have a doctor certifying that Atkins contributed to your kidney problems? There have been no published reports making that connection, you know, so maybe you and the doctor would want to get it written up.
Now, since your reply was directed at me, please tell me where I (or most other people on this site) are proposing unhealthy/fad diets?
netviper13
03-29-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by auntjudyg:
So you have a doctor certifying that Atkins contributed to your kidney problems? There have been no published reports making that connection, you know, so maybe you and the doctor would want to get it written up.
I hate to draw this post off topic (because soy debates interest me), but there have been studies that show diets high in animal protein (which applies to most people on the Atkins diet) cause kidney stones, here's the exact quote from Dr. John McDougall:
"Osteoporosis and kidney stones are caused primarily by a diet rich in animal foods. Such a diet provides an abundance of acid that must be neutralized in order for the body to function properly and health to be maintained. The body's primary buffering system is its bones. The bones dissolve as the first step to osteoporosis. The second step involves changes in the kidneys' physiology caused by animal foods that results in the loss of this bone material into the urinary system. During its passage through the ureters some of the calcium solidifies into calcium kidney stones and the rest is lost from the body, leaving the bones porous (J Nutr 128:1051, 1998; J Pedriatr 117.743, 1990)."
So you have a doctor certifying that Atkins contributed to your kidney problems? There have been no published reports making that connection, you know, so maybe you and the doctor would want to get it written up.
I hate to draw this post off topic (because soy debates interest me), but there have been studies that show diets high in animal protein (which applies to most people on the Atkins diet) cause kidney stones, here's the exact quote from Dr. John McDougall:
"Osteoporosis and kidney stones are caused primarily by a diet rich in animal foods. Such a diet provides an abundance of acid that must be neutralized in order for the body to function properly and health to be maintained. The body's primary buffering system is its bones. The bones dissolve as the first step to osteoporosis. The second step involves changes in the kidneys' physiology caused by animal foods that results in the loss of this bone material into the urinary system. During its passage through the ureters some of the calcium solidifies into calcium kidney stones and the rest is lost from the body, leaving the bones porous (J Nutr 128:1051, 1998; J Pedriatr 117.743, 1990)."
auntjudyg
03-29-2003, 05:23 PM
Sorry, it could be, but I don't consider John McDougall exactly an unbiased researcher when it comes to the consumption of animal protein.
And my first question would be, how much water were the people drinking? Were they eating organic meat? I can go on.
But I do agree with you about going off topic (though I am certainly guilty here). The topic is where soy is bad or good. And soy is not exactly Atkins' area, so who cares what he thinks about it anyway.
And my first question would be, how much water were the people drinking? Were they eating organic meat? I can go on.
But I do agree with you about going off topic (though I am certainly guilty here). The topic is where soy is bad or good. And soy is not exactly Atkins' area, so who cares what he thinks about it anyway.