Case in point, a baby formula strawman, "truth" not known by science but
by conviction, conspiracy theory as proof, dismissal of research by
failing the consparacy test. If the right catalyst is applied, the
"religious quest" notion does reveal results. Is there a consparacy by the
same farming/food industry to prompt us to eat
beef/ppork/lamb/poultry/fish? Does that industry care if soybeans are
sold to one customer or another? They would be just as happy if suddenly
the above meat producers raised sales 1000 percent, all the more happy to
sell them the soybeans to make it possible. Or, if you want tofu and
soyburgers etc. instead, they will be just as happy. If you eat it they
will raise it. If the anti soy folk don't depend on science to answer
questions, on what are their convictions based?


>> the shrill rhetoric in some quarters having more the appearence of a
>> religious quest then science. On the whole, the sum of pluses alone as a
>> guide gives the nod to soy products imo.
>
>
> You really must be blind to the corruption of the soy industry.
>I feel sorry for you. It is so obvious. I dont understand how a
>seemingly smart guy like you can be so misguided. All the so called
>benefits and wonders of soy are just lies driven by greed. The soy
>industry stops at nothing to promote soy in every form to every
>person, even babies. I refuse to believe that even you would suggest
>that soy formula is good for infants. The soy industry says it is.
>Their "science" says it is. The TRUTH is soy formula is EXTREMELY bad
>for babies and growing children. Despite what you would like to
>believe there IS such a thing as truth. One thing is right and the
>other is wrong. Truth is NOT the "current scientific consensus"
>changing from day to day. Truth is the truth and it stays the truth
>despite the flaws and corruption of man. Just because there are as
>many so called "scientific studies" promoting soy as healthy as there
>are that show it is bad does not mean there is no answer. And you
>dont get the answer with math, by adding up the pros and cons and
>chose the one with the most. If the soy industry and their
>scientists/hired goons are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions
>of children for profit there is nothing they would not be willing to
>do to push their soy no matter the cost to innocent people. If those
>are the people you are willing to trust then you have a serious lack
>of judgment to say the least.

"I think alot of that comes from the idea that asian cultures have eaten
soy
for a long time, and they generally have fewer health problems. People
here then try to interpret that soy is healthy, even tho here we are
making
soy the main part of a meal by highly processing it. Asian cultures don't
eat soy as the main course."

How do you know this? "Bean curd", the chinese term for "tofu" which is
japenese, is called the poor man's meat. The logic of looking at asia is
not as described. It starts with a question, "does using soy cause xyz".
Then one looks at health in asia to see if there is an elevated incidence
of "xyz". It is not the final answer but is used in support, or not, of
the question. The amount of processing can have pros and cons. Some
antinutrient substances are reduced/removed during processing, including
fermentation to make soy sauce, which is good and it concentrates some
other substances when components are divided. The hormone replacement
products are an example of the latter and are not sold as food as in
recipie items but as "food" as supplements.

Wolfbrother wrote:
>>>Many are just as bad if not WORSE than the
>>>"low fat" fake junk foods. Almost all of them are loaded with crap
>>>like sucralose and toxic isolated soy protein and soy flower.
>>
>>What's toxic about soy? I like soy products.
>
> Wow I wouldnt know where to begin. There is so much. In small
> amounts and properly prepared by fermentation it is fine, but not in
> the way it is eaten today in most modern countries. It is so
> obscenely processed and broken up into many different isolated
> substances making it even worse than it is unfermented. If you want
> to learn the truth about soy and the soy industry the best place to
> start is the Weston Price foundation web site.

Why is that the "best" place to start?

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...isticdent.html

> There is so much out
> there though about the dangers of soy and the corrupt machinations of
> the soy industry.

Based on solid scientific studies or anti-industry propaganda?

> this page has many articles on soy and the soy industry
> http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.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.

Phytates are present in most plant-based foods, not just soy. There is no
documentation for any of the points made for this (or other) claim. The emphasis
on phytic *acid*, though, displays a predilection for Price's irrational
quackery about acid-base relationships in diet. Neutralization isn't the issue
to unbinding minerals (especially zinc and iron) from phytates. That can be done
through other means (including consuming such foods with a bit of meat, which
Rubystars sill eats).

Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause
hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of
soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid diseas.

The soy-cancer connections are not firmly established, and I can cite studies
which show it either preventative or possibly causative. It's more unwise to
give soy to infants because of the estrogens than any concern about thyroid
disease. The effects of soy in some people are believed to be caused when
isoflavones (goitrogens) cause competition for an iodine-specific enzyme (the
thyroid requires iodine to properly function) to make thyroid hormone when a
person is already iodine deficient. The way around this is to increase iodine in
the diet or through supplementation. Research also shows that heating (i.e.,
cooking) reduces goitrogen levels and/or efficacy.

For soy information from a site with more medical expertise:
http://www.llu.edu/llu/vegetarian/soy2.html

Another way to search for valid medical/scientific literature about any issue is
to search Google using the "site:edu" command in the search line along with your
search word(s). It's not perfect, but it reduces all the nitwittery hits from
COM and ORG sites which are more likely to show up on nutrition searches.

Chad C. wrote:
> How do you know that the syndrome wasn't a factor? Maybe diabetes just
> went undiagnosed.

How would it go undiagnosed? Diabetes is one of the easiest diseases to diagnose.

http://www.endocrineweb.com/diabetes/diagnosis.html

the foaming yorkie wrote:
>>When I look at the question I find an equal amount of research saying it
>>has benefits/cautions in exact opposite terms,ie. it has negative
>>cognitive effects - it has positive effects, it causes cancer - it
>>prevents cancer, etc. on just about any question.
>>
>>Nature's ongoing research, the e. asia area, has nothing to teach, the
>>more recent one in n. america has no definitive outcomes, notwithstanding
>>the shrill rhetoric in some quarters having more the appearence of a
>>religious quest then science. On the whole, the sum of pluses alone as a
>>guide gives the nod to soy products imo.
>
> You really must be blind to the corruption of the soy industry.

What's with the anti-soy chip on your shoulder? Every sector of the economy does
what it can to promote its own product. Soy is no different. Soy products are
perfectly fine in moderation. Anything in excess, including anti-propaganda
propaganda (that's what you're spouting), is bad. Lighten up.

> I feel sorry for you.

What a pussy. Grow a pair.

> It is so obvious.

Is it now? I guess that's why you say it's obvious without stating why.

> I dont understand how a
> seemingly smart guy like you can be so misguided.

First, she's not a guy. Second, she's not misguided.

> All the so called
> benefits and wonders of soy are just lies driven by greed.

According to whom? Research funded by meat and dairy industries who saw profits
decline when pro-soy research came out?

<snip of a lot of bullshit>

usual suspect wrote:

> > this page has many articles on soy and the soy industry
> > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.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.
>
> Phytates are present in most plant-based foods, not just soy. There is no
> documentation for any of the points made for this (or other) claim. The emphasis
> on phytic *acid*, though, displays a predilection for Price's irrational
> quackery about acid-base relationships in diet.

The point with it being acid is that it will have a negative charge at
gut pH and therefore will bind positively charged ions like the ones
listed, preventing their uptake.

> Neutralization isn't the issue
> to unbinding minerals (especially zinc and iron) from phytates. That can be done
> through other means (including consuming such foods with a bit of meat, which
> Rubystars sill eats).

I read the above use of neutralized in the sense of "our enemies have
been neutralized" rather than the chemical sense, but I don't know the
original intent.

MattLB

(Wolfbrother) wrote in message . com>...
> >
> > > Many are just as bad if not WORSE than the
> > > "low fat" fake junk foods. Almost all of them are loaded with crap
> > > like sucralose and toxic isolated soy protein and soy flower.
> >
> > What's toxic about soy? I like soy products.
> >
>
> Wow I wouldnt know where to begin. There is so much. In small
> amounts and properly prepared by fermentation it is fine, but not in
> the way it is eaten today in most modern countries. It is so
> obscenely processed and broken up into many different isolated
> substances making it even worse than it is unfermented. If you want
> to learn the truth about soy and the soy industry the best place to
> start is the Weston Price foundation web site. There is so much out
> there though about the dangers of soy and the corrupt machinations of
> the soy industry.
>
> this page has many articles on soy and the soy industry
> http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html


And this doesn't even begin to describe everything. To
add more to the spirit of the quoted sites:

1) The cruel conditions soy is grown in.
2) The impact on testesterone levels (this is your manhood,
you better be scared, now and a lot) that's caused the serious
fertility and population problems in China, because of which
the Chinese are now adopting many babies from the US and
around the world.
3) The rising incidence of cancer in cities like
Tokyo, which have gone from a traditional steak and potatoes
diet to a more Western soy based diet.

"soft-eng" > wrote in message
om...
> (Wolfbrother) wrote in message
. com>...
> > >
> > > > Many are just as bad if not WORSE than the
> > > > "low fat" fake junk foods. Almost all of them are loaded with crap
> > > > like sucralose and toxic isolated soy protein and soy flower.
> > >
> > > What's toxic about soy? I like soy products.
> > >
> >
> > Wow I wouldnt know where to begin. There is so much. In small
> > amounts and properly prepared by fermentation it is fine, but not in
> > the way it is eaten today in most modern countries. It is so
> > obscenely processed and broken up into many different isolated
> > substances making it even worse than it is unfermented. If you want
> > to learn the truth about soy and the soy industry the best place to
> > start is the Weston Price foundation web site. There is so much out
> > there though about the dangers of soy and the corrupt machinations of
> > the soy industry.
> >
> > this page has many articles on soy and the soy industry
> > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html
>
>
> And this doesn't even begin to describe everything. To
> add more to the spirit of the quoted sites:
>
> 1) The cruel conditions soy is grown in.
> 2) The impact on testesterone levels (this is your manhood,
> you better be scared, now and a lot) that's caused the serious
> fertility and population problems in China, because of which
> the Chinese are now adopting many babies from the US and
> around the world.
> 3) The rising incidence of cancer in cities like
> Tokyo, which have gone from a traditional steak and potatoes
> diet to a more Western soy based diet.

LOL! Refreshing, zestful, hilarious. Keep it up, "soft-eng".

George

usual suspect > wrote in message >...
> Wolfbrother wrote:
> >>>Many are just as bad if not WORSE than the
> >>>"low fat" fake junk foods. Almost all of them are loaded with crap
> >>>like sucralose and toxic isolated soy protein and soy flower.
> >>
> >>What's toxic about soy? I like soy products.
> >
> > Wow I wouldnt know where to begin. There is so much. In small
> > amounts and properly prepared by fermentation it is fine, but not in
> > the way it is eaten today in most modern countries. It is so
> > obscenely processed and broken up into many different isolated
> > substances making it even worse than it is unfermented. If you want
> > to learn the truth about soy and the soy industry the best place to
> > start is the Weston Price foundation web site.
>
> Why is that the "best" place to start?
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...isticdent.html
>
> > There is so much out
> > there though about the dangers of soy and the corrupt machinations of
> > the soy industry.
>
> Based on solid scientific studies or anti-industry propaganda?
>
> > this page has many articles on soy and the soy industry
> > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.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.
>
> Phytates are present in most plant-based foods, not just soy. There is no
> documentation for any of the points made for this (or other) claim. The emphasis
> on phytic *acid*, though, displays a predilection for Price's irrational
> quackery about acid-base relationships in diet. Neutralization isn't the issue
> to unbinding minerals (especially zinc and iron) from phytates. That can be done
> through other means (including consuming such foods with a bit of meat, which
> Rubystars sill eats).
>
> Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause
> hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of
> soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid diseas.
>
> The soy-cancer connections are not firmly established, and I can cite studies
> which show it either preventative or possibly causative. It's more unwise to
> give soy to infants because of the estrogens than any concern about thyroid
> disease. The effects of soy in some people are believed to be caused when
> isoflavones (goitrogens) cause competition for an iodine-specific enzyme (the
> thyroid requires iodine to properly function) to make thyroid hormone when a
> person is already iodine deficient. The way around this is to increase iodine in
> the diet or through supplementation. Research also shows that heating (i.e.,
> cooking) reduces goitrogen levels and/or efficacy.
>
> For soy information from a site with more medical expertise:
> http://www.llu.edu/llu/vegetarian/soy2.html



This is interesting. An article by Dr. William Jarvis of Loma
Linda University. The same place you recommend above for soy
information. His article is at the bottom of this page.
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/soytox.htm

Dr. William Jarvis is a professor at Loma Linda University with dual
appointments in the Schools of Medicine and Public Health, and a
secondary apppointment in the school of Dentistry. Dr. Jarvis is a
consumer health education specialist, and is involved in a wide
variety of activities related to this field. He is President of the
National Council Against Health Fraud, a nonprofit voluntary health
agency which combats health misinformation, fraud and quackery. He
serves on committees dealing with diverse subjects such as alleged
paranormal healing, cancer quackery, controversial public health
issues, and nonscientific health care. To that end Dr. Jarvis is also
a member of the American Cancer Society's national Committee on
Questionable Methods of Cancer Management, and the California Attorney
General's Task Force on Health Fraud

Now those are some impressive credentials

"sid" > wrote in message
...
> ... but arent the long term effects on the whole body
> much more severe and dangerous?
http://www.ecologos.org/keto.htm

Laurie

"George W. Cherry" > wrote in
message news:QUYnc.23678$536.4563099@attbi_s03...
> First, I have low iron stores, so once or twice a week
>I eat a can of whole baby clams; ...

To answer the question: "Where can I get xxx?', get Jerry Story's DMAK.
http://www.edmc.net/~jstory/DMAK.ZIP (Windows)
http://www.edmc.net/~jstory/dmak.tar.gz (Linux)

This is a FREE nutritional database pgm that, among other useful
functions, allows searches on the current USDA Nutrient Database by
nutrient.
Spirulina, for example, has more iron (28.5mg/100g) than clams (28.0).
The heme iron issue may be a significant factor in eating clams, as it
is with eating other animal sources of iron.
http://www.ecologos.org/iron.htm

Laurie

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
...
> Every day I'd eat a fraction of the amount of food that would satisfy
> me, and I was constantly hungry. My body must have thought it was starving
> to death.
Most people confuse 'appetite' with 'hunger', the latter being a true
physiological signal to eat a specific item.
We are conditioned to eat "until full", to be "satisfied", we are
conditioned to eat when emotionally ill to shut off the pain, we are
conditioned to "clean up our plates", we are conditioned to eat huge amounts
by fat people, and then there are those endless junk food ads everywhere,
....
None of this wanting to eat is related to true nutritional needs.
People who fast do not feel "hunger", so your wanting to eat constantly had
nothing to do with true nutritional needs.
If one gives up the false idea of "being full", said feeling a result of
the inherent indigestibility of cultural diets, and instead prizes a light,
empty, high-energy feeling after a proper meal, then one can become free of
compulsive eating that is so common.

> That's just not a "serving size."
A 'serving size' for the obese, or one for a healthy person?

> ... to lose weight, and it's working.
http://ecologos.org/obese.htm

>Also I'm exercising, which helps more than anything else.
Exercise may increase cardio-vascular fitness and speed detox, but it
does not help one lose weight.
http://ecologos.org/ex.htm

Laurie

"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Every day I'd eat a fraction of the amount of food that would satisfy
> > me, and I was constantly hungry. My body must have thought it was
starving
> > to death.
> Most people confuse 'appetite' with 'hunger', the latter being a true
> physiological signal to eat a specific item.
> We are conditioned to eat "until full", to be "satisfied", we are
> conditioned to eat when emotionally ill to shut off the pain, we are
> conditioned to "clean up our plates", we are conditioned to eat huge
amounts
> by fat people, and then there are those endless junk food ads everywhere,

I think "mouth hunger" should be fed, but with good things.

> None of this wanting to eat is related to true nutritional needs.
> People who fast do not feel "hunger"

That's ridiculous. People who fast aren't eating. Of course they're going to
be hungry.

>, so your wanting to eat constantly had
> nothing to do with true nutritional needs.

I never had wanted to eat constantly before I went on the diet. It was only
for a short period after I got off of it.

> If one gives up the false idea of "being full", said feeling a result
of
> the inherent indigestibility of cultural diets, and instead prizes a
light,
> empty, high-energy feeling after a proper meal, then one can become free
of
> compulsive eating that is so common.

> > That's just not a "serving size."
> A 'serving size' for the obese, or one for a healthy person?

I don't think four fish sticks could satisfy hardly anyone.

<snip>

-Rubystars

"sid" > wrote in message >...
> I am by no means a nutritionist or expert in the field. I do know the
> basics, also because i have been vegan for 6 years and didnt want to risk
> any problems - turns out it really isnt a big hassle to take care of that
> after all.
>
> Now - I paid attention to the increasingly popular low carb diets, being
> pushed over the past 12 months or so. To me, it all seems maybe a short-run
> way to get rid of pounds - but arent the long term effects on the whole body
> much more severe and dangerous? To me it all seems like a big PR gag a la
> "lose weight and still dont give up fatty foods or your lazy lifestyle".
>
> I would just be happy to hear a few opinions of people that have more of a
> clue about this whole matter than I do.
>
> thanks in advance - keep it rocking
> sid

You've answered your own question. It is a gimmick.

Your body is not made to process those amounts of protein.

This is a short-cut diet for people who do not like to work out.

Atkins is popular because it's a short-cut. People don't have time to
excercise anymore. So this is their "saviour".

Like everything easy, they will pay for it later with over-taxed
internal organs.

> Studies Showing Adverse Effects of Dietary Soy, 1971-2003

> Does that answer your question?

The long list of citations provided are from the Weston A. Price
Foundation. It always pays to ask: who are they and what's their
agenda, so I quote from their website:

"The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charity
founded in 1999 to disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer Dr.
Weston Price, whose studies of isolated nonindustrialized peoples
established the parameters of human health and determined the optimum
characteristics of human diets. Dr. Price's research demonstrated that
humans achieve perfect physical form and perfect health generation
after generation only when they consume nutrient-dense whole foods and
the vital fat-soluble activators found exclusively in animal fats."

"Perfect physical form?" "Perfect health?" Anytime anyone starts
talking about "perfection" in this mortal world, I shake my head in
disbelief. Ain't no perfection in this life. Sounds to me like the
Weston A. Price foundation has a wee bit of an agenda to promote meat
consumption, hence their bias against soy products. Yet another
evangelizing scientist who thought he found the One True Way.

There are just as many studies out there supporting the healthful
benefits of soy in particular and vegan/vegetarian diets in general,
though of course, Price doesn't list those because they don't support
the agenda. If you prefer to think for yourself instead of relying on
a cut-and-paste listing of citations, try searching Medline Plus,
InteliHealth, or a peer-reviewed health or science journal database
available at your library. Then draw your own conclusions.

Alas, many people will only give credence to studies which support the
view the already hold. There are many ways to live a long, healthy
and happy life, and every body's needs are different. Let YOUR body
be your guide, not some guru or fad. what worked for one person may
not work for all...why else would some people with supposedly horrible
lifestyle habits (smoking, drinking, etc) live to be over 100 when a
jogger drops dead of a heart attack at 50? Perhaps because the former
spent less precious time agonizing over what they were putting into
their mouth? Stress is dangerous.

There are many things at play here which cannot be quantified in a
laboratory study. I say: listen to your body, eat as well as you can
without becoming nuts about it, enjoy life. And, do your own
research...don't take the word of a newsgroup poster, including
myself!

:-) Lily

the Atkins "deal" is pseudoscience

http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdou...nsresearch.htm
http://www.atkinsfacts.org

> Now those are some impressive credentials

membership of drug industry sponsored clubs are not credentials

John C

Lily,

Weston Price discovered that eating processed foods causes tooth decay and
developmental abnormalities. This is no longer contraversial, however, it
seems that people still ignore the finding.

His book is a collection of anecdotes, with a smattering of figures. He was
a dentist with no scientific background and gathered and published no
significant data to support his many claims. His book contains no mortality
or morbidity figures, no blood test results, and no long term health
records. His work is not peer reviewed. Basically he assumed that people
with healthy teeth are healthy.

John C