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
__________________________________________________ __________
graphic design programming extraordinaire
stargraphX.com

"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

I think one can do just fine on a vegan diet.
I have a few modifications to my basic
vegan diet. First, I have low iron stores,
so once or twice a week I eat a can of
whole baby clams; Second, I like non-fat plain
yoghurt (to which I add cocoa powder
and Splenda for a delicious custard-like
chocolate confection), and Third, I take
Menhaden fish oil capsules everyday because
I'm not sure that my body can get all the
essential fatty acids from flaxseeds and
walnuts (which I do eat--in moderation).
My BMI is right where I want it.

I think the Atkins diet may be helpful to
people who aren't inner-directed--or
who haven't a clue about nutrition. The
Atkins diet is like nicotine chewing gum
or nicotine patches for smokers who
haven't the will power to quit smoking.

George W. Cherry

"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

It's been promoted as a temporary diet to lose weight, but it seems to me
that once someone goes off of the diet, they haven't really learned any
healthy eating patterns from it so they'll probably soar back up and above
their original weight when they start giving their bodies the carbs that
it's been needing and screaming for.

That was a problem I had when I lost weight on the Weight Watchers diet
plan. 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. I mean, I got fish sticks, but could only eat 4 of them! WTF?
That's just not a "serving size." Anyway, I got down to my goal weight, I
looked good, I felt good, but then I was extremely hungry and had massive
cravings for food, and well, I got back up, and up, and up. Anyway, I'm
doing it slow now, eating few calories but lots of bulk, so I can feel
satisfied, so I don't have to be hungry all the time to lose weight, and
it's working. Also I'm exercising, which helps more than anything else.

-Rubystars

It's too bad these become political battles. I think the best thing to
do with this thread is to post some links to some good hard science and
withhold the commentary until you've all had a chance to go over it. I'm
going to bed, let's hope this doesn't turn ugly in the morning.

-Chad

"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
> __________________________________________________ __________
> graphic design programming extraordinaire
> stargraphX.com
>
>
>
>
>

> I think the best thing to
> do with this thread is to post some links to some good hard science and
> withhold the commentary until you've all had a chance to go over it.

that would be awesome... im not trying to start a flaming game, i really
just wonder how this thing took off like that

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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
>
> It's been promoted as a temporary diet to lose weight, but it seems to me
> that once someone goes off of the diet, they haven't really learned any
> healthy eating patterns from it so they'll probably soar back up and above
> their original weight when they start giving their bodies the carbs that
> it's been needing and screaming for.
>
> That was a problem I had when I lost weight on the Weight Watchers diet
> plan. 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. I mean, I got fish sticks, but could only eat 4 of them! WTF?
> That's just not a "serving size." Anyway, I got down to my goal weight, I
> looked good, I felt good, but then I was extremely hungry and had massive
> cravings for food, and well, I got back up, and up, and up. Anyway, I'm
> doing it slow now, eating few calories but lots of bulk, so I can feel
> satisfied, so I don't have to be hungry all the time to lose weight, and
> it's working. Also I'm exercising, which helps more than anything else.

I ran into Wayne at the gym-we know each other-he looked different-I
mentioned you look like you dropped a few lbs..he said he lost 70lbs- on a
low carb diet..
another guy at the gym told me he lost weight on it but had problems with
his gall bladder-his Dr said that often happens with the low carb diet..
but they both lost weight-for me low carb is not bread
Michael

> -Rubystars
>
>

The long term effects are not known, research is being done that should
shed some light on it. It is promoted too often as a short cut, indulge
in the previously forbidden, eat with fear or concerns about calories
pitch


>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
>_________________________________________________ ___________
>graphic design programming extraordinaire
>stargraphX.com

On 5/11/2004 12:46 AM, George W. Cherry wrote:
> "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
>
>
> I think one can do just fine on a vegan diet.
> I have a few modifications to my basic
> vegan diet. First, I have low iron stores,
> so once or twice a week I eat a can of
> whole baby clams; Second, I like non-fat plain
> yoghurt (to which I add cocoa powder
> and Splenda for a delicious custard-like
> chocolate confection), and Third, I take
> Menhaden fish oil capsules everyday because
> I'm not sure that my body can get all the
> essential fatty acids from flaxseeds and
> walnuts (which I do eat--in moderation).
> My BMI is right where I want it.

I'm confused. Do you mean vegetarian or vegan? Vegans don't eat dairy
or eggs (or any animal product) and ceratinly not clams of fish
capsules. If you have yogurt and custard, it sounds like you are
vegetarian and not vegan.

>
> I think the Atkins diet may be helpful to
> people who aren't inner-directed--or
> who haven't a clue about nutrition. The
> Atkins diet is like nicotine chewing gum
> or nicotine patches for smokers who
> haven't the will power to quit smoking.
>
> George W. Cherry
>
>


--
jmk in NC

"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
> __________________________________________________ __________
> graphic design programming extraordinaire
> stargraphX.com

No. Low carb is very healthy long term. Why? Because exposing your
body to high levels of blood glucose makes you fat, kills beta cells,
burns out your pancreas in time and depletes you of important
vitamins.

TC

"No. Low carb is very healthy long term. Why? Because exposing your
body to high levels of blood glucose makes you fat, kills beta cells,
burns out your pancreas in time and depletes you of important
vitamins."

Supporting evidence please. Because long term research is ongoing, how
can this be the case? People who don't have metabolic disorders don't
experience what you mention, the insulin and glucose levels track and keep
each with in a narrow range all of the time through mutual feedback. A
normal person often has a glucose level of 85 or so and hardly departs
from it even after consuming carbs. People who aren't overweight and with
other factors need not be concerned with failure of this system.

"jmk" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/11/2004 12:46 AM, George W. Cherry wrote:
> > "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
> >
> >
> > I think one can do just fine on a vegan diet.
> > I have a few modifications to my basic
> > vegan diet. First, I have low iron stores,
> > so once or twice a week I eat a can of
> > whole baby clams; Second, I like non-fat plain
> > yoghurt (to which I add cocoa powder
> > and Splenda for a delicious custard-like
> > chocolate confection), and Third, I take
> > Menhaden fish oil capsules everyday because
> > I'm not sure that my body can get all the
> > essential fatty acids from flaxseeds and
> > walnuts (which I do eat--in moderation).
> > My BMI is right where I want it.
>
> I'm confused. Do you mean vegetarian or vegan? Vegans don't eat dairy
> or eggs (or any animal product) and ceratinly not clams of fish
> capsules. If you have yogurt and custard, it sounds like you are
> vegetarian and not vegan.

You're not confused: I was sloppy. I'm a
lacto-mollusk-fish-oil vegetarian. By the
way, I bite the Menhaden fish oil capsules
because I really like the taste of fish oil.
(That's also the way I test that it's fresh.)

George

> > I think the Atkins diet may be helpful to
> > people who aren't inner-directed--or
> > who haven't a clue about nutrition. The
> > Atkins diet is like nicotine chewing gum
> > or nicotine patches for smokers who
> > haven't the will power to quit smoking.
> >
> > George W. Cherry
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> jmk in NC

wrote in message >...
> "No. Low carb is very healthy long term. Why? Because exposing your
> body to high levels of blood glucose makes you fat, kills beta cells,
> burns out your pancreas in time and depletes you of important
> vitamins."
>
> Supporting evidence please. Because long term research is ongoing, how
> can this be the case? People who don't have metabolic disorders don't
> experience what you mention, the insulin and glucose levels track and keep
> each with in a narrow range all of the time through mutual feedback. A
> normal person often has a glucose level of 85 or so and hardly departs
> from it even after consuming carbs. People who aren't overweight and with
> other factors need not be concerned with failure of this system.

People who don't have metabolic disorders (syndrome x) are those who
refrain from eating massive amounts of refined carbs over a number of
years. You've got the chicken/egg thing backwards.

TC

"People who don't have metabolic disorders (syndrome x) are those who
refrain from eating massive amounts of refined carbs over a number of
years. You've got the chicken/egg thing backwards."

Here, once again in a now long chain of chances, you can provide something
other then opinion to support an assertion. You can start by listing the
risk factors for the syndrom that have been identified by research. Then
you might mention the asian diet which is very high in carbs traditionally
and not till recently did the syndrom become a factor. Once we have some
facts and research and the asian example under our belts, we can have more
then a corner bar style discussion on the topic.

I do know about what the text books say, there is a short lived rise in
glucose because of the short lag time of the insulin responce and the
feedback, it's a relative thing. In people with a metabolic disorder the
increase is much more dramatic and long lived with an insulin responce to
match. Yes, don't consume in excess of calorie needs with any macro
source combination and the risk is quite small, along with mainttaining
activity level, and in some research avoiding too much saturated fat to
boot. Even then, not all folk who exibit the risk factors get the
syndrom, there is a genetic part and some not yet known factors at work.
The real question is what is the trigger that starts the syndrom, just
consuming carbs far in excess of calorie balance doesn't explain the
pattern.


>Not true. Consult any textbook with graphs of normal insulin and blood
>sugar responses. There are always spikes, just smaller and of shorter
>duration in those with better control.
>
>>People who aren't overweight and with
>>other factors need not be concerned with failure of this system.
>
>Of course not, but they may need to be concerned with the results of
>abusing it. Anyone can reach damaging levels of blood glucose if they
>try. Aim for inactivity and large amounts of rapidly eaten high
>glycemic foods. It's not difficult, many have mastered it.
>--
>Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
>IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
>[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"tcomeau" > wrote in message
om...
> "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
> > __________________________________________________ __________
> > graphic design programming extraordinaire
> > stargraphX.com
>
> No. Low carb is very healthy long term. Why? Because exposing your
> body to high levels of blood glucose makes you fat, kills beta cells,
> burns out your pancreas in time and depletes you of important
> vitamins.
>
> TC
i think it depends on how you define low-carb. by that i mean, do you do it
the way it was intended, that is, with whole foods, or do you do it the way
that most folks seem to be doing it, that is, with all this processed junk
like low-carb cookies & pancakes etc etc. i honestly don't think that
eating a diet centered around whole carbs, ie oatmeal, brown rice, &
vegetables, is going to be bad for you, and since that stuff is packed with
vitamins, i don't see how you'd be depleted of any vitamins if that diet was
varied enough. i also don't think it would make you fat; those foods are so
high in fibre that they have a low caloric density. it seems very healthy
to me.

> wrote in message
...
>
> I do know about what the text books say, there is a short lived rise in
> glucose because of the short lag time of the insulin responce and the
> feedback, it's a relative thing. In people with a metabolic disorder the
> increase is much more dramatic and long lived with an insulin responce to
> match. Yes, don't consume in excess of calorie needs with any macro
> source combination and the risk is quite small, along with mainttaining
> activity level, and in some research avoiding too much saturated fat to
> boot.

But our town clown claims calories don't count,
only carbohydrates do. As for saturated fats, TC
says "Bring 'em on!".

> Even then, not all folk who exibit the risk factors get the
> syndrom, there is a genetic part and some not yet known factors at work.
> The real question is what is the trigger that starts the syndrom, just
> consuming carbs far in excess of calorie balance doesn't explain the
> pattern.
>
>
> >Not true. Consult any textbook with graphs of normal insulin and blood
> >sugar responses. There are always spikes, just smaller and of shorter
> >duration in those with better control.
> >
> >>People who aren't overweight and with
> >>other factors need not be concerned with failure of this system.
> >
> >Of course not, but they may need to be concerned with the results of
> >abusing it. Anyone can reach damaging levels of blood glucose if they
> >try. Aim for inactivity and large amounts of rapidly eaten high
> >glycemic foods. It's not difficult, many have mastered it.
> >--
> >Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
> >IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> >[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
.
>
> It's been promoted as a temporary diet to lose weight, but it seems to me
> that once someone goes off of the diet, they haven't really learned any
> healthy eating patterns from it so they'll probably soar back up and above
> their original weight when they start giving their bodies the carbs that
> it's been needing and screaming for.

Please tell us the sources for your assertion that their bodies have 'been
needing' carbs. As far as I know, there is no 'Recommended Daily Amount' for
carbohydrates.

Please also tell us the sources for your assertion that their bodies will
have been 'screaming for' carbohydrates.

(No, your reminiscences about being on some other kind of diet aren't
relevant.)

Philippic

RE/
>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?

I had the (unusual?) privlege of working with the same 400 people for over 20
years.

After watching many people diet, gain back, diet, and gain back over-and-over;
I'm extremely reluctant to do *anything* to lose weight that isn't something
that I'd expect to keep up with for the rest of my life.

Many of the people I saw yo-yo-ing, would lose, say, 10 pounds - then gain 12
back....then 12 and gain 13 or 15... Some of them became noticibly obese after
10 years or so of this.

Dunno from Atkins, but if it isn't something that one would think of doing as a
lifelong thing I wouldn't touch it.
--
PeteCresswell

Hello George W. Cherry!

> But our town clown claims calories don't count,
> only carbohydrates do. As for saturated fats, TC
> says "Bring 'em on!".

I hate to sound like stick in the mud, but your "Town Clown" would be
correct! :-) To state that 'calories' is all that matters would be
to say that the body only has 1 need. I wish it were that simple!
Let me explain:

Your body has basic 4 needs:

1) Glucose - used by cellular energy
2) Amino Acids - used for muscluar repair, metabolizing most brain
chemicals, and much much more!
3) Nutrients - These are your vitamins!!!
4) Fat – Testosterone production, fat backup storage, etc...

Your primary use of glucose on the blood stream is clearly
carbohydrates, because the body can absorb them the easiest. Can your
body convert fat or protein to glucose? You betcha it can, but it
does not want to be forced into this because it needs those amino
acids for other purposes and it requires a fair amount of energy to
convert them. Your body would much rather given the choice just use a
good carb source for its glucose uptake. This is why diet meal
balancing works so well!!! :-)

OK. Look at it this way, if you were to eat a plate of rice and
chicken, do you think that the body would convert the chicken to
glucose? (ie. approx 200 kcal) Oh course not.... As long as you have
enough rice for its glucose needs, it will put most if not all of the
chicken up as amino acids. Nutritionists call this absorption of
proteins an "anabolic state" (ie. verse catabolic state) because it
affects the blood ph levels and is a critical aspect of building
skeletal muscle mass. Will you get "toned" if you just eat allot of
protein? No… but with the proper diet ratios and high weight strength
training you absolutely will!!! :-)

> only carbohydrates do. As for saturated fats, TC
> says "Bring 'em on!".

I think you might have misunderstood someone here. What you are
lending too is that the absorption of saturated fats is bad because of
cholesterol concerns correct? (ie. raised LDL profile) Well, what if
I was to tell you that the body can and will produce whatever
cholesterol it needs?? Yep... It does!!! It would prefer to get it
from its diet as it take energy to produce it on its own, but if it
needs some, I can still produce whatever it needs. The human body is
the ultimate when it comes to survival…. Pretty cool isn't it?? :-)

So, does this mean to not worry about saturated fats?? Certainly not,
but trying to minimize intake of saturated fats (ie. LDL - Low Density
Lipid's) and maximizing your unsaturated fats (ie. HDL - High Density
Lipid's) is clearly what is important and is where the industry is
currently moving toward. (ie. Olive Oils, Canola Oils, Flax) Why???
Because the density of HDL's have been shown time and time again to
"blast away" any build up deposits of LDL that collect on damaged
vessel wall areas. HDL's are just too large in size to attach to the
walls of vessels. This is certainly not "folklore" science by any
stretch. This is fact that the medical community knows up until now.
Will this approach change in the future?? Don't know, as science is a
moving target....

Listen you can choose to disagree. It is your choice, but the
nutritionist and body building community are the best at building lean
and healthy bodies. Also, trust me in that if steroid use was all
that was required to look like as "perfect" as many of these men and
women look, then there would be 100 times the number of people that do
it. Simply put, the fact of the matter is that to achieve < 10% BF
numbers, and develop that 8-pack that many people are looking for
(Yes, that is an 8-pack I stated!!), a person must have very clear
understanding about what it going on and how their body uses different
types of foods that they eat…

I also can speak from personal experience that many in the body
building communities are no "dumb cookies". Sure, you do see a few
"meat heads" from time to time, but this certainly is not the norm,
but is rather the exception. Do some searches on body building and
you will see what I mean!! BodyBuilding.com and AST-SS are just a few
of the sites that produce some great articles. (NOTE: Admit tingly,
both of these sites are a little technical for an average person) You
will also be surprised how many college people that have body building
sites and articles. Interestingly enough, though, when it comes to
nutrition, diet, and exercise, the body building community produces
more free and easy to understand articles than any other source
combined. :-)

Please let me know if you have any additional questions! I promise to
only state what is an accepted principle and push not "wizbang diet"
crap on you. Just sound nutritional facts! :-)

Jim Carver

"George W. Cherry" > wrote in message news:<GGtoc.76844$0H1.7138024@attbi_s54>...
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I do know about what the text books say, there is a short lived rise in
> > glucose because of the short lag time of the insulin responce and the
> > feedback, it's a relative thing. In people with a metabolic disorder the
> > increase is much more dramatic and long lived with an insulin responce to
> > match. Yes, don't consume in excess of calorie needs with any macro
> > source combination and the risk is quite small, along with mainttaining
> > activity level, and in some research avoiding too much saturated fat to
> > boot.
>
> But our town clown claims calories don't count,
> only carbohydrates do. As for saturated fats, TC
> says "Bring 'em on!".
>
> > Even then, not all folk who exibit the risk factors get the
> > syndrom, there is a genetic part and some not yet known factors at work.
> > The real question is what is the trigger that starts the syndrom, just
> > consuming carbs far in excess of calorie balance doesn't explain the
> > patt

ern.
> >
> >
> > >Not true. Consult any textbook with graphs of normal insulin and blood
> > >sugar responses. There are always spikes, just smaller and of shorter
> > >duration in those with better control.
> > >
> > >>People who aren't overweight and with
> > >>other factors need not be concerned with failure of this system.
> > >
> > >Of course not, but they may need to be concerned with the results of
> > >abusing it. Anyone can reach damaging levels of blood glucose if they
> > >try. Aim for inactivity and large amounts of rapidly eaten high
> > >glycemic foods. It's not difficult, many have mastered it.
> > >--
> > >Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
> > >IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> > >[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Jim Carver" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello George W. Cherry!
>
> > But our town clown claims calories don't count,
> > only carbohydrates do. As for saturated fats, TC
> > says "Bring 'em on!".
>
> I hate to sound like stick in the mud, but your "Town Clown" would be
> correct! :-)

Sorry, he's not right. In weight control, his main
concern, the calories from proteins, fats, and
carbohydrates all count. In glucose control and
the avoidance of insulin resistance, refined carbs
can be especially problematic, I agree.

> To state that 'calories' is all that matters would be
> to say that the body only has 1 need.

Of course not. The body needs proteins, essential fatty acids,
vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, fiber.

> I wish it were that simple!

Why? Do you wish your body was an automobile:

> Let me explain:

Yawn.

> Your body has basic 4 needs:
>
> 1) Glucose - used by cellular energy
> 2) Amino Acids - used for muscluar repair, metabolizing most brain
> chemicals, and much much more!
> 3) Nutrients - These are your vitamins!!!
> 4) Fat - Testosterone production, fat backup storage, etc...

You're gonna wear out your '!' key.

> Your primary use of glucose on the blood stream is clearly
> carbohydrates, because the body can absorb them the easiest. Can your
> body convert fat or protein to glucose? You betcha it can, but it
> does not want to be forced into this because it needs those amino
> acids for other purposes and it requires a fair amount of energy to
> convert them. Your body would much rather given the choice just use a
> good carb source for its glucose uptake. This is why diet meal
> balancing works so well!!! :-)
>
> OK. Look at it this way, if you were to eat a plate of rice and
> chicken, do you think that the body would convert the chicken to
> glucose? (ie. approx 200 kcal) Oh course not.... As long as you have
> enough rice for its glucose needs, it will put most if not all of the
> chicken up as amino acids. Nutritionists call this absorption of
> proteins an "anabolic state" (ie. verse catabolic state) because it
> affects the blood ph levels and is a critical aspect of building
> skeletal muscle mass. Will you get "toned" if you just eat allot of
> protein? No. but with the proper diet ratios and high weight strength
> training you absolutely will!!! :-)

You're a college sophomore, right, repeating what
you just learned, right?

> > only carbohydrates do. As for saturated fats, TC
> > says "Bring 'em on!".
>
> I think you might have misunderstood someone here. What you are
> lending too is that the absorption of saturated fats is bad because of
> cholesterol concerns correct? (ie. raised LDL profile) Well, what if
> I was to tell you that the body can and will produce whatever
> cholesterol it needs?? Yep... It does!!! It would prefer to get it
> from its diet as it take energy to produce it on its own, but if it
> needs some, I can still produce whatever it needs. The human body is
> the ultimate when it comes to survival.. Pretty cool isn't it?? :-)

Ahh, evolution.

> So, does this mean to not worry about saturated fats?? Certainly not,
> but trying to minimize intake of saturated fats (ie. LDL - Low Density
> Lipid's) and maximizing your unsaturated fats (ie. HDL - High Density
> Lipid's) is clearly what is important and is where the industry is
> currently moving toward. (ie. Olive Oils, Canola Oils, Flax) Why???
> Because the density of HDL's have been shown time and time again to
> "blast away" any build up deposits of LDL that collect on damaged
> vessel wall areas. HDL's are just too large in size to attach to the
> walls of vessels. This is certainly not "folklore" science by any
> stretch. This is fact that the medical community knows up until now.
> Will this approach change in the future?? Don't know, as science is a
> moving target....
>
> Listen you can choose to disagree. It is your choice, but the
> nutritionist and body building community are the best at building lean
> and healthy bodies. Also, trust me in that if steroid use was all
> that was required to look like as "perfect" as many of these men and
> women look, then there would be 100 times the number of people that do
> it. Simply put, the fact of the matter is that to achieve < 10% BF
> numbers, and develop that 8-pack that many people are looking for
> (Yes, that is an 8-pack I stated!!), a person must have very clear
> understanding about what it going on and how their body uses different
> types of foods that they eat.
>
> I also can speak from personal experience that many in the body
> building communities are no "dumb cookies". Sure, you do see a few
> "meat heads" from time to time, but this certainly is not the norm,
> but is rather the exception. Do some searches on body building and
> you will see what I mean!! BodyBuilding.com and AST-SS are just a few
> of the sites that produce some great articles. (NOTE: Admit tingly,
> both of these sites are a little technical for an average person) You
> will also be surprised how many college people that have body building
> sites and articles. Interestingly enough, though, when it comes to
> nutrition, diet, and exercise, the body building community produces
> more free and easy to understand articles than any other source
> combined. :-)
>
> Please let me know if you have any additional questions! I promise to
> only state what is an accepted principle and push not "wizbang diet"
> crap on you. Just sound nutritional facts! :-)
>
> Jim Carver
>
> "George W. Cherry" > wrote in
message news:<GGtoc.76844$0H1.7138024@attbi_s54>...
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I do know about what the text books say, there is a short lived rise
in
> > > glucose because of the short lag time of the insulin responce and the
> > > feedback, it's a relative thing. In people with a metabolic disorder
the
> > > increase is much more dramatic and long lived with an insulin responce
to
> > > match. Yes, don't consume in excess of calorie needs with any macro
> > > source combination and the risk is quite small, along with
mainttaining
> > > activity level, and in some research avoiding too much saturated fat
to
> > > boot.
> >
> > But our town clown claims calories don't count,
> > only carbohydrates do. As for saturated fats, TC
> > says "Bring 'em on!".
> >
> > > Even then, not all folk who exibit the risk factors get the
> > > syndrom, there is a genetic part and some not yet known factors at
work.
> > > The real question is what is the trigger that starts the syndrom, just
> > > consuming carbs far in excess of calorie balance doesn't explain the
> > > patt
>
> ern.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Not true. Consult any textbook with graphs of normal insulin and
blood
> > > >sugar responses. There are always spikes, just smaller and of shorter
> > > >duration in those with better control.
> > > >
> > > >>People who aren't overweight and with
> > > >>other factors need not be concerned with failure of this system.
> > > >
> > > >Of course not, but they may need to be concerned with the results of
> > > >abusing it. Anyone can reach damaging levels of blood glucose if they
> > > >try. Aim for inactivity and large amounts of rapidly eaten high
> > > >glycemic foods. It's not difficult, many have mastered it.
> > > >--
> > > >Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
> > > >IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> > > >[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

katie wrote:
<...>
>>No. Low carb is very healthy long term. Why? Because exposing your
>>body to high levels of blood glucose makes you fat, kills beta cells,
>>burns out your pancreas in time and depletes you of important
>>vitamins.
>
> i think it depends on how you define low-carb.

Exactly.

> by that i mean, do you do it
> the way it was intended, that is, with whole foods, or do you do it the way
> that most folks seem to be doing it, that is, with all this processed junk
> like low-carb cookies & pancakes etc etc. i honestly don't think that
> eating a diet centered around whole carbs,

You mean consuming complex carbs from whole foods and whole grains.

> ie oatmeal, brown rice, &
> vegetables, is going to be bad for you, and since that stuff is packed with
> vitamins, i don't see how you'd be depleted of any vitamins if that diet was
> varied enough.

Our bodies do best with variety. Restricting one's diet to avoid macronutrients
(e.g., avoiding all carbs on the assumption that SOME carbs, specifically simple
carbs, can wreak havoc on one's body if one is not moderate in dietary habits)
is hallmark of an eating disorder which is akin to what Mr Ball calls (in
reference to activist vegans) "the irrational search for micrograms." The
low-carb lunacy has now spread to adult beverages. Beer companies are marketing
to low-carb sloths and making fanatical appeals on the basis of their beers
having one less gram (FOUR meager calories!) than a competitor. Now wine makers
are going to market to the bandwagon with low-carb wines. Save 12 calories per
glass, but wow(!), cut three grams of carbs.

Low-carb whine (I mean wine) story:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D82HN47G0.html

> i also don't think it would make you fat; those foods are so
> high in fibre that they have a low caloric density. it seems very healthy
> to me.

That's because you're employing a bit of rational reasoning, common sense, and
nutritional science -- stuff that's lost its appeal to low-carbers (whose
reduced serum glucose adversely affects cognitive/brain function).

"Philippic" > wrote in message
...
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> .
> >
> > It's been promoted as a temporary diet to lose weight, but it seems to
me
> > that once someone goes off of the diet, they haven't really learned any
> > healthy eating patterns from it so they'll probably soar back up and
above
> > their original weight when they start giving their bodies the carbs that
> > it's been needing and screaming for.
>
> Please tell us the sources for your assertion that their bodies have 'been
> needing' carbs. As far as I know, there is no 'Recommended Daily Amount'
for
> carbohydrates.

They are the body's main source of energy. I think you can talk to almost
any doctor or nutritionist and they'll tell you the same thing. If nothing
else, you should notice that the bread and pasta group form the base of the
food pyramid.

> Please also tell us the sources for your assertion that their bodies will
> have been 'screaming for' carbohydrates.

If you deprive the body of something important, it's going to crave those
kinds of foods.

-Rubystars

On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:25:45 GMT, "Rubystars" >
wrote:


>They are the body's main source of energy. I think you can talk to almost
>any doctor or nutritionist and they'll tell you the same thing. If nothing
>else, you should notice that the bread and pasta group form the base of the
>food pyramid.

The food guide pyramid is under review for change this year to reflect
advances in research on nutrition. In the most likely version bread,
rice, potatoes, and pasta get moved up to the top of the pyramid as eat
sparingly. Plant oils and whole grain foods are near the bottom.

For an example, see:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio.../pyramids.html

"Robert Klute" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:25:45 GMT, "Rubystars" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >They are the body's main source of energy. I think you can talk to almost
> >any doctor or nutritionist and they'll tell you the same thing. If
nothing
> >else, you should notice that the bread and pasta group form the base of
the
> >food pyramid.
>
> The food guide pyramid is under review for change this year to reflect
> advances in research on nutrition. In the most likely version bread,
> rice, potatoes, and pasta get moved up to the top of the pyramid as eat
> sparingly. Plant oils and whole grain foods are near the bottom.
>
> For an example, see:
> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio.../pyramids.html

Cool site.

This is from the page you linked though:

"Whole Grain Foods (at most meals). The body needs carbohydrates mainly for
energy. The best sources of carbohydrates are whole grains such as oatmeal,
whole-wheat bread, and brown rice. They deliver the outer (bran) and inner
(germ) layers along with energy-rich starch. "

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message .com>...
> "Robert Klute" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:25:45 GMT, "Rubystars" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >

>
> "Whole Grain Foods (at most meals). The body needs carbohydrates mainly for
> energy. The best sources of carbohydrates are whole grains such as oatmeal,
> whole-wheat bread, and brown rice.


Yes just like our ancestors ate tens of thousands of years ago.
Because humans could not have survived/thrived much less evolved into
what we are today without those "ESSENTIAL" grains/carbs right?

"Yes just like our ancestors ate tens of thousands of years ago.
Because humans could not have survived/thrived much less evolved into
what we are today without those "ESSENTIAL" grains/carbs right?"

Humans ate whatever they got their hands on, which is a function of the
particular environment in which they lived. In the middle east there is
evidence of collecting and using wild wheat stands as a seasonal food
source. In n. america many grains and plant sources were eaten in the
eastern woodlands area. These are just two examples of pre agriculturuse
of carb foods, just because they were there. Consuming a mixed macro
foods diet can support a larger population then can a meat only diet,
other things being equal, it takes several bushels of corn to produce one
pig because of energy conversion losses. "Thrive/survive/evolve", how do
we measure that; if we only ate meat there would be far less of us in far
fewer places.

Rubystars wrote:
<...>
> Not all the low carb products are bad though, some of them do cut down on
> calories, so that helps people who are counting calories, even if they're
> not really into that whole "low carb" stuff.

I didn't say they were bad, I just think the whole thing is irrational -- such
as the beer ads (e.g., Miller Lite versus Coors Light). Miller Lite makes an
appeal on having x% less carbs than other light beers. Coors notes that the
difference is only 1.5 carbs or something -- six little calories. Hard to get
excited about either claim. And fwiw, most low-carb stuff doesn't reduce calories:

http://www.turnto10.com/healthcheck1...10/detail.html

> I saw a commercial yesterday or
> today about low carb peanut butter. I'm going to see if I can find it and
> compare the calories to regular peanut butter.

I don't consider peanut butter high-carb (nuts are allowed on low-carb diets).
You can get a reduced-fat peanut butter, which should have even less calories
than low-carb since a gram of fat has 9 cals and a gram of carb has 4. If you
can't find a low-fat peanut butter, get some natural peanut butter (find a brand
you like since you had an unpleasant experience; or add salt and/or sweetener to
the brand you disliked) that separates when it sits and pour out the oil.

> Not all the low carb products are bad though, some of them do cut down on
> calories, so that helps people who are counting calories, even if they're
> not really into that whole "low carb" stuff. I saw a commercial yesterday or
> today about low carb peanut butter. I'm going to see if I can find it and
> compare the calories to regular peanut butter.
>
> -Rubystars

Actualy almost all those "low carb" products (including Atkins
brand) are just as fake and processed as any other convinience food
and I wouldnt touch them. 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. Leave
it to the greedy despicable soy industry to profit off both the low
fat and low carb craze.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Rubystars wrote:
> <...>
> > Not all the low carb products are bad though, some of them do cut down
on
> > calories, so that helps people who are counting calories, even if
they're
> > not really into that whole "low carb" stuff.
>
> I didn't say they were bad, I just think the whole thing is irrational --
such
> as the beer ads (e.g., Miller Lite versus Coors Light). Miller Lite makes
an
> appeal on having x% less carbs than other light beers. Coors notes that
the
> difference is only 1.5 carbs or something -- six little calories. Hard to
get
> excited about either claim. And fwiw, most low-carb stuff doesn't reduce
calories:

Most of it doesn't, you're right. A lot of what's advertized as "low carb"
seems extremely high in fat and calories to me. There were some pretty good
frozen dinners I found though that were low calorie because the extra carbs
had been reduced.

> http://www.turnto10.com/healthcheck1...10/detail.html
>
> > I saw a commercial yesterday or
> > today about low carb peanut butter. I'm going to see if I can find it
and
> > compare the calories to regular peanut butter.
>
> I don't consider peanut butter high-carb (nuts are allowed on low-carb
diets).
> You can get a reduced-fat peanut butter, which should have even less
calories

When I eat it, I eat the reduced fat kind, but it's not really much better
than regular, last time I checked.

> than low-carb since a gram of fat has 9 cals and a gram of carb has 4. If
you
> can't find a low-fat peanut butter, get some natural peanut butter (find a
brand
> you like since you had an unpleasant experience; or add salt and/or
sweetener to
> the brand you disliked) that separates when it sits and pour out the oil.

I'm just afraid of getting something that tastes disgusting, and then having
a whole jar of it.

-Rubystars

"Wolfbrother" > wrote in message
om...
> > Not all the low carb products are bad though, some of them do cut down
on
> > calories, so that helps people who are counting calories, even if
they're
> > not really into that whole "low carb" stuff. I saw a commercial
yesterday or
> > today about low carb peanut butter. I'm going to see if I can find it
and
> > compare the calories to regular peanut butter.
> >
> > -Rubystars
>
> Actualy almost all those "low carb" products (including Atkins
> brand) are just as fake and processed as any other convinience food
> and I wouldnt touch them.

I like convenience foods anyway (especially frozen dinners and canned soup).
I'm really only worried about calories right now, though I try to do good in
other stuff most of the time.

> 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.

>Leave
> it to the greedy despicable soy industry to profit off both the low
> fat and low carb craze.

I'd buy tofu and soy milk regardless of what craze was going on. I just like
them.

-Rubystars

>
> > 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

Hi Mark,

How do you know that the syndrome wasn't a factor? Maybe diabetes just
went undiagnosed.

-Chad

> wrote in message
...
> "People who don't have metabolic disorders (syndrome x) are those who
> refrain from eating massive amounts of refined carbs over a number of
> years. You've got the chicken/egg thing backwards."
>
> Here, once again in a now long chain of chances, you can provide something
> other then opinion to support an assertion. You can start by listing the
> risk factors for the syndrom that have been identified by research. Then
> you might mention the asian diet which is very high in carbs traditionally
> and not till recently did the syndrom become a factor. Once we have some
> facts and research and the asian example under our belts, we can have more
> then a corner bar style discussion on the topic.

> > > -Rubystars

> > What's toxic about soy? I like soy products.



Studies Showing Adverse Effects of Dietary Soy, 1971-2003
1971
Wallace, GM. Studies on the Processing and Properties of Soymilk. J
Sci Food Agri 1971 Oct;22:526-535. In order to neutralize the protease
inhibitors (enzymes that inhibit the digestion of protein) in soy, it
must be heated to very high temperatures under pressure and for
considerable time. This process unfortunately denatures the overall
protein content of soy, rendering it largely ineffective.

1974
Joseph, JR. Biological and physiological Factors in Soybeans. JOACS,
1974 Jan;51:161A-170A. In feeding experiments, use of soy protein
isolate (SPI) increased requirements for vitamins E, K, D and B12 and
created deficiency symptoms of calcium, magnesium, manganese,
molybdenum, copper, iron and zinc.

1975
Nutrition during Pregnancy and Lactation. California Department of
Health, 1975. Soy is listed as a minor source of protein in Japanese
and Chinese diets. Major sources of protein listed were meat including
organ meats, poultry, fish and eggs.

1976
Searle CE, ed, Chemical Carcinogens, ACS Monograph 173, American
Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1976. Asians throughout the world
have high rates of thyroid cancer.

1977
Chang KC, ed, Food in Chinese Cultu Anthropological and Historical
Perspectives, New Haven, 1977. This survey found that soy foods
accounted for only 1.5 percent of calories in the Chinese diet,
compared with 65 percent of calories from pork.

1978
FDA ref 72/104, Report FDABF GRAS - 258. In 1972, the Nixon
administration directed a reexamination of substances believed to be
GRAS in the light of any scientific information then available. This
reexamination included casein protein which became codified as GRAS in
1978. In 1974, the FDA obtained a literature review of soy protein
because, as soy protein had not been used in food until 1959 and was
not even in common use in the early 1970s, it was not eligible to have
its GRAS status grandfathered under the provisions of the Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act.

1979
Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food
Ingredients. Prepared for FDA by Life Sciences Research Office,
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 9650
Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20014, Contract No, FDA 223-75-2004,
1979. In this document, the FDA expresses concern about nitrites and
lysinoalanine in processed soy. Even at low levels of
consumption—averaging one-third of a gram per day at the time—the
presence of these carcinogens was considered too great a threat to
public health to allow GRAS status. Soy protein did have approval for
use as a binder in cardboard boxes and this approval was allowed to
continue because researchers considered that migration of nitrites
from the box into the food contents would be too small to constitute a
cancer risk. FDA officials called for safety specifications and
monitoring procedures before granting of GRAS status for food. These
were never performed. To this day, use of soy protein is codified as
GRAS only for limited industrial use as a cardboard binder.

1979
Torum, B. Nutritional Quality of Soybean Protein Isolates: Studies in
Children of Preschool Age. Soy Protein and Human Nutrition, Harold L
Wilcke and others, eds, Academic Press, New York, 1979. A group of
Central American children suffering from malnutrition was first
stabilized and brought into better health by feeding them native
foods, including meat and dairy products. Then for a two-week period
these traditional foods were replaced by a drink made of soy protein
isolate and sugar. All nitrogen taken in and all nitrogen excreted
were measured. The researchers found that the children retained
nitrogen and that their growth was "adequate," so the experiment was
declared a success. However, the researchers noted that the children
vomited "occasionally," usually after finishing a meal; over half
suffered from periods of moderate diarrhea; some had upper respiratory
infections; and others suffered from rash and fever. It should be
noted that the researchers did not dare to use soy products to help
children recover from malnutrition, and were obliged to supplement the
soy?sugar mixture with nutrients largely absent in soy products,
notably vitamins A, D, B12, iron, iodine and zinc.

1981
Casey CE and others . Availability of zinc: loading tests with human
milk, cow's milk, and infant formulas. Pediatrics 1981;68(3):394-6.
Female subjects consumed 25 mg of zinc with milk or formula, the
amount of which was calculated to provide 5 gm of protein, after an
eight-hour fast. Blood samples were taken prior to (base line) and at
30-minute intervals for three hours after consumption of zinc. The
plasma response with human milk was significantly greater than with
cow's milk and all the formulas. The response with cow's milk and a
cow's milk-based formula was one third that with human milk; responses
with a soy-based and two casein hydrolysate-based formulas were even
lower.

1981
Lebenthal E and others. The development of pancreatic function in
premature infants after milk-based and soy-based formulas. Pediatr Res
1981 Sep;15(9):1240-1244. Soy formula fed to premature babies caused
in increase in digestive enzymes compared to milk-fed babies,
indicating low digestibility of soy formula.

1982
Murphy PA. Phytoestrogen Content of Processed Soybean Foods. Food
Technology. 1982:50-54. One hundred grams of soy protein, the maximum
suggested cholesterol-lowering dose in the FDA-sanctioned health
claim, can contain almost 600 mg of isoflavones.

1983
Wenk GL and Stemmer KL. Suboptimal dietary zinc intake increases
aluminum accumulation into the rat brain. Brain Res 1983;288:393-395.
Zinc deficiency will cause more aluminum to be absorbed into the body
in general, and into the brain in particular. Aluminum will be
absorbed by competing for binding sites on a zinc-containing ligand.
Fluoride and phytates in soy formula will induce zinc deficiency.

1983
Poley JR and Klein AW. Scanning electron microscopy of soy
protein-induced damage of small bowel mucosa in infants. J Pediatr
Gastroenterol Nutr 1983 May;2(2):271-87. Soy feeding caused damage to
small bowel mucosa in 2 infants. The damage was similar to that of
celiac disease and consistent with a lectin-induced toxicity.

1983
Tait S and others. The availability of minerals in food, with
particular reference to iron. Journal of Research in Society and
Health, April 1983;103(2):74?77. When precipitated soy products like
tofu are consumed with meat, the mineral blocking effects of the
phytates are reduced. The Japanese traditionally eat a small amount of
tofu or miso as part of a mineral?rich fish broth, followed by a
serving of meat or fish.

1983
Ross RK. Effect of in-utero exposure to diethylstilbesterol on age at
onset of puberty and on post-pubertal hormone levels in boys,"
Canadian Medical Association Journal 1983, May 15;128(10):1197-8. Male
children exposed during gestation to diethylstilbesterol (DES), a
synthetic estrogen that has effects on animals similar to those of
phytoestrogens from soy, had testes smaller than normal on maturation.

1984
Ologhobo AD and others. Distribution of phosphorus and phytate in some
Nigerian varieties of legumes and some effects of processing. Journal
of Food Science. January/February 1984;49(1):199-201. The phytic acid
in soy is highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques, such
as soaking or long, slow cooking.

1994
Hawkins NM and others. Potential aluminium toxicity in infants fed
special infant formula. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1994;19(4):377-81
(1994). Researchers found aluminum concentrations of 534 micrograms/L
in soy formula, as compared to 9.2 micrograms/L in breast milk. The
authors concluded that infants may be at risk from aluminium toxicity
when consuming formula containing more than 300 micrograms/L.

1985
Rackis JJ and others. The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I. Background,
objectives and procedural details. Qualification of Plant Foods in
Human Nutrition, 1985;35. Diets of soy protein isolate high in trypsin
inhibitors caused depressed growth and enlargement and pathological
conditions of the pancreas, including cancer, and enlarged thryoid
glands in rats. Analyses for this study showed that trypsin inhibitor
content of soy protein isolate can vary as much as fivefold. Even
low-level-trypsin-inhibitor SPI feeding resulted in reduced weight
gain compared to controls. Soy protein isolate and textured vegetable
protein made from soy protein isolate are used extensively in school
lunch programs, imitation foods, commercial baked goods, diet
beverages, meal replacements and fast food products. They are heavily
promoted in Third World countries and form the basis of many food
giveaway programs.

1986
McGraw MD and others. Aluminum content in milk formulae and
intravenous fluids used in infants. Lancet I:157 (1986). Carefully
collected human breast milk contained 5 to 20 micrograms aluminum per
liter; concentrations were 10 to 20 fold greater in most cow's
milk-based formulas and 100-fold greater in soy-based formulas.

1986
Fort P and others. Breast feeding and insulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus in children. J Am Coll Nutr 1986;5(5):439-441. Twice as many
soy-fed children developed diabetes as those in a control group that
was breast fed or received milk-based formula. It was based on this
study that the American Academy of Pediatrics took a position of
opposition to the use of soy infant formula. This objection was later
dropped after the AAP received substantial grants from the Infant
Formula Council.

1986
Freni-Titulaer LW and others. Am J Dis Child 1986
Dec;140(12):1263-1267.Soy infant feeding was associated with higher
rates of early development in girls, including breast development and
pubic hair before the age of eights, sometimes before the age of
three.

1987
Dabeka RW and McKenzie AD. Lead, cadmium, and fluoride levels in
market milk and infant formulas in Canada. J Assoc Off Anal Chem
1987;70(4):754-7 (1987). Soy based or milk-free formulas contained
about 8-15 times more cadmium than milk-based formulas as well as high
amounts of fluoride.

1987
Katz SH. Food and Biocultural Evolution: A Model for the Investigation
of Modern Nutritional Problems. Nutritional Anthropology, Alan R. Liss
Inc., 1987, p 50. During the Chou Dynasty (1134 - 246 BC) the soybean
was designated one of the five sacred grains, along with barley,
wheat, millet and rice. However, the pictograph for the soybean, which
dates from earlier times, indicates that it was not first used as a
food; for whereas the pictographs for the other four grains show the
seed and stem structure of the plant, the pictograph for the soybean
emphasizes the root structure. Agricultural literature of the period
speaks frequently of the soybean and its use in crop rotation.
Apparently the soy plant was initially used as a method of fixing
nitrogen. The soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of
fermentation techniques, sometime during the Chou Dynasty. Katz
speculates that the rise of liver cancer in Africa is caused by the
introduction of soy foods into the African diet.

1989
El Tiney A. Proximate Composition and Mineral and Phytate Contents of
Legumes Grown in Sudan. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis
1989;2:67-68. Soybeans are listed as having some of the highest levels
of phytic acid of all legumes. Phytic acid blocks the absorption of
zinc, iron, copper and magnesium.

1989
Sandstrom and others. Effect of protein level and protein source on
zinc absorption in humans. J Nutr 1989 Jan;119(1):48?53. When
precipitated soy products like tofu are consumed with meat, the
mineral blocking effects of the phytates are reduced. The Japanese
traditionally eat a small amount of tofu or miso as part of a
mineral?rich fish broth, followed by a serving of meat or fish.

1990
Campbell TC. The Cornell-China-Oxford Project on Nutrition, Health and
Environment. 1990; Chen J and others. Diet, Lifestyle and Mortality in
China. A study of the characteristics of 65 counties. Monograph, joint
publication of Oxford University Press, Cornell University Press,
China People's Medical Publishing House. 1990. This exhaustive study
of Chinese diets found that legume consumption ranged from 0 to 58
grams per day, with an average of 13 gams. Assuming that two-thirds of
this is from soy beans, then consumption averages about 9 grams of soy
products per day. Isoflavone content would probably be about 10
mg/day.

1990
Fort P and others. Breast and soy-formula feedings in early infancy
and the prevalence of autoimmune thyroid disease in children. J Am
Coll Nutr 1990;9:164-167. This study documents the association of soy
formula feeding in infancy with autoimmune thryoid problems.

1990
Dabeka RW and McKenzie AD. Aluminium levels in Canadian infant
formulate and estimation of aluminium intakes from formulae by infants
0-3 months old. Food Addit Contam 1990;7(2):275-82. Researchers found
that aluminum content in soy formula for 1-3 month old infants could
result in an intake of 363 micrograms/kg/day (2088 micrograms/day)
alone, not including potential contribution from other foods or water.

1991
Hagger C and Bachevalier J. Visual habit formation in 3-month-old
monkeys (Macaca mulatta): reversal of sex difference following
neonatal manipulations of androgen. Behavior and Brain Research 1991,
45:57-63. Male infants undergo a "testosterone surge" during the first
few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those
of an adult male. During this period, the infant is programed to
express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the
development of his sexual organs and other masculine physical traits,
but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male
behavior. In monkeys, deficiency of male hormones impairs the
development of spatial perception (which, in humans, is normally more
acute in men than in women), of learning ability and of visual
discrimination tasks (such as would be required for reading.)

1994
Messina MJ and others. Soy Intake and Cancer Risk: A Review of the In
Vitro and In Vivo Data," Nutrition and Cancer, 1994, 212):113-131.
This study fueled speculation on soy's anticarcinogenic properties.
The authors noted that in 26 animal studies, 65 percent reported
protective effects from soy. At least one study was left out, in which
soy feeding caused pancreatic cancer, the 1985 study by Rackis. In the
human studies listed, the results were mixed. A few showed some
protective effect but most showed no correlation at all between soy
consumption and cancer rates. ". . the data in this review cannot be
used as a basis for claiming that soy intake decreases cancer risk."
In a subsequent book, The Simple Soybean and Your Health, Messina
recommends 1 cup or 230 grams of soy products per day in his "optimal"
diet as a way to prevent cancer.

1995
Chorazy PA and others. Persistent hypothyroidism in an infant
receiving a soy formula: case report and review of the literature.
Pediatrics 1995 Jul;96(1 Pt 1):148-50. the study describes a case of
persistent hypothyroidism in an infant who had received soy formula.

1995
Anderson JW and others. Meta-analysis of the Effects of Soy Protein
Intake on Serum Lipids. New England Journal of Medicine, 1995
3335):276-82. The FDAs allowance of a health claim for soy protein
is based largely on this meta-anaylsis, sponsored by Protein
Technologies International. However, the study authors discarded eight
studies for various reasons, leaving a remainder of 29. The published
report suggested that individuals with cholesterol levels over 250
mg/dl would experience a "significant" reduction of 7 to 20 percent in
levels of serum cholesterol if they substituted soy protein for animal
protein. Cholesterol reduction was insignificant for individuals whose
cholesterol was lower than 250 mg/dl. In other words, for most of the
population, the substitution of meat with soy will not bring blood
cholesterol levels down.

1996
Harras A, ed. Cancer Rates and Risks, 4th Edition, 1996, National
Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. This report shows
that the Japanese, and Asians in general, have lower rates of breast
and prostate cancer but much higher rates of other types of cancer,
particularly cancer of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas and liver.

1996
Fukutake M and others. Quantification of genistein and genistin in
soybeans and soybean products. Food Chem Toxicol 1996;34:457-461.
Average isoflavone consumption in Japan was found to be about 10 mg
per day.

1997
IEH assessment on Phytoestrogens in the Human Diet, Final Report to
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK, November 1997.
This exhaustive report on phytoestrogens, prepared by the British
government, failed to find much evidence of benefit and warned against
potential adverse effects.

1997
Herman-Giddens ME and others. Secondary Sexual Characteristics and
Menses in Young Girls Seen in Office Practice: A Study from the
Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network. Pediatrics, 1997
Apr;994):505-512. Investigators found that one percent of all girls
now show signs of puberty, such as breast development or pubic hair,
before the age of three; by age eight, 14.7 percent of white girls and
almost 50 percent of African-American girls had one or both of these
characteristics. The widespread use of soy-based formula, beginning in
the 1970s, is a likely explanation for the increase in early
maturation in girls.

1998
Nagata C and others. Decreased serum total cholesterol concentration
is associated with high intake of soy products in Japanese men and
women. J Nutr 1998 Feb;128(2):209-13. This study included a survey of
soy consumption among Japanese men and women. Consumption of soy
products was about 54 grams per day for women and 64 grams per day for
men. The total amount of soy protein from these products was 7-8 grams
providing about 25 mg isoflavones.

1998
Irvine CH and others. Phytoestrogens in soy-based infant foods:
concentrations, daily intake and possible biological effects. Proc Soc
Exp Biol Med 1998 Mar;217(3):247-53. Researchers found that soy
formulas provide infants with a daily dose rate of 3 mg/kg body weight
total isoflavones, "which is maintained at a fairly constant level
between 0-4 months of age. . . . This rate of isoflavone intake is
much greater than that shown in adult humans to alter reproductive
hormones."

1998
Yaffe K and others. Serum estrogen levels, cognitive performance, and
risk of cognitive decline in older community women. J Am Geriatr Soc
1998 Jul;46(7):918-20. Women in the higher estrone quartiles had lower
performance on two cognitive tests.

1998
Irvine CH and others. Daily intake and urinary excretion of genistein
and daidzein by infants fed soy- or dairy-based infant formulas. Am J
Clin Nutr 1998 Dec;68(6 Suppl):1462S-1465S. Researchers found that
"young infants are able to digest, absorb, and excrete genistein and
daidzein from soy-based formulas as efficiently as do adults consuming
soy products.

1999
Eklund G and Oskarsson A. Exposure of cadmium from infant formulas and
weaning foods. Food Addit Contam 16(12):509-19 (1999). Cadmium was 6
times higher in soy formulas than cow's milk formulas.

1999
Olguin MC and others. Intestinal alterations and reduction of growth
in prepuberal rats fed with soybean [Article in Spanish]. Medicina (B
Aires) 1999;59:747-752. Rats fed soy-based chow had reduced growth and
an increase in gastrointestinal problems compared to controls.

1999
Nilhausen K and Meinertz H. Lipoprotein(a) and dietary proteins:
casein lowers lipoprotein(a) concentrations as compared with soy
protein. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:419-25. Many studies have shown that
soy consumption can lower serum cholesterol levels. These studies have
led to claims that soy can prevent heart disease. However, the theory
that high cholesterol levels cause heart disease is becoming more and
more untenable. Cholesterol levels are not a good marker for proneness
to heart disease. However Lipoprotein(a) or Lp(a), does serve as a
good marker for heart disease. This study indicates that soy raises
Lp(a), meaning that it is likely to contribute to heart disease.

1999
Food Labeling: Health Claims: Soy Protein and Coronary Heart Disease,
Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 101 (Docket No. 98P-0683).
This US government document allows a health claim for foods containing
6.25 grams of soy protein per serving. The original petition,
submitted by Protein Technologies International (a division of
Dupont), requested a health claim for isoflavones, the estrogen-like
compounds found plentifully in soybeans, based on assertions that
"only soy protein that has been processed in a manner in which
isoflavones are retained will result in cholesterol-lowering." In
1998, the FDA made the unprecedented move of rewriting PTI's petition,
removing any reference to the phytoestrogens and substituting a claim
for soy protein, a move that was in direct contradiction to the
agency's regulations. The FDA is authorized to make rulings only on
substances presented by petition. The abrupt change in direction was
no doubt due to the fact that a number of researchers, including
scientists employed by the US government, submitted documents
indicating that isoflavones are toxic. The regulations stipulate that
25 grams of soy protein per day, as part of a diet low in saturated
fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease. Twenty-five
grams soy protein can contain from 24-125 mg isoflavones, depending on
processing methods. Many letters were written in protest, expressing
concerns about mineral blocking effects, enzyme inhibitors,
goitrogenicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive problems and
increased allergic reactions from consumption of soy products.

1999
Sheehan DM and Doerge DR, Letter to Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305) February 18, 1999. A strong letter of protest from two
government researchers at the National Center for Toxicological
Research urging that soy protein carry a warning label rather than a
health claim.

1999
Ginsburg J and Prelevic GM. Is there a proven place for phytoestrogens
in the menopause?" Climacteric, 1999;2:75-78. Quantification of
discomfort from hot flashes is extremely subjective and most studies
show that control subjects report reduction in discomfort in amounts
equal to subjects given soy.

1999
White L. Association of High Midlife Tofu Consumption with Accelerated
Brain Aging. Plenary Session #8: Cognitive Function, The Third
International Soy Symposium, Program, November 1999, page 26. An
ongoing study of Japanese Americans living in Hawaii found a
significant statistical relationship between two or more servings of
tofu per week and "accelerated brain aging." Those participants who
consumed tofu in mid life had lower cognitive function in late life
and a greater incidence of Alzheimer's and dementia.

2000
Clarkson TB. Soy phytoestrogens: what will be their role in
postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy? Menopause 2000
Mar-Apr;7(2):71-5. Soy did not prevent bone loss when measured at
autopsy in female monkeys who had had their reproductive organs
removed.

2000
Vincent A and Fitzpatrick LA. Soy isoflavones: are they useful in
menopause? Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:1174-84. "Current data are
insufficient to draw definitive conclusions regarding the use of
isoflavones as an alternative to estrogen for hormone replacement in
postmenopausal women."

2000
North K and Golding J. A maternal vegetarian diet in pregnancy is
associated with hypospadias. The ALSPAC Study Team. Avon Longitudinal
Study of Pregnancy and Childhood. BJU Int 2000 Jan;85(1):107-113.
Vegetarian women are more likely consume more soy than the general
population. Incidence of hypospadias was twice as great in vegetarian
mothers than in nonvegetarian mothers. Hypospadias is a birth defect
due to interrupted development of the penis.

2000
Nakamura Y and others. Determination of the levels of isoflavonoids in
soybeans and soy-derived foods and estimation of isoflavonoids in the
Japanese daily intake. J AOAC Int 2000;83:635-650. This survey found
that average isoflavone consumption in Japan is about 28 mg per day.

2000
Bee G. Dietary Conjugated Linoleic Acids Alter Adipose Tissue and Milk
Lipids of Pregnant and Lactating Sows. J Nutr 2000;130:2292-2298.
Dietary mixtures for pigs, which are carefully formulated to promote
reproduction and growth, allow approximately 1 percent of the ration
as soy in a diet based on grains and supplements. (Pigs have a
digestive system similar to humans.) The Central Soya Company, Inc.
website gives a range of 2.5 percent to 17.5 percent soy in the diet
of pigs, citing a number of anti-nutritional components that "have
been documented to cause gastrointestinal disturbance, intestinal
damage, increased disease susceptibility and reduced performance in
pigs."

2000
Nagata C. Ecological study of the association between soy product
intake and mortality from cancer and heart disease in Japan.
International Journal of Epidemiology Oct 2000; 29(5):832-6. This
study contained the following official conclusion: "The present study
provides modest support for the preventive role of soy against stomach
cancer and heart disease death." However, only the association with
lower heart disease death is correct. What the study actually found
was that "Soy protein intake was significantly correlated with stomach
cancer mortality rate in men" and "soy product intake estimated as
total amount as well as isoflavone and soy protein intake were
significantly positively correlated with colorectal cancer mortality
rates in both sexes." In other words, men who consumed lots of soy had
more stomach cancer and men and women who consumed lots of soy had
more colorectal cancer. These results are especially interesting as
soy proponents often claim that Asians have lower rates of colorectal
cancer because they eat more soy.

2001
Strom BL and others. Exposure to soy-based formula in infancy and
endocrinological and reproductive outcomes in young adulthood. JAMA
2001 Nov 21;286(19):2402-3. Although reported in the media as a
vindication of soy infant formula, the study actually found that
soy-fed infants had more reproductive problems and more asthma as
adults.

2001
Massey LK and others. Oxalate content of soybean seeds (Glycine max:
Leguminosae), soyfoods, and other edible legumes. J Agric Food Chem
2001 Sep;49(9):4262-6. Soy foods were found to be high in oxalates and
likely to contribute to kidney stones.

2002
Khalil DA and others. Soy protein supplementation increases serum
insulin-like growth factor-I in young and old men but does not affect
markers of bone metabolism. J Nutr 2002 Sep;132(9):2605-8. Men
consuming soy protein had higher levels of insulin-like growth
factor-I (IGF-I) than those consuming milk protein. According to many
other studies (but not stated in the report), high levels of IFG-I are
also found in rBGH milk and have been implicated in causing hormonal
cancers.

2003
Lack G and others. Factors associates with the development of peanut
allergy in childhood. N Engl J Med 2003 Mar 13;348(11):977-85. The
number of children with life-threatening peanut allergies has tripled
during the last decade. This study suggests a link between consumption
of soy-based formula and the development of peanut allergies.
Scientists at the University of Bristol monitored 14,000 babies in the
southwest of England. Among the 49 children who developed a peanut
allergy, almost a quarter had consumed soy milk during their first two
years. (Less than 5 percent of babies overall receive soy formula in
the UK.) According to lead researcher Gideon Lack, "These results
suggest that sensitization to peanut may possibly occur. . . as a
result of soya exposure."


Does that answer your question?

"> > What's toxic about soy? I like soy products."

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.

"Wolfbrother" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > > 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


I've heard a lot of information both for and against. I'm not sure how much
of it is politically motivated.

I eat it because I can fit it into my diet and I enjoy it.

-Rubystars

> wrote in message
...
> "> > What's toxic about soy? I like soy products."
>
> 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.

I noticed the same kind of contradictory information.

I think soy is neat because its products can be used as milk, meat, or eggs
in many recipes. It's so versatile.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > "> > What's toxic about soy? I like soy products."
> >
> > 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.
>
> I noticed the same kind of contradictory information.
=====================
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.


>
> I think soy is neat because its products can be used as milk, meat, or
eggs
> in many recipes. It's so versatile.
==========
Because its so highly processed? I find it amazing that anyone would want
to eat it. Why any one would even think of feeding it to kids and pre-teens
in really beyond me, since it is promoted as a hormone replacement for
post-menopausal women. And many of the people that promote soy substitutes
are the same people that decry beef because some has hormones injected!



>
> -Rubystars
>
>

>
> 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.
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.

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "> > What's toxic about soy? I like soy products."
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I noticed the same kind of contradictory information.
> =====================
> 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.

I can use tofu (which is not really processed all that much) to serve the
place of meat in a casserole, of eggs in an "egg salad" of dairy in a
"cheese cake." I can use soy milk (which is one step less processed than
tofu, well, except that it's had flavoring and vitamins added) for a variety
of recipes. I like a few soy beans in a stir fry too.

Sometimes I do eat highly processed soy food, like hot dogs or burgers, but
not all that often, and they have a lot fewer fat grams and calories than
the meat versions.

>
> >
> > I think soy is neat because its products can be used as milk, meat, or
> eggs
> > in many recipes. It's so versatile.
> ==========
> Because its so highly processed? I find it amazing that anyone would
want
> to eat it. Why any one would even think of feeding it to kids and
pre-teens
> in really beyond me, since it is promoted as a hormone replacement for
> post-menopausal women. And many of the people that promote soy
substitutes
> are the same people that decry beef because some has hormones injected!

I'm not that worried about hormones given to cattle. And I certainly have
nothing to fear from soy's so-called "Feminizing" effects. *L* I don't quite
believe that claim though.

-Rubystars

"Wolfbrother" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > 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.
> 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.

I was put on soy formula for a while as a baby, (I forgot what reason they
said, but it was because the doctor said to). It never hurt me, though it
might explain why I like soy now.

-Rubystars