# The "Soy" article in this issue's 'Mothering'



## *solsticemama* (Feb 8, 2003)

Have y'all read it?























Any educated responses to it? It has certainly made me rethink giving soy to my family except in very limited amounts. I don't have time to comment further on my initial reaction to this article. I haven't researched its sources yet either but just wondered if others had read it.


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

i dont get mothering mag... so i havent read it at all..


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

I haven't received my magazine yet. But there is controversary over consuming large amounts of soy that I do know about. Usual either surrounding the idea that most soybeans are gmo OR the hormonal effects of soy. Either way, I've read many articles supporting both positives and negatives. I myself have PCOS and once I limited my soy intake I was able to conceive within a few months after trying for MANY months. I think soy only becomes a problem when it is over eaten. SOme folks will drink it, use it as their main protein source and even induldge in soy desserts- every day... obviously that's not good. But, in small amounts, even daily in small amounts, it's my families opinion that soy is very beneficial.

Kimberley


----------



## *solsticemama* (Feb 8, 2003)

Well I guess I'll have to wait till everyone's read it. It's real eye-popper tho. It was taken from a book about the same subject. I'll be interested to hear what everyone thinks.


----------



## muse (Apr 17, 2002)

can you give a biref synopsis? i don't get the magazine


----------



## moss (Feb 7, 2004)

What was the name of the book?

I dont get the mag either.







i just read it online, so i'm always a little behind. I wish we had money in the budget for reading material.

We dont do much soy around here. I have a bit of tofu in the fridge bc ds asked for it. I figure a little bit of tofu isnt going to do a lot of damage, and it's sure as he!! a lot healthier than giving him potato chips or ice cream as a treat.

I think the fermented soys are supposed to be a lot healthier too, arent they?


----------



## rainbowmoon (Oct 17, 2003)

I have not yet gotten my issue of Mothering so I've not read the article yet.

I have also heard that soy can effect your fertility..seems there was an article put out a couple years back.

Anyone know where I can read more about soy consumption related to fertility?


----------



## PikkuMyy (Mar 26, 2004)

As a vegan, here's my two cents - I haven't read the article in Mothering but I've read many others and my DH spent some time lately reading a bunch from reputable sources (Not Weston-Price) which didn't have any chance of being pro-meat. We've changed out diet as a result.

$.01 - Take care to look at the funding and background of most anti-soy articles and material. Most come from the dairy or cattle industry or from those promoting eating meat.

$.02 - People at the forefront of vegan nutrition and animal rights have made sure to point out that overconsuming any one food can be bad for you, and since soy has been eaten by humans for a relatively short time, we would be wise to limit our intake to a few times a week.

I'm not pro or anti soy. But I refuse to eat animals. So we've gone through our diet (spurred by DH) and noticed that there were days in which, as another poster mentioned, we ate WAY more soy than we would have eaten any other food. So I've cut back and we're eating other kinds of beans and nuts instead, I use much more rice milk instead of soy milk, and we actually pay attention to how much we've eaten that week. I know that soy, just like milk did for me, gives me gas, and I feel better when I've had less. But I'm not cutting it out altogether, just making sure I don't overdo it. That seems wise with all forms of food.

Emily


----------



## michelle1k (Jul 7, 2002)

Ok, someone (preferrably a vegan someone - Erin Pavlina... where are you?!) talk me off of the edge here ... I have been a vegan for almost 6 years now - it all started with ds's severe dairy- and egg-allergies, but we are vegan now for ethical, humane and sustainable-earth reasons too. We are healthier now than we have ever been and I can say this without any caveats.

*But* this article is super scary. The average Asian person in China, Taiwan, Vietnam...etc. etc. (according to the article) consumes no more than 30-something gms of soy per day. Compare that to the average amount of soy in one cup of soymilk (220-something). We do way more than that - every day.

At least a cup of soy milk w/ breakfast, soy milk in our hot beverages troughout the day, soy yogurt every day, sometimes tofu for dinner, tempeh less often and occasionally a soy burger, sausage or frozen desert. My kids (ds aged 6 and dd 22 months) despise legumes. Will eat nuts in only very moderate amounts (ds is allergic to peanuts). Certainly not enough to sustain a healthy growing body.

I try to make seitan from scratch often, disguise legumes where I can in sauces, hummus and spreads, but the truth is, soy (tofu, soy milk and yogurt mostly) is an often-used staple in our house for my fussy-eating kids.

Rice-milk seems to me (and I may be wrong) a nutritionally defiicient alternative and loaded with sugar to boot. Almond milk, ditto (at least as far as protein and sugar goes).

I have always prided myself on cooking from scratch, whole-food healthful meals, but now I have the wind completely taken out of my sails and want to just sit here and sob.








Can anyone give me some uplifting information?

Feeling totally overwhelmed now....

Michelle in sunny NY


----------



## Wilhemina (Dec 26, 2001)

Michelle1K - I'm right there with you. We all, but especially my 5 y.o. dd, consume (apparently large !?!?) amounts of soy daily when you add the soymilk, tofu, etc.

I also have the same concerns about rice and almond milk.

I am now very concerned. Revamping our diet will be almost as major as when we gave up meat in '91!

HELP!


----------



## baby...crazy (Feb 8, 2004)

As was mentioned previously, the dairy and egg industries have much to gain by disseminating false or misleading information about soy. But the numbers don't sound right either. First of all, I'm Asian, and there are billions of us. We eat lots of soy. And we've been eating soy for a long, long time. If it were really bad for you, I don't think there would be billions of us. Unless it's only bad for non-Asians, which I doubt. Only 30g of soy per day? Maybe more, because we eat lots of tofu. And things like edamame, soy sauce, etc., which are all soy-based. Fears of plant estrogen? Well, I'm a man, and I haven't started lactating. I have two kids, so I consider myself virile enough, and my testes haven't shriveled up. And maybe a little plant estrogen can help me stay in touch with my "feminine" side. And 220g of soy in a cup of soy milk? That doesn't sound right at all. We make soy milk all the time with our soy milk maker (bought one from soymilkmaker.com), and we use maybe a 1/2 cup of dry soy beans to make an entire quart. That doesn't sound like 220g per serving. And people keep talking about how soy is such a new thing. But haven't Asians been eating soy for centuries?

Paul


----------



## Artisan (Aug 24, 2002)

If the article was published by Mothering, I think it's safe to assume it wasn't funded by the meat or dairy industry. You could look at the author's bibliography and research HER sources, I suppose.

I was truly convinced of the evils of dairy for a while and switched to soy milk. When I got pg, I couldn't tolerate it and went back to dairy. Someone could have written a similar article about cow's milk.

In fact, someone could write a similar article about beef, chicken, fish, or apples for that matter if you eat a lot of them. But I do agree that soy is ultra-pervasive in vegetarian and low-carb foods, so you're getting way more of it than you may realize, which is probably not good.


----------



## ftcmj (Apr 25, 2004)

I've been a Mothering fan for over twelve years, even though I'm only expecting my first child this coming August. Yet after reading this article, and some of the others in the current issue, I'm wondering if it's the magazine that's changed or me. Maybe twelve years ago, I was as strident a know-it-all as many of the writers in this issue. That's not to say that they're necessarily wrong about their ideas. But I notice an underlying theme of underlying paranoia, self-righteousness, and fuzzy-headedness that makes me wonder about the magazine's editorial focus.

For example, in an otherwise compelling, reasoned, and well-documented article on medical marijuana for severe morning sickness, the author claims that only a "perverse federal bureaucrat" could disagree with her. What is she, a Branch Davidian?

But the soy article takes the Most Dubious award in my personal sweepstakes. Written by a Certified Clinical Nutritionist, it's heavily footnoted (100+ footnotes). At the end of the footnote, there's a link to the endnotes at Mothering Magazine's website. A link that doesn't work. I'm sure they'll fix it eventually.

The author has a PhD "in Nutritional Sciences and Anti-Aging Therapies" from an accredited distance-learning University in Cincinnati. This University prides itself in providing people with the freedom to design their own interdisciplinary PhD (and other) degrees. A recent accreditation review ordered unspecified changes to the University's doctoral programs. (http://www.tui.edu/prospective/notice.asp?strLink=Bb.8) A recent position paper by a panel of 51 leading aging researchers claims, basically, that anti-aging therapies are snake oil. Read it for yourself at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...A8809EC588EEDF

The author of the article claims elsewhere (http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/302poison.jsp) that the prevalence of soy in the American diet is the result of soy industry manipulations. She doesn't seem to have anything to say about the huge body of research evidence regarding the positive health effects of dietary soy.

The article's tone is so over-the-top, and so one-sided, that I can't help suspecting that the author is a person on a crusade. (Something I think I see a lot of in this issue of Mothering, anyway.) To me, the article reads like a remake of _Reefer Madness_, with a different evil weed in the starring role. And the way it is written makes me more, rather than less, suspicious of the author's methods.

Examples?

Quote:

...in the years since soy formula has been in the marketplace, parents and pediatricians have reported growing numbers of boys whose physical maturation is either delayed or does not occur at all. Breasts, underdeveloped gonads, undescended testicles (cryptorchidism), and steroid insufficiencies are increasingly common. Sperm counts are also falling.
This statement is a logical fallacy so old it has a Latin name (_Post hoc ergo propter hoc_; after this, therefore because of this). It's also short on detail. The author doesn't say what "years" are in question. It's easy to read this statement as cause-and-effect, yet the author doesn't make that claim, does she? Notice that she does _not_ say that there is a link between soy formula and these "reported" (any guesses what that means?) phenomena. Presumably if there had been a real association in the published research, she would have said sr rather, trumpeted so. What other things have occurred during those sinister years since soy milk came along to poison us all? Nuclear bomb tests? Pesticides, plastics, and pharmaceuticals in drinking water? Aspartame? Increased per capita caffeine consumption? Elevated mercury in fish? Type II diabetes in children under 6? More TV violence?

And the addition of the technical term for undescended testicles, cryptorchidism, adds nothing to the text but vaguely medical sheen. _Hm,_ we're supposed to think, _the author used a big word, so she must know what's she's talking about._ What I think is, _Hm, the author used a big word redundantly. I wonder why._

Quote:

There's nothing natural about these modern soy protein products. Textured soy protein, for example, is made by forcing defatted soy flour through a machine called an extruder under conditions of such extreme heat and pressure that the very structure of the soy protein is changed. Production differs little from the extrusion technology used to produce starch-based packing materials, fiber-based industrial products, and plastic toy parts, bowls, and plates.
Yet another new vocabulary word, _extruder_, right next to the scary, un-"natural" words _machine_, _extreme heat and pressure_, _industrial_, and _plastic_. An extruder is simply something that shoves stuff through a hole. Remember those Play-Do presses? Pasta machines? Cookie presses? Pastry tubes? Extruders, all. She might as well have said, "Pasta is made by forcing wet flour, mixed with sodium chloride and raw eggs (a known cause of salmonella contamination), through a machine that utilizes extrusion technology, the same basic process used to make razor wire, fuel rods for nuclear reactors, and synthetic petro-pharmaceuticals." Go feed that to your baby.

And also, "The _very_ structure of the soy protein is changed? Please. Does she mean "very" as in, "our _very_ way of life is threatened, under our _very_ noses"; _that_ kind of "very"? Lots of things change the very structure of proteins. Cooking it. Dissolving it in water. Drying it. Digesting it doesn't just change the structure; digestion utterly destroys the structure. Frying an egg changes the structure (excuse me, the _very_ structure) of the protein, irreversibly. A PhD in nutrition knows better, and if she meant something specific, you'd think she'd have said so.

The author may or may not be right about her thesis. The science she's pointing to may be good. But the way the point is presented pegs the needle on my bullshit-meter. And good science, and this is my point, doesn't need dishonest rhetorical tricks.

I'm looking forward to going through some of the sources for this article, assuming Mothering puts them on the Web site. I'm betting dollars to (fat-free, low-carb, organic spelt flour) donuts that the majority were read with a selective eye to bad news about Demon Soy. I won't keel over in astonishment if the major findings from a lot of the studies contradict her thesis, but were somehow "missed" in her analysis. In short, I smell a rat.

Full disclosure: even though I eat the occasional fish, I am indeed mostly vegetarian, primarily because I don't believe in killing unnecessary, because of the environmental damage that the American meat industry causes the environment, and the suffering of the animals in an inhumane system. But I haven't dedicated my life to ridding the world of the dreaded soy plant by eating it all, either.

There are clearly potential health problems associated with overeating soy, and like all foods, soy isn't appropriate for people who are allergic to it (duh), and also maybe not for breast cancer survivors, young babies, and other select groups. But soy is clearly not the toxic waste the author makes it out to be.

All that said, I'll happily eat (free-range) crow if I follow up on the author's footnotes and find the science to be sound. But if it is, I'll be surprised. Because sound science simply doesn't sound like this article.


----------



## ftcmj (Apr 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babycrazy*
...Only 30g of soy per day? Maybe more, because we eat lots of tofu.

And she means soy food _in bulk_, not soy protein. About the size of three peas, she says.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babycrazy*
I have two kids, so I consider myself virile enough, and my testes haven't shriveled up.

Just you wait, soysucker.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *babycrazy*
And 220g of soy in a cup of soy milk? That doesn't sound right at all... That doesn't sound like 220g per serving.

She says in the article that it's 220g of soy food, total, not soy protein. Soy milk is virtually entirely water. 1 cup of water weighs about 220g. So that's 220g of water, contaminated with soy, to make 220g of "soy food".

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babycrazy*
And people keep talking about how soy is such a new thing. But haven't Asians been eating soy for centuries?

She claims not. In fact, she says an American invented soymilk and introduced it to Asia.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

I did catch on to the scare tactics in the description of how the soy proteins are made, which does weaken the point, but otherwise I found the article to be spot-on.

Please tell me what other known to be a common allergen food substance is showing up [email protected] near everywhere one looks? And it's being added to Everything! I feel like I can't even buy bread, simple bread, without double checking the labels. I don't buy certain soups we used to use for fear that even that small amount might be what sets me off, or primes my system to react to something else.

Hidden dairy, hidden sodium, and now hidden soy unless one reads the ingredients labels Very closely. This is one of those allergens that can kill a person. The time I reacted from eating soynuts, I didn't wait to see if the reaction would get to the throat closing stage before I hit the Benedryl and inhaler.

If people want to eat it, fine. But it should be labelled the same way peanuts and "processed at a facility that processes peanuts" foods are labelled: Clearly and prominantly.


----------



## ftcmj (Apr 25, 2004)

I'm sorry to hear about your soy allergy. Do you know about this:
http://allergies.about.com/cs/soy/
and this:
http://www.food-allergens.de/symposium-vol1(2)/data/soy/soy-data.htm

Your personal problem with soy is common to people with other common food allergies. The underlying problem isn't that soy is "bad", it's that your particular allergen is everywhere, and often not labeled. If you were allergic to, oh, I don't know, jellyfish skin, would it be that much of a problem? (Yes, people do eat it.) The only worse thing for you that I can imagine might be wheat.

Wouldn't it be cool if there were a kit you could use to test samples of food for your particular allergen? Restaurants must be a challenge, too.









--ftcmj


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)




----------



## LukesMum (Nov 20, 2001)

DH and I are in a bit of a panic after reading this too. Glad this thread has started and I will follow closely!


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

"Rice-milk seems to me (and I may be wrong) a nutritionally defiicient alternative and loaded with sugar to boot. "

We use the 365 brand of rice milk that Whole Foods sells. It's enriched like soy milk, so it has all the same vitamins and such.


----------



## sebrinaw (Jan 28, 2002)

My two cents: We use Rice Dream, its made with organically grown Brown Rice and has NO ADDED Sugar (soy milk has added sugar). Now that said we don't drink it like milk, we only drink water and occasionally juice. We just use it as a substitute in baking when the recipe calls for dairy








Sebrina


----------



## dharmama (Dec 29, 2002)

I can't figure out how to subscibe to this thread without posting







so just wanted to say that I'm glad this thread has been started and I look forward to following it.

My mother and aunt have been talking about the "evils" of soy a LOT lately and I've been kind of ignoring them...just taking a "everything in moderation" approach....but now I'm feeling a little differently after reading the same information in Mothering mag.

Anxiously awaiting posts from Cathe and Erin Pavlina and....

~Erin


----------



## dharmama (Dec 29, 2002)

T Just figured out how to subscribe...it's up top in the "thread tools" pull down menu.


----------



## michelle1k (Jul 7, 2002)

Sebrinaw, I have looked at the Rice Dream Original Enriched and right now that looks like the only viable alternative to me (brown rice syrup and organic brown rice) - although I am still not happy with the amount of sugars (11 gms, I think?) and the very small amount of protein per serving (compared to soy milk). But at least it is fortified with B12, calcium and other essential vits.

<sigh>

I am beginning to feel that we should just stop trying to imitate a substance that comes from an animal's mammary glands and drink water, herbal beverages and freshly squeezed juice instead.







: I doubt that I'll ever cut out tofu, tempeh and miso / shoyu though - perhaps cutting back is prudent regardless...

Warmly,
Michelle in NY


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

A couple things come to mind. Yes anything, when overconsumed might be bad for you. Everyone is different, not all things affect everyone the same way. All non-dairy milks are sweetened unless you specifically but an unsweetened one. Most of them are also fortified with calcium, vitamin A & vitamin D. Americans eat way too much protein, so don't be concerned with trading up rice/almond/oat milk for your soy milk once in a while. Boys and girls for that matter are more likely to have genital problems (breast growth, etc.) from hormones in meat & dairy than from soy. I love soy and have four kids-no fertility problems here, but Jane Doe could have fertility problems from soy because we are different people and different things might cause her problems than cause me problems. We use rice, soy & almond milk. Eat soy products, but LOTS of other products too. If I felt like soy was causing a problem with any of us, I'd deal with it. Point being, blanket statements about anything are usually pretty extreme. Are Big Macs bad for you? Yes, but Joe Schmo might have a heart attack at age 38 after eating one Big Mac a year and Bill Schmo might live to be 138 after eating one every day. Nutrition is a very personalized issue and you have to do what's best for you & your family.


----------



## sebrinaw (Jan 28, 2002)

"I am beginning to feel that we should just stop trying to imitate a substance that comes from an animal's mammary glands and drink water, herbal beverages and freshly squeezed juice instead"

I agree 100% with this. We feel as a society that we need to drink milk and eat meat, so if we choose not to eat or drink those things we feel we must replace them with something that looks like or tastes like it. IWe don't drink soy milk because we don't like the way ity tastes. When we are thirsty we have to stop thinking we need something that tastes "good" and instead reach for water







My opinion for my family only









BTW, the rice dream in the carton, the non-refridgerated one has no added sweetener, just water, organically grown brown rice(partially milled), monounsaturated salflower oil and sea salt.
Sebrina


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Well, I got the mag at the store and read the article and at first it put me into a panic... then I started thinking... my family does proabably eat too much soy. Since going veggie 5 years ago we have yet to beable to give up our dairy and when we have we have replaced it with soy "like foods". Soy yogurt, soy milk, soy dogs, soy cheese, soy ice cream etc.
I think the thing I did get from the article, is that any food can be over done. I think maybe what we will do is just try eating more other foods. Someone said it above that we feel like it has to be animal like to eat it. Which for my family has been true. A better more healthy veggie diet would be one that centers on grains, beans, veggies and fruit and not so much on the overly processed foods we eat.
Which also brings me to this... ANYTHING can be bad if it is way over processed. I mean look at the lable of anything, if it has 100 ingredients it probably isn't good for you.







AND, anything can be over done. I mean if you depend on one food to give you all you need you are going to miss out.
So that is what I learned, maybe we need to cut back on our overly processed soy.
I also felt that a few of the statements in the article where also the same stuff you read about cows milk. I think I will have to do my own research









H


----------



## Erin Pavlina (Nov 11, 2001)

I haven't read the Mothering article so I can't comment on it. However, here are my thoughts on soy and the controversy.

1. Soy itself is not harmful. In fact it has many documented health benefits.

2. However, *over-processed* soy is not extraordinarily healthy and does not offer the same healthy effects as does soy in its more natural state.

3. The phyto estrogens in soy do not cause the same problems as the estrogen found in cow's milk, or any other animal milk, which can cause premature puberty and enlarged breasts in boys. Soy phytoestrogens are a totally different estrogen than the kind most people think of (relating to pubery and womanly things and such). So don't let that talk scare you.

4. Because of the large amount of soy often found in a vegan diet, we have chosen to limit our intake of overprocessed soy products. We drink enriched plain rice milk and use that in place of "milk". We limit our intake of veggie burgers, soy yogurt, soy ice cream, etc but we do still eat them. We still eat tofu because we like the calicum factor.

5. I still believe soy is way better than animal products in terms of health. But I will say that overprocessed soy products should be used in moderation.

6. Soy Formula does scare me. I would avoid any formula period, and I strongly urge vegan women to breastfeed for a minimum of the first year becuase otherwise you'll have to supplement with soy formula. Also, I would severely limit soy intake in children under 2 years of age due to allergy concerns.

That's it from me. Good forms of soy include tempeh and edamame.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

I, too, found the citations in the article to be misleading. I am going to paste here part of my response to this article on the vegfamily boards:

The author stated that soy in a pg woman's diet causes penile deformities. Her citiation for this was a study done on rats that were fed high levels of genistein (a component of soy ).

The author does have a PhD, & I would assume some education in statistics. It seems that a majority of the article focused on the dangers of soy formula (which I don't think is a fair condemnation of all soy products). She stated that the higher instance of early puberty among African American girls can be likely tied to the fact that they are more often fed soybased formula due to perceived or real lactose intolerances and that soy contains estrogens. Anyone who has ever taken statistics and research methods knows that correlation is not causation!

The statement that AA girls are more often fed soy formula & they are more often reaching early puberty does not prove causation. She completely ignored the fact that young AA girls are more likely to be overweight than young girls from the other ethnic groups she compared them to. Being overweight is a well accepted cause of early puberty.

I found a lot of the article to be inflamatory. Part of what bothered me the most is that the author seemed to imply that dairy was better than soy. Regardless of whether we should be relying on soy as heavily as some people do, I find the idea that dairy is better to be ludicrist. If there is no historical precident for eating lots of soy (as the author claims), there is certainly no evolutionary precident for humans consuming the milk of another species.

I do question the claim that Asians have not historically eaten much soy, although I have not researched it yet. One of my good friends who is from Japan has told me that the average Japanese diet has changed in the past few generations and that a majority of Japanese eat a good amount of dairy now a days, and less soy. This may be reflected in the authors citations for the amount of soy eaten by Asians. However, my friend has told me that prior generations ate significantly more soy than current generations.


----------



## CMiller (Apr 26, 2004)

I agree 100% with ftcmj - this article was anything but the "Whole Story" it claimed to be. It was written with one intention, to scare people away from soy. There are VERY powerful forces behind trying to make soy look bad (the dairy and beef industry - which are billion dollar industries), so be leery at just believing this kind of biased article at first glance.

One thing that made me raise my eyebrows after reading that article was that on one of the first pages of the magazine is a FULL page ad for, guess what, cow's milk...


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

*sigh* Where is Hilary when you need her? Unfermented soy in huge quantities can be detrimental! IT's been documented for some time now! I haven't read the article, so I can't comment on that, but IMHO to base the majority of one's diet on *one* thing is asking for trouble! Soy, in moderation is just fine health wise! Too much is not.

Put it into perspective: Lots of people here have problems with fruit juices. One glass of orange juice is the equivalent to like 5 oranges. When was the last time you sat down and ate 5 or 10 oranges in a sitting? How many soy beans does it take to make a single serving of tofu? Could you sit down and eat that many soy beans 3-6 times a day?

Just food for thought....


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

ftcmj-

please do write a letter to the editor of Mothering. I would like to see your well-thought out concerns published in the letters to the editor so that those who were frightened by this story (& who do not check the MDC forums) can read another perspective.

Just as an FYI- Vegetarian Times did publish a well researched article on soy last year that came to the exact opposite conclusion of the Mothering article. Check it out at:

http://www.vegetariantimes.com/magaz...sp?article=494


----------



## MelMel (Nov 9, 2002)

to state that Mothering mag printed this article on the dangers of soy (no matter how biased it may seem) because they are a vehicle for the dairy industry is inflammatory and as a long time reader of the magazine, I find it rude and unwarranted. I flipped through 4 random mag's from the last year, and each had a full page ad for Eden products (including their Soy milk)

I think that soy, animal diary products, as well as many other items most people shun can be a part of a healthy diet for most people (including my family). for ethical reasons, many shun animal products, and good for them. my family tends towards a whole food approach, so processed soy wouldnt come into it, anyway. but I would select a soy based hot dog over a meat based one (even though we eat meat) because i trust the quality and would risk a processed soy over a processed meat anyday. but of course, we would just not have a hot dog period....









I love what others have said, about balance. and also about milks for drinking. we are a water house. occasional milk for cereals and baking. and we use a combo (rice, soy, almond, organic diary) whatever is on sale or whatever is around and expires sooner









also, soy seems to be that sacred cow that is an untouchable subject to some vegans I know, IRL...any talk of possible dangers of over doing soy (which many of them admittedly do) immediately follows them spouting how evil and dangerous rice and dairy are (which may very well be true) but that doesnt mean moderation shouldnt be the primary goal for everyones diet.

just because this information may contradict what you want to believe, doesnt mean others who have no idea, and just go and pop all the diary and meat alternatives into their cart at wild oats or whole foods, shouldnt have access to this information....and maybe the author feels strongly about this issue. i wouldnt take it personally. i can see that for a person who relys heavily on soy, this article could cause problems with family and friends, who want to attack ANY choices we make.

i like mothering mag because they arent a 'vegetarian', 'carnavore' or 'vegan' only publication. I dont question their sway, because I dont think they particularily have one. they represent a combo of all of us.

i am nursing an acrobatic toddler, now....so I am so sorry if this is choppy and makes no sense, I cant get my thoughts straight right now


----------



## EBM (Feb 9, 2004)

Hmmm....

There is a naturopath doctor in my area who hosts a daily radio program on health. He is very anti-dairy and has been a vegetarian for 35 years (so there is no way that he is a pawn of the beef and dairy industry).

He has commented that soy suppresses thyroid function. There have also been debates about soy suppresses immune function as well.

I began to wonder about the safety of soy after I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism and read that I should stay away from soy.

More recently, I read several articles on Mercola's site that raised concerns about the consumption of soy. (I know, I know there is the Weston-Price raw milk connection)

But anyway, I'm sure that _ALL_ the information on the _potential dangers_ of soy do not stem from anti-soy campaigns motivated by the beef/dairy industry. (I say potential dangers because who can say for certain if soy is or is not dangerous and people will believe what they want to believe)

I do not doubt that the beef/dairy industry is powerful enough to launch impressive campaigns against soy but isn't the soy industry perfectly capable
of doing the same....
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/politics.htm
http://thesoydailyclub.com/Research/...ds10032003.asp

And what about these studies?

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/immune.htm
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/Refs/Soyatox.htm

Who knows what to believe? I am not sure. But for right now, I choose to avoid soy.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

I think the main thing is moderation. I mean if all you ate were apples 24/7 and then they did a study what do you think they would find? Too many apples isn't good for you.
Using soy as the only protien replacement for a meat diet isn't good. BUT anyone can do a little research when changing from an animal based diet (dairy, meat, eggs) and learn about the MANY different portien sorces avaible. I think what happens (at least in my house) is that soy is so easy! You can get anything that you once ate dairy/meat wise in soy. SO, for us, I will just have to get out all my wonderful books and reread the good stuff.
I mean it is way easier to warm up fake chicken nuggets then cook beans all day. BUT, it isn't nearly as good for us.
What I am planning (and have been for sometime) is to move to a whole foods diet, that means all that overly processed food period would be out. Whether it is soy or not. Because that is really the point... the less processed it is the better it is for you. Whether you choose to be a vegetarian, a vegan or an omnivore (sp) eating less overly processed food is much better for you.
That being said, I didn't like that there was all the anti soy in the article BUT no advice on what to do. I really hate when that happens, that they tell you something is bad, yet give no advice as what to do about it. Like do you stop all soy all together, OR is moreation the key??? NOTHING! That makes me nuts. Because it leaves people in a panic. What do I do now? What have I done to my family????

H


----------



## Mona (May 22, 2003)

i look forward to reading the responses to this thread later.

after just reading the Mothering article, my first response is














way to go Mothering!! I have read such things regarding soy for a LONG time. Soy is big business, the majority of it is GMO, and there is a lot of processing going on with it.

I DO think it is healthy in moderation, as long as you are consuming organic soy products that are not overly processed.

Sorry if i am repeating what has already been stated.

One last thing- moderation seems to be the key, which is true for most things it seems.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

I haven't read the article yet, my issue hasn't arrived, but I have to agree with much of what ftcmj has said based on what I have read here in this thread. Scary, mechanical words that don't have any real meaning in the context is just fear mongering. I use water to boil pasta. The SAME WATER that is used in car radiators, nuclear reactors, and plastic production. You see what I mean?

My 2yo's diet contains too much soy. He is intolerant of wheat, gluten, and dairy. He is allergic to eggs. He refuses to drink rice milk and doesn't eat much of anything. We feed him what we can, and that is soy much of the time. I simply can't believe, based on the research that I have done, that a soy-based diet is better that a cattle-based diet, especially with all of the hormones and anti-biotics that the cows are shot up with. I know that there are organic dairy and beef products, but the cost is prohibitive for most people. I'd definitely like to alter his diet to include less soy, but given our current resources, not a whole foods store for over a hundred miles, we're doing the best we can.

I'm also disappointed to here that the article offers no alternatives.


----------



## *solsticemama* (Feb 8, 2003)

Oh good, these responses have been wonderfully varied in outlook with lots of informative links giving some perspective on the article.

FTCMJ please tell us more. I, too, found the article somewhat incendiary and thus up for question but the various statistics were alarming most particularly the one based on the 2 studies done on how much soy asians actually eat. The author says it's about the same amount as 3 peas. She uses the term "famous" when describing the first study which clouds things a bit IMO. Immediately there is an emotional response which distracts fromt the facts. Anyway, the fact this particular study came up with after traveling to 130 rural villages in China was an average consumption of "12 grams of legumes per day. For some unaccountable reason, no figures are available for soy foods alone. Probably only about one-third of this is soy"

The second study was done by a soy industry information center and it reported that "the average consumptions per year in China, Indonesia, Korea, Japan and Taiwan are 3.4, 6.3, 9.0, 10.9 and 13 kg respectively. That boils down to only 9.3 to 36 grams per day."

We don't eat much obvious soy. In fact dh rarely eats it because as he says, 'it's always pretending to be something it's not' :LOL The thing is when you start looking at reducing soy consumption you find it's everywhere. Ezekial bread, for example, uses sprouted soybeans. Arrowhead mills organic pancake mixes use soy flour and soy lecithin is in many vitamins and supplements among other things. Plus I enjoy tamari almonds, sesame-tamari ricecakes etc. It starts to add up over the course of a day, easily 9.3 grams I imagine.

Finally I, too, wondered about the full page advertisment for milk. Nothing specific just something odd registering when I saw it.


----------



## Mona (May 22, 2003)

wanted to quickly add that the soy bean business is HUGE!!!! it is not necessarily a threat to the beef industry, as it is often not used to substitute meat but supplement it. the majority of soy is GMO, and those who are health conscious will not eat that anyway. so the beef industry is not going to be threatened by the organic soy bean farmers, as they are just a drop in the bucket.

i am so glad that Mothering has chosen to "out" soy, as previously it has just been more underground internet sources doing this. it is about time the level of education increases, imo


----------



## dharmama (Dec 29, 2002)

Quote:

I think what happens (at least in my house) is that soy is so easy! You can get anything that you once ate dairy/meat wise in soy. SO, for us, I will just have to get out all my wonderful books and reread the good stuff. I mean it is way easier to warm up fake chicken nuggets then cook beans all day. BUT, it isn't nearly as good for us.








ITA...the fake stuff is nowhere near as healthy and it is WAY EXPENSIVE (but damn is it tempting to "cook" things that are so convenient)!!


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

ftcmj ~


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meiri*
If people want to eat it, fine. But it should be labelled the same way peanuts and "processed at a facility that processes peanuts" foods are labelled: Clearly and prominantly.

I have seen it alot if not all foods that have soy.. have the label "may contain soy/soy products" or "processed at a facility that processes soy products"....

man i hope that made sense... :LOL


----------



## starrynight (Jan 10, 2002)

I just the read the soy article last night and it did scare me a bit. I'm 5 months pregnant right now and have been a vegetarian for almost 20 years. We are ovo-lacto so I don't eat tons of soy all day, though I do eat some daily. I have a 3 year old son who is very healthy. I'm also carrying a boy right now. The part of the article that scared me the most was the bit about soy consumption/vegetarianism and hypospadias, which is a birth defect with the penis. I went on the web and tried to find more info. What I found was that the original study looked at 8000 babies. Out of the 8000, 51 boys were born with hypospadias. Here is a quote:

"I gave this information to Dr. Barnard and he has researched the study. Out of the group, researchers identified 37 cases of hypospadias in non-vegetarian mothers, 7 in vegetarian mothers, and 7 in women whose dietary habits were unknown. They have cast some suspicion on phytoestrogens, the weak plant estrogens found in soy products, but with such small numbers, it is very difficult to draw conclusions. More research is needed."

The web site I found this was at:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...getarian&hl=en

I'd like to read the original study and hopefully Mothering will post it along with all the other foot notes.

I keep thinking of that study that was done on The Farm in TN years ago. The kids were all vegetarian (mostly vegan I think) as were the moms and they were all very normal and they ate a lot of soy -definitely every day. They used it as a main source of protein. We're talking about hundreds of children too. There's never been any mention that the males were born with a particular birth defect or that the children had problems with sexual maturation.

I'm also confused about the tiny amount of soy she claims is consumed by Asians. 3 peas a day? What about miso and tofu? What about all those Japanese bars where they serve up soy beans in the same way we do peanuts? That doesn't make sense to me.

I've ready Mothering for a few years now and I have to admit, while I enjoy the magazine, I think it tends to be a bit alarmist. I'm not saying that it's okay to eat soy all day. I honestly don't know. I think if it were as serious a health hazard as the article's author states it would be very obvious among vegetarian and Asian poplulations.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkinhead*
*sigh* Where is Hilary when you need her? Put it into perspective: Lots of people here have problems with fruit juices. One glass of orange juice is the equivalent to like 5 oranges. When was the last time you sat down and ate 5 or 10 oranges in a sitting? How many soy beans does it take to make a single serving of tofu? Could you sit down and eat that many soy beans 3-6 times a day?

Just food for thought....

I haven't read all the responses yet, but wanted to respond to this bit while I was thinking about it:

And how many gallons of milk does it take to make a pound of cheese? Answer: 10. So, how much cheese do you eat and would you drink that much milk in its liquid form all at once?

And do you ever eat a handful of dried fruit, or drink fruit juice? Do you eat a bigger serving of cooked broccoli than you would of raw?

My point being, of course, that unless you're a raw foodist, processing of foods whether through cooking, making cheese, juicing, etc. often turns a bigger quantity of raw ingredient into a smaller quantity of final product.

I do think, as many posters have said, that moderation is the key. I don't think soy is uniquely evil among legumes, but I do think it's not good to base your entire diet on one food.

We're vegetarian, and I do like some processed soy foods like veggie sausages and tofu pups. OTOH, most of our soy consumption is of tofu and tempeh - we don't drink soy milk or eat soy yogurt (we're ovo-lacto), and only rarely have soy ice cream, etc.

Here are some other links on soy that I found interesting:

http://www.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htm

http://www.veganoutreach.org/health/soysafe.html


----------



## allys jill (Aug 24, 2003)

my response?

FINALLY! i agree with all those here who pointed out that Mothering mag is teeming with soy ads. so i doubt very much the meat/dairy/egg industries are "behind" this one. as someone who overate soy for 4 years i can say that i personally experienced its ill effects and i'm glad to see this topic getting a bit more publicity.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

I am fairly certain that the author of this article is way off on her #s for soy consumption among Asian populations.

An Oct. 2002 article published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Assn found that the avg consumption of soy among Americans was 18.7 mg/week of soy isoflavones - less than one 4-oz serving of tofu (30 mg) or 8 oz of soymilk (26 mg) per week. Asians living in Asia, on average, consumed between 104.3 mg/week to 210.7 mg/week of one form of soy isoflavone and between 66.5 to 114.8 mg/week of another kind.

In total, this adds up to btwn 170.8 to 325.5 mg/week of soy isoflavone consumption amongst Asians, or more than 10 times as much soy being consumed in Asia than the U.S. This article can be found in the following publication:

Validation of a soy food frequency questionnaire with plasma concentrations of isoflavones in US adults. (Research).
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Oct, 2002, by Cara L. Frankenfeld, Ruth E. Patterson, Thomas F. Kalhorn, Heather E. Skor, William N. Howald, Johanna W. Lampe .

And, although I do not think that Mothering magazine is being personally bought out by the dairy or meat industries, I do have significant concerns about the author. Her wording in this article could have been taken almost verbatim from Dr. Mercola or the Weston A. Price foundation - both of whom are in the habit soy bashing by using scientific studies out of context or drawing unwarranted conclusions from studies:

http://www.campaignfortruth.com/Eclu...1/soystory.htm

My concern here with Mothering, much like an earlier poster noted, is that Mothering is being inflammatory. I am a long time reader of Mothering, as well & have written for the magazine, in fact. I am begining to feel that there are times when the magazine publishes sensationalist pieces not because they are accurate, but because they want to question the system and disagree with standard advice whether the advice is wrong or not. I say this with much disappointment, because I truly have enjoyed Mothering. I am not sure that I can trust the validity of the articles any more, though.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

I have to agree with ChristaN. I recently bought subscriptions for pregnant friends and am kind of embarrassed about it. I've been reading Mothering forever and there has been something in each of the last three issues that just reeked of bad science, or at least bad reporting of science. I like so much of the content. I've always held Mothering to a higher standard than other parenting magazines and I'm really disappointed.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

I am getting a lot out of this thread! Thanks to everyone who is being so thoughtful!

A thought occurred to me this morning in the shower. We were discussing the Macrobiotic diet in another thread here. Macrobiotics excludes nightshade vegetables. These vegetables are not native to Europe and Asia, but come from the Americas. Potatoes and particularly tomatoes were adopted very late. I see the fear of soy, or focus on problems with soy, in cultures where soy hasn't been consumed until recently as of a piece with the focus on problems with potatoes or tomatoes.


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
In total, this adds up to btwn 170.8 to 325.5 mg/week of soy isoflavone consumption amongst Asians, or more than 10 times as much soy being consumed in Asia than the U.S.

I'm awful with stats, so someone please tell me if my question makes any sense.

The above was based on an average. So, if most Asians eat a little soy, and few Americans eat a lot of soy, can it average out that the Asian population on average eats less soy per capita than the American population, yet each individual Asian is eating far less than each individual American?

I have to wonder, too, why we think that just because Asians today are eating a lot of soy, it indicates that they have traditionally eaten a lot of soy. American diets are full of modern/processed/unnatural foods, and eating habits have changed drastically. Now, I'm aware that population demographics are much different between the two areas of the world -- my understanding is that there are far more rural/underdeveloped areas in Asia and overall less access to processed food -- but have the studies that are trying to figure out the average Asian soy consumption looking at a balance of less and more developed areas?

I hope that made some kind of sense... please don't bash me too hard if it doesn't...


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

If Asians (all Asians?) on average are eating a much greater amount of soy than people in the US (on average) and there aren't higher rates of supposedly soy-related illnesses in Asia, then the argument that soy causes those illnesses is seriously compromised.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

How processed is tofu? I always assumed it was kinda like cheese in the way it was delt with, not too processed, I have a book that gives info on how to make your own tofu and soymilk and it doesn't seem that hard (not that I have done it). I can see a problem in eating LOADS of processed soy all day (soy bacon, yogurt, luch meat, cheese, mayo, burgers, hot dogs, nuggets, etc) but I just have a hard time grasping the idea that having tofu a couple times a week and some soymilk is going to be worse for me than cows milk and cheese or like a ham or something. Plus, I am not sure if I said this before, but I was thinking about it... alot of the bad stuff soy is suppose to do to girls is also the same stuff that cows milk is suppose to do to them.

I also have a bit of a problem with the undesended testicle thing, only because it should have gone over with the "birthdefects" not what can happen to a boy if he eats loads of soy, because your testicle just doesn't reundesend, they don't creep back up into the abdominal cavity once they get down.

H


----------



## lazucchini (Nov 21, 2003)

I did read the article and struggled for a while to process the alarmist tone. Eventually what I got from it is concern for babes consuming soy formula and vegan/vegetarian simply replacing all their meat with soy "meat" products. I thought the side bar informing those who are allergic to it to avoid the risk of death to be really ridiculous!
The tone of the article could have been so much more informative instead of alarmist.......disappointing that Mothering Mag wouldn't ask the author to rewrite.

Our family has been vegan for nearly 10 years, lacto-ovo vegetarian for a few years before that, and we do limit processed soy products. Mostly because they're expensive and not whole foods. I've also had several of my kids who were sensitive to it when they were nursing if I consumed it, so I've spent a lot of time reading labels and avoiding it. (I've been nursing or pregnant a lot of the last 12 years!!!)

I do think that challenging the use of soy formulas is a worthy topic for Mothering readers.

Also good to encourage people to eat a varied diet.

Nuts and beans are such great foods, especially for little ones, so we wouldn't want to miss out on all those grains, veges and legumes that could so easily be replaced by dairy and meat or dairy and meat replacement foods!

Peace, Kathy


----------



## Mona (May 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lazucchini*
Our family has been vegan for nearly 10 years, lacto-ovo vegetarian for a few years before that, and we do limit processed soy products. Mostly because they're expensive and not whole foods.

I do think that challenging the use of soy formulas is a worthy topic for Mothering readers.

Also good to encourage people to eat a varied diet.

Nuts and beans are such great foods, especially for little ones, so we wouldn't want to miss out on all those grains, veges and legumes that could so easily be replaced by dairy and meat or dairy and meat replacement foods!











i too have been veg for about 10 years (ok, i guess it's 12, but who's counting :LOL) and eat little soy for the same reason- not a whole food.

i know a lot of vegans who eat tons of soy, as they think this is the only way to live w/o eating meat. This is simply not true.
if nothing else, i hope the article educates on this level and causes people to give some thought to this.


----------



## Attached Mamma (Mar 16, 2004)

The article kind of alarmed me also, I don't think we as a family would ever give up whole soy foods entirely (tofu, tempeh, tamari, miso), but I almost would rather have my son (age 2) perhaps drink something else other than soymilk. He isn't weaned entirely yet, but pretty much only nurses a couple times a day for comfort, not for nourishment.

I agree with the soy formula, when it is the primary source of nourishment to be alarmed, but I would also be alarmed about dairy formula, I mean only in rare instances can a woman not breastfeed her baby, I mean hello, we have breasts for a reason here!!

On the carton of Soymilk we use it has a bunch of "facts" about soy, one being "World wide, soybeans are the largest single source of protein and vegetable oil in the human diet", like it is a good thing. According to Rebecca Wood, author of The New Whole Foods Encyclopedia, she states that "soy oil is the most prevalent oil used in commercial food production. This oil, a byproduct of the soy industry, is highly refined. Unrefined soy oil is NO better. It has an unpleasantly intense aroma and flavor; it is considered toxic in traditional Chinese medicine, and is difficult to digest." Also about Soy Nuts & Soy Nut Butter "I do not recommend these hard to digest bean products. Real nuts or nut butter taste so much better."

Also in the "Whole Foods Encyclopedia" it states that the author of "The Book Of Tofu" Bill Shurtleff observed this about soymilk "Many Japanese doctors view it as an effective natural medicine and prescribe it as a regular part of the diet for diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries, and anemia. They also use it to strengthen the digestive system and fortify the bloodstream." Rebecca Wood states "Nutritionally, soymilk contains the same amount of protein as cow's milk and is superior in the following ways. It has approx. 1/3 the fat, fewer calories, no cholesterol, many essential B vitamins, and 15 times as much iron. Because it is lower on the food chain, it contains 1/10 the amount of chemical residues."

Rebecca also states "Today our food chain is permeated with Roundup Ready Soybeans, biogenetically engineered by Monsanto. We're talking more than tofu, soy appears in foods ranging from infant formula to meat extenders. Furthermore, soy products like oil, flour, and lecithin are ubiquitous in prepared, packaged, and restaurant foods. There's only one way to tell whether the soy ingredient in your soup is natural or GMO: Purchase only certified organic foods or products with the statement "no GMO"S" Otherwise you're most probably ingesting Roundup Ready Soybeans spliced with an herbicide that enables the plant to survive otherwise toxic doses of chemicals. I wish this were a joke, it is not."


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

There are many good thoughts here, especially about bioengineered food. That ruins anything and will ruin everything if we let it. But as I posted somewhere else, soy is not all evil. If you aren't experiencing adverse reactions and you don't overdo it, it's a great food. Yes, edamame is the preferred form, but all cooked food is processed food. Some is way overprocessed, some not so much. Fermented food, such as miso, soy sauce or tofu is processed, but not entirely evil (even good for you) if eaten in moderation. There are plenty of non-dairy milks available that are fortified, lots of other protein sources, but soy is easy and healthy, too. Keep it in moderation, buy organic/nonGMO.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

I have a question... it concerns organic foods in general... if something is organic, is it pretty safe to say it is GMO free? Like we buy organic soy milk and tofu, but Ihave never really noticed it saying it was GMO free... is it safe to assume it is due to the fact that the GMO soybeans are made with a herbicide?

H


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

In theory, yes, but there is so much contamination now, it's hard to say for sure unless something states GMO Free. Organic farmers generally like to keep their farms "clean" so most organic produce should be GMO free. Sucks, doesn't it, that we don't even know what we're eating?!


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

Speaking from an Asian and former vegan perspective, I ate way more soy as a veg*n than I did eating a traditional Korean diet growing up. We would have tofu maybe once a week in a soup, and we kids would fight over the tofu chunks. LOL! Most of the time we ate soy in the form of soy sauce or fermented pastes. So I think the "3 peas a day" would be the daily breakdown of a once a week soy dish with little bits of soy sauce seasoning. It seems that nowadays my family, influenced by the "soy is healthy" attitude and trying to cater to my former veg*n eating habits, is eating a lot more soy than I remember as a child. Of course, this is only my one family's experience.

I am very wary of eating any modern soy foods. To me, eating them and thinking that they are healthy is like saying "Potatoes are healthy. People have been eating potatoes for generations with no problems. So I can eat potato chips every day and be healthy!"

If I remember correctly, the people on The Farm were eating traditionally processed soy, like tofu and tempeh. So that may have something to do with their healthy babies.

I think people will run into problems any time they eat anything overly processed, too often. Stick to whole, traditional (and traditionally cooked) forms of foods and don't make any one food the basis of your diet and you'll probably be fine. JMHO.

Chet Day has some good info here: http://chetday.com/soy.html


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

as my family does eat plenty of soy. My thoughts? Hmmmm I agree and disagree. At the same time that I agree soy in large amounts is harmful I do know that it's a good source of nutrients and protein and many people will attest to it's attributes.

Also, could the article not have been about Beef or fish or someother protein source that is involved in "the great american cover up" in regards to the harmful way it may be produced. The way it's over eaten or the amount of environmental "bad" it has in it? I think it surely could have been.

The tone in which it was written did bother me a bit. An example is that the article stated that vitamin D is added to soy milk so that it is "equal to dairy milk". PHOOEY- who doesn't know that Vit. D is ALSO ADDED to cow milk---- so if it wasn't ADDED to cows milk, cows milk would not be so "fab" either!?!?

Anywhooooo my 2cents.
Kimberley


----------



## MamaMonica (Sep 22, 2002)

I read the article. I agree, soy is as big a business as dairy. I don't think either product is very good for you- both are MAJOR allergins and a lot of people don't know they are sensitive to it since conventional doctors often don't diagnose food sensitivities.


----------



## cathe (Nov 17, 2002)

I read the soy article last night. I have been reading a lot of articles lately on the dangers of soy but that one was definitely the scariest. I checked out the link to the veg times article and it was very interesting however it wasn't very well documented. IF what he says is true, then YAY but I would like to see references to the studies he cites. It's amazing how articles about the same food can be so conflicting. Sally Fallon and other talk a lot about phytates and cite studies of mineral dificiciences in soy eaters but the veg times article says that the phytates only bid the minerals in the soy itself - so who's right?

My take is like most of you said - moderation. I don't beleive soy is the EVIL food this and other articles say it is but I don't think its the MIRACLE food that it was made out to be in recent years. It's just another food that has some good nutrients. I think vegetarians can tend to overdo soy, and it is not good to rely heavily on any one food.

About a year ago, we switched from soy milk to rice dream (we don't drink milk just use over porridge and in cooking), we have tofu or tempeh once or twice a week, use miso and shoyu soy sauce quite often. I try to concentrate on fermented soy foods and we do not use any products with soy protein isolates in them.


----------



## MamaAllNatural (Mar 10, 2004)

I didn't read all the other posts but I just wanted to comment that I'm glad Mothering came out with this article. My midwife told me about the estrogen in soy when I was pregnant with #2. I have issues with too much estrogen and I get horrible morning sickness. I cut out the soy and the morning sickness improved. I also get some other weird pregnancy issues caused by too much estrogen and even with my last pregnancy I would notice that even if I ate soy one day, my symptoms would worsen (the next day I'd notice). I do think with all the soy cheese, soy milk, soy yogurt, veggie dogs, nuggets, burgers and plain and baked tofu, etc. it can really add up in your system and become too much. I do eat it occasionally now that I'm not pregnant. It's really a shame that such a good source of protein (and many other things) has such a downside, but I guess it's like with everything else - moderation is the key.


----------



## 5796 (Oct 19, 2002)

my own issues around soy came up about a year ago when my husband and I started to notice ds smelled after eating tofu dogs. my husband said it was BO..it came out of his pores, shower, bathe and it would still be there.
My friend who runs her husbands chiro business had given me a heads up about soy years ago and the estrogen factor etc. I started noticing thyroid problems with girlfriends of mine who consumed a lot of soy and tofu..and well...it just all added up for me... no more soy. Very, very little tofu.

I can't say what people should do or not do, but for me I had an vibe it wasn't a good fit for us.


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vegiemom*
Also, could the article not have been about Beef or fish or someother protein source that is involved in "the great american cover up" in regards to the harmful way it may be produced. The way it's over eaten or the amount of environmental "bad" it has in it? I think it surely could have been.

Plenty of articles and books have been written dedicated to how evil conventional meat is for both the environment and for human health, and there are loads of veg*n people and organizations who will talk your ear off about this subject. Soy is like the sacred cow. Anyone who says anything bad about it is bound to cause controversy. I applaud Mothering for publishing something controversial.

Quote:

An example is that the article stated that vitamin D is added to soy milk so that it is "equal to dairy milk". PHOOEY- who doesn't know that Vit. D is ALSO ADDED to cow milk---- so if it wasn't ADDED to cows milk, cows milk would not be so "fab" either!?!?
Vitamin D is added to *pasteurized* milk, as it is heat-sensitive and destroyed by pasteurization. It is naturally present in raw milk, and in higher amounts if the animal is eating its natural diet (grass, not grain). People started having problems after pasteurization became common (rickets) so they started adding synthetic Vitamin D back into the milk.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
If Asians (all Asians?) on average are eating a much greater amount of soy than people in the US (on average) and there aren't higher rates of supposedly soy-related illnesses in Asia, then the argument that soy causes those illnesses is seriously compromised.

Asians would be eating traditional and fermented forms of soy, like tempeh, miso, and unfermented forms like soymilk and tofu in moderation, not as the basis of their diet. I am guessing that problems are arising because of modern soyfoods like chik'n nuggets, boca burgers, etc, and because they are eaten so often.


----------



## EBM (Feb 9, 2004)

Why are some prompted by the Mothering article to turn this into a debate of meat/dairy vs soy?

It is unlikely that the article was an attack on vegetarians or vegans. Why not do your own personal research and base your arguments for/against soy on the scientific data? If your research leads you to conclude that soy is harmful, look for an alternative for your diet. If it is not harmful, eat to your hearts content.

This really is not an issue of meat eaters diet vs vegan/vegetarians diet. Sheeesh.


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

HEY EBM...





















well said!


----------



## elainie (Jan 5, 2002)

Why not read Kaayla's entire book? It is availabe on PDF version
www.wholesoystory.com

I applaud her for writing this book, I think soy is way overconsumed and can lead to problems. I ate a vegan macrobiotic diet for many years ( no soymilk only tamari, miso, tempeh once a week and tofu once per week) and ended up with hypothyroid.

In Asia soy is also consumed along with a diet that contains plentiful minerals, fish etc. to counteract the harmful effects of the phytates, etc..

They certainly don't dine on tofu pups, chug soymilk all day , start the day with soy yogurt and end it with soy ice cream.

America really has no history of healthful eating in any way and people tend to swap their old foods with health food store versions of the same foods
(breakfast cereal with soymilk, soy balony , tofu cheesecake, hot dogs etc..) in hopes of better health and less environmental impact though
replacing these foods with ersatz versions can't be any healthier or better
for the environment since they require machinery, packaging etc..

If it can't be made in my kitchen I'm very likely to skip it.

Edited to add> I did make my own miso, tempeh, tofu and natto right in my own kitchen years ago.


----------



## EBM (Feb 9, 2004)

I'm curious...

Why is the concept of soy being "potentially" harmful soooooo difficult to swallow?


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

For me, it's not so difficult to swallow, what is difficult is for one person (or group or whatever) to say that any one thing is so terrible and no one should eat it. Anything that is overconsumed is probably not going to be great for you, weather it's because there's something that could potentially be harmful or because it's taking the place of other foods to add to a balanced diet. So my kids (okay, okay, me too!) want a tofu pup once in a while or I love soymilk in my coffee or even soy yogurt sometimes, so what? Yes, some soy is better than other soy, raw zuccini is better than fried zuccini broiled chicken is better than fried chicken. If we eat lots of veggies (not the fried ones!), whole grains, nut butters (raw, unsalted), fresh fruit (not apple pie with a lard crust!) and soy doesn't disagree with us, then here Little Johnny, enjoy your tofu pup! A varied diet that doesn't depend on any one thing is the key. And again, soy doesn't contain estrogen, but a compound that mimics it. How many hormones are in a Big Mac? A vanilla shake? There are no miracle foods, no one food that will give you eternal good health nor kill you if you eat it all in moderation and eat lots of different kinds of really good foods.


----------



## elainie (Jan 5, 2002)

I think it's perhaps because it's so easy for people to walk into a store and buy packaged soy cheese, soy milk, soy everything .Soy has also been touted as a somewhat miracle health food.

Real foods take time to prepare and don't have a shelf life.

Edited to add: the people behind the soy controversy are not into Big Macs or any fast/packaged food.They see soy as an ultra processed food (not talking about the traditonally processed soy consumed by Asians in smaller amounts, natto, miso, tamari etc..)


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

I agree, and let me tell you, as much as I like to make homemade everything for my family, when I'm tired, I like nothing better than to pop an Amy's frozen soy cheese pizza in the oven! Hey, none of us are perfect!


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

You know why at first I was so upset was because it seems like once something is "good for you" all of a sudden it isn't. Does that make since. When I was growing up MILK was the thing to drink. "Finish your milk" I am sure most of us heard that. There is the GOT MILK? ads and the three a day adds for dairy blaa blaa (I am not saying that this is all a milk conspiracy) but just as milk from cows was suppose to be great for you they find that it really isn't that great for all people. Anyway where am I going with this??? Oh yeah... I think I said this before it is like once it is found out to be good then it gets over done. PLUS soy as I understand it is pretty cheap so they stick it in EVERYTHING. I am sure it can easily be way overdone, I mean not just in meat/dairy subs but also cookies, ceral bars, Luna bars, everything has soy in it.
This whole debate and article actually opened my eyes more to my diet. I maybe a veggie but I am a way overprocessed veggie. I eat just as crappy as before I went veggie, just no meat. Pretty lame. When I talked to my dh about it he agreed. So we went to the library and got some whole foods cook books. And I suddenly realized there is alot my family is missing. I mean for us grains are rice. There is so much more out there when you take out all the processed foods that you (or I) depend on. PLUS I will actually get the joy of teaching my kids to cook and bake. Which we don't do.
Yes we will still eat soy, because for us I think limiting it is best, BUT we will be adding a bigger verity to our plates, because of this article.

And maybe that is another problem I am having with the article. No real ideas on what to do when you begin to cut out the soy. I mean I know we can look stuff up, and that isn't a real big deal, but to write something so scary sounding and then NOT give advice seems wrong. I mean that is a totally, IMO, mainstream mag thing to do. You read something in newsweek telling you how bad something is, it scares the crap out of you, but gives no advice on what else to do. I always enjoyed MOthering because usually it gives advice on what to do "besides". I was disappointed.

H


----------



## katoomgirl (Apr 26, 2004)

_At the end of the footnote, there's a link to the endnotes at Mothering Magazine's website. A link that doesn't work. I'm sure they'll fix it eventually._
I tried this link without the . at th end and it worked.

Wife to Jeff, Mother to Vianne


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Soy is not, and never has been, a food that is good for the immune system

Anyone who says otherwise, hasn't done any reading on the subject.

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/home.htm


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EBM*
Why are some prompted by the Mothering article to turn this into a debate of meat/dairy vs soy?


I admit that when I read anti-soy articles, it does often strike me as anti vegetarian. This is likely b/c those who are so opposed to soy are usually tied to the dairy or meat industry or are promoting a diet heavy on animal protein. Although I do not know the background of this specific author, her arguements sound a lot like the arguements that I hear from those suspect sources.

As far as basing things on scientific research, a number of the posters here have said something like 'my personal experience is: I was vegetarian, ate soy, and got sick or I smelled bad when I ate soy, therefore it makes sense that soy is in fact bad for you.' That is about as unscientific as it gets. I have been vegan for 15+yrs., I eat soy & have zero thyroid problems. I am fairly thin & quite healthy. That doesn't prove anything about soy being the miracle food, just like someone saying that her friend who eats soy developed hypothyroidism means nothing. It is not a double blind study, nor even a study at all.


----------



## EBM (Feb 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*

As far as basing things on scientific research, a number of the posters here have said something like 'my personal experience is: I was vegetarian, ate soy, and got sick or I smelled bad when I ate soy, therefore it makes sense that soy is in fact bad for you.' That is about as unscientific as it gets. I have been vegan for 15+yrs., I eat soy & have zero thyroid problems. I am fairly thin & quite healthy. That doesn't prove anything about soy being the miracle food, just like someone saying that her friend who eats soy developed hypothyroidism means nothing. It is not a double blind study, nor even a study at all.

if you review my post, you will see that i suggested that the individual should seek out scientific data and make a decision based on that. I was not implying the personal experiences mentioned on this thread are the equivalent of scientific studies. And just as these experiences are not double blind studies or studies at all--neither is your personal experience with soy.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EBM*
And just as these experiences are not double blind studies or studies at all--neither is your personal experience with soy.


I know - I said so in my post - "That [my personal experience] doesn't prove anything about soy being the miracle food, just like someone saying that her friend who eats soy developed hypothyroidism means nothing."


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

MamaofThree, if you want a couple of fairly easy, non-soy, high protein, yummy recipes, pm me and I'll send you a couple. We eat soy and so far so good, so we'll keep eating it, but eat lots of other great stuff too!


----------



## MamaMonica (Sep 22, 2002)

I don't think anti-soy is anti--vegetarian because you don't need soy to be a vegetarian. In our modern society, many vegetarians eat a lot of it, however.


----------



## Greenkate (Apr 26, 2004)

Does anyone know more about the correlation between soy consumption and dementia? I know there was a heart study done a few years back that ended up linking the two. BTW, we've been vegetarians for many years, and have eaten our weight in soy. I'm really nervous now, and trying to find a balanced solution. I think the difference in Asian consumption and American, to segue, is that we Americans take something fairly healthy ~the soybean~ and find a way to supersize, deep-fry, mutate, puree, squash and squeeze all of the benefits of it, then eat it like there's no tomorrow. Compare our consumption of _anything_ with any other culture, and maybe you'll find the key to the problem.







:


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Quote:

_posted by Tricia80:_
I have seen it alot if not all foods that have soy.. have the label "may contain soy/soy products" or "processed at a facility that processes soy products"....
I'm glad some manufacturers are doing this, but most are not. I recently told off Flatout Breads for the hidden soy in their 'wonderful natural product'. I don't expect to find soy in Bread, unless it's trying to cater to the low carb fad, in which case they brag about it on the Front of the label.

ftcmj, Thanks for the links. I've bookmarked and will be reading. Wheat is not a problem for me at all, and I apparently am not allergic to soy oil. Given that I've survived the Easter chocolate glut, soy lecithin is not an issue either as I didn't notice any particular symptoms. Whole soy, soy flour, soy proteins however! I avoid like the plague.


----------



## MamaMonica (Sep 22, 2002)

I don't have a link to the soy/dementia problem, but you can find it on a google search.

The issue is soy protein islolate, which is processed with aluminum salts- apparently this is the type of aluminum that crosses the blood/brain barrier. It has been linked to alzeimers.


----------



## Attached Mamma (Mar 16, 2004)

Quote:

Wheat is not a problem for me at all, and I apparently am not allergic to soy oil.
Even if you aren't allergic to soy oil, I would try my best to avoid it. According to Rebecca Wood in "The New Whole Foods Encyclopedia", soy oil is a by-product of the soy industry, and is highly refined. Unrefined soy oil is no better, it has an unpleasantly intense aroma and flavor; it is considered toxic in traditional Chinese medicine, and is difficult to digest.


----------



## ftcmj (Apr 25, 2004)

Thank you, ChristaN, for actual new information instead of anecdotes, panic, conspiracy theories, hypochondria, and platitudes. Very refreshing. Here's some more.

Before I write anything else, I want to express that nothing I write here should be construed as medical advice. I'm not a doctor, and wouldn't advise anyone on nutrition.

I'm writing at such length because I think bad science needs to be directly opposed. What makes bad science bad isn't that it comes to the wrong conclusions, although it does excel at that. Even the conclusions of science done well is often wrong, or at least incomplete, for a variety of reasons. Bad science is science that is biased, that doesn't weigh all the evidence, and especially, it is science that is used to further peoples' pet prejudices. Too many people use scientific papers like religious fanatics use the Bible--as proof texts for their own crackpot notions.

So all of the following is not about whether soy is "good" or "bad", whatever those uselessly simplistic words may mean in this context. It's about whether Kaayla Daniel's article is well-reasoned or not, and whether it includes all the evidence. So far, I say it's not and it doesn't, and I explain why below.

First, resources and responses:

The end notes for the article now appear on the Web at
http://www.mothering.com/10-0-0/html...soy-notes.html
Thanks, Mom.

When you see Web site links in this forum that supposedly "prove" that soy "has problems", "is dangerous", or whatever, note that they are almost all from http://soyonlineservice.co.nz. When everyone with a similar point of view can only ever find one source for their information, you've got to wonder. Furthermore, if you go to the site, you can read still more about revisionist history, "powerful industry" conspiracies, mysterious, vindictive squads of attorneys, "what they don't tell you about" (oh God, not "them" again), and so on. It's propaganda. Some of its conclusions may be true, but it's still propaganda.

In a previous item, EBM writes:

Quote:

It is unlikely that the article was an attack on vegetarians or vegans. Why not do your own personal research and base your arguments for/against soy on the scientific data? If your research leads you to conclude that soy is harmful, look for an alternative for your diet. If it is not harmful, eat to your hearts content.

This really is not an issue of meat eaters diet vs vegan/vegetarians diet. Sheeesh.
I support this approach. But EBM, this may not be an issue of vegetarians vs. non-vegetarians for you and me, but it seems to be so for the author of the original article.

Quote:

I decided to write this book because I saw so many clients and friends
suffering from vegetarian and near vegetarian diets. Most often the
chief culprit was soy.

-- Kaayla Daniel, Testosterone Magazine 302,
http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/302poison.jsp.
So I wouldn't be too sure that the article isn't an attack on vegetarianism as much as it is on soy.

Later, EBM writes:

Quote:

I'm curious...

Why is the concept of soy being "potentially" harmful soooooo difficult to swallow?
Personally, I'm not upset about whether soy is "potentially" harmful. I'm upset about Mothering being willing to publish junk science. You can use "science" to prove anything you want if you're willing to pick and choose only those details from only those articles that match your preconceived notions. Read on for an analysis of one--just one--of the over 100 references that Daniel uses in her article.

Starrynight, the PubMed abstract for the study you were talking about is:
*A maternal vegetarian diet in pregnancy is associated with hypospadias.* _BJU Int. 2000 Jan;85(1):107-13._

Read the abstract at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10619956

You can read the full text of article at the publisher's Web site for free at:
http://www.bjui.org/85/1/article/bju436.asp

Take a look at this excerpt from the hypospadias paper (one of Daniel's sources):

Quote:

The consumption of soya as a substitute for meat is increasing in the UK, partly as a result of the recent problems with beef and partly from concepts of "healthy eating". It is now widely used in the food industry, with the advent of vegetarian-style meals, and it provides the highest concentrations of phytoestrogens (particularly isoflavones) of all edible plant matter [18,21]. However, the estimated daily exposure to exogenous oestrogens by consumers of soya is minimal compared to, e.g. that from oral contraceptives. Such low levels of exposure would perhaps indicate small risks (or benefits), as the biological activity of phytoestrogens is considered to be low. Nevertheless, extended prolonged exposure may cause phytoestrogens in the body to reach biologically significant levels. The possible effects on humans should not be dismissed until more experimental data are available. MacLusky [22] discussed the more indirect role of phytoestrogens; rather than having a direct oestrogenic effect, they may interact with other factors in the diet and lead to an interference with "normal oestrogen biosynthesis and action".
The comment about potential "biologically significant levels" I find a bit odd, given that the toxicology site (cited below) says that the body metabolizes and eliminates plant phytoestrogens, whereas other, synthetic organic endocrine disruptors, particularly some pesticides, accumulate.

All in all, though, the preceding paragraph from the hypospadias paper reads like good science. The study says that effects are "possible", not present; that phytoestrogens _may_ interact with other dietary factors and interfere with hormones; that effects on humans shouldn't be ruled out with out more evidence. _may_ cause... _possible_ effects... _may_ interact... more experimental _evidence_. This is how a scientist sounds when speculating about possible explanations for a phenomenon. The author is not making claims, but rather is speculating about what may be worth studying, given what is generally known about hormones. This is what good science sounds like.

Daniel's use of the hypospadias study is revealing. From reading her article, you'd think that the study proved that soy caused hypospadias. What the report actually says (read it for yourself) is that babies of vegetarian mothers in the study had five times the risk of hypospadias than those of non-vegetarian mothers. It _speculates_ that soy _may_ be involved, but shows no evidence to the contrary, and makes no claim. Yet Daniel treats it like a slam-dunk.

Other fun facts Daniel somehow missed in the original hypospadias study:

Dietary phytoestrogens were speculated as only one of the possible causes of the association. Other speculations included increased exposure of the mother to estrogen-disrupting environmental chemicals, particularly pesticides, or a possible, undetermined nutritional deficiency. There is also a 5% probability that the results were due to chance.
Hypospadias incidence varies widely around the world, and it's not clear why. No evidence was presented that it was associated with local soy consumption. That would be an obvious thing to consider if the scientists were trying to make a case that soy was causative, but it wasn't even mentioned.
Phytoestrogens have protective effects against several diseases, particularly breast cancer. (Other sources suggest that people who _already have_ hormone-dependent breast cancer may want to avoid phytoestrogen-containing foods because phytoestrogens might encourage cell proliferation.)
None of the mothers who always ate organic vegetables had a child with hypospadias, but that sample size was too small, and so was not significant.
Moreover, the article says that food content tables don't provide enough information on phytoestrogen content to measure the quantity the mothers consumed.
_The study even says that they can't link soy to hypospadias, because too few of the women in the study ate enough soy to be statistically significant._ Somehow this little detail escaped Daniel's attention.
The article also mentions in passing that in Asia, "soybean products are a major component of the traditional diet". (Presumably Dr. Daniel will contact these researchers and straighten them out on this point. While doing so, she might also explain to them why Japanese women have over 16 times the concentration of soy metabolism products in their urine as do supposedly soy-infused American women, as this study claims. Might the mighty Urine Industry somehow be involved?)
So, rather than being a damning indictment of soy as a cause of hypospadias, the researchers find a relationship, in one group, between maternal vegetarianism and hypospandias in offspring. They speculate that dietary plant phytoestrogens are one possible cause among many, and say that the issue deserves further study, which it most certainly does. Daniel can't make a case that soy is dangerous, or causes hypospadias, based on this study. At least, not to anyone who has read it, and is paying attention. Yet she tries.

For very accessible background information on endocrine disruptors (which is the major theme of the soy article in Mothering), see the page:

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/pesticide/endocrine.htm

Quote:



*What chemicals cause endocrine disruption?*
Drugs have been specifically designed to treat hormone imbalance in humans. Diethylstilbesterol (DES), a drug with strong estrogenic properties administered to pregnant women until 1971 to prevent miscarriages, is a tragic example. Female children of mothers who took DES during pregnancy have a higher incidence of certain forms of ovarian and vaginal cancer. However, there are many drugs that mimic or otherwise affect hormone balance which are important to modern medicine. Other man made chemicals, with unintentional hormone-like activity include: pesticides such as DDT, vinclozolin, endosulfan, toxaphene, dieldrin, and DBCP, and industrial chemicals and byproducts such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and phenols. Some of these phenols are breakdown products of surfactants, found in soaps and detergents. Also implicated are heavy metals, plastics, cosmetics, textiles, paints, lubricants. Sewage treatment effluent may contain a variety of natural and man made endocrine disruptors, including natural hormones from animal and human waste.

Currently, there are no standard tests to determine if a chemical is an endocrine disruptor. However, both the Clean Water Act and the Food Quality Protection Act require the EPA to develop test methods by 1999. As many endocrine disruptors are thought to affect sex hormone function, and therefore reproduction, the findings in multigeneration animal studies, currently required for pesticide registration by EPA, can provide strong evidence of the potential for endocrine disruption.

*What natural chemicals have endocrine activity?*
There are natural chemicals in plants that have hormone-like activity. These chemicals, mostly phytoestrogens, are found in high levels in broccoli, cauliflower, soybeans, carrots, oats, rice, onions, legumes, apples, potatoes, beer, and coffee. _Most phytoestrogens have weak activity (low potency) and people who consume diets rich in these substances may have a reduced risk of developing some hormone related diseases. However, the actual health risk or benefit of a diet rich in plant hormones is largely unknown. Some researchers argue that dietary consumption of plant hormones dwarfs the potential exposure from man made sources._ _(Emphasis added.)_
Another source, this one specifically about phytoestrogens, is from the same site (a Web site about the science of toxins):
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/phytoest.htm

To close on a light note, I did run across a reference to one study that linked high tofu consumption to decreased mental functioning in older men. The study didn't explain whether eating tofu caused mental degeneration, or vice-versa.


----------



## EBM (Feb 9, 2004)

Quote:

Why not do your own personal research and base your arguments for/against soy on the scientific data? If your research leads you to conclude that soy is harmful, look for an alternative for your diet. If it is not harmful, eat to your hearts content.


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

I don't have time to check out all those links right now, but will later today. I do want to say that for every "scientific" finding on any one subject, there is always a counter finding by equally "reputable" scientists. Also, I have to agree with a couple of things: people overprocess really good things and make them bad, people eat too much processed/refined food and if soy doesn't bother you, eat it! If it does, don't! If my sister is allergic to eggs, she shouldn't eat them, but that won't stop me from eating them!


----------



## EBM (Feb 9, 2004)

ftcmj,

What is your opinion on this?
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index...les/index.html


----------



## EBM (Feb 9, 2004)

I'm not a doctor so can someone explain this in relation to the discussion on this thread?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15084758


----------



## lolabelle (Mar 9, 2004)

I recieved my Mothering mag yesterday and read most of the article...but not all.

Unlike the majority of posters here, I supplemented my son with organic soy formula. I was atypical in this group. I tried unsucessfully (37 hospital hours) with a doula and my Bradley trained husband to have a natural childbirth and ended with a c-section, torn uterus and a infection which required an 8 day hospital stay with interveinous antibiotics and delayed milk letdown...the lactation consultants said they had never seen someone take so long. Once at home I had to pump and dump for a week because of more oral antibiotics...but I kept trying and did eventually letdown and worked on getting my supply up. Because of the antibiotics,I suspect, I had an attack of Crohn's disease...it was hard to keep up my weight and produce enough milk. I stayed ill and underweight until I weaned my son at 13 months. That said...I supplemented my breastfeeding with a ratio of about 20/80...or 30/70 respectfullly. The later number being breastfeeding. Sorry...I felt the need to defend myself!

We eat mostly all organic. We don't eat dairy and eat mainly free-range chicken and turkey and occasionally wild salmon. We don't eat much soy...my son doesn't care for it except for miso and the tofu chunks in that, and when I took ds of of soy formula I put him on rice milk. Now at 20 months he only drinks water and occasionally juice. We don't vaccinate (son is intact), and I use only natural cleaning products in the home and natural lawn care outside. We have distilled water delivery and are switching soon to in home reverse osmosis system. So I do my research for what is best for my family and my growing son, but after reading the article I panicked and thought...What have I done to my precious son! One of the first things I did this morning was a computer search of soy formula safety...and then checked here. After reading the responses...I am going to take this study with a grain of salt. My son is not hyper, very smart...if I do say so myself, and his testes are fine. I also found found it weird, as did Mamaofthree, that she mentioned the undesended testicle...I read that and thought, that is not right! Another brow raiser was the bit about delayed sexual development (or no develpment)problems in young boys and excelerated develpment in young girls have increased since soy formulas have hit the market, therefore it's soy that is causing these problems.

Thank you ftcmj for help in sorting this out and easing my mind. I will sleep better tonight!

edited to correct a spelling error...I am sure there are many more!


----------



## EBM (Feb 9, 2004)

I just wanted to add that my concerns over soy did not originate from the Mothering article but from other sources (O'Crea, Mercola, etc)

Oh, and a naturpathic, VEGETARIAN, doctor who is dead set against meat/dairy.


----------



## starrynight (Jan 10, 2002)

Thanks for the links ftcmj. I read them with interest. I also found a couple other sites that talked about this. Apparently of the (nearly) 8000 boys in the study, there were 321 from vegetarian moms and 7 of them had hypospadias. The other 44 boys that had hypospadias came from omnivore moms. Frankly, the numbers are so small that I agree no conclusions can be drawn. I mean what caused the hypospadias in the moms that weren't vegetarian? Iron supplements and having the flu during the 1st trimester were also implicated, but again very small numbers. With only 7 vegetarian moms to go on it could just be a coincidence.

I also looked up what the rates of hypospadias were internationally. From what I read industrialized countries have more cases than non-industialized countries. I was particularly curious about Japan, since the average Japanese consumes quite a bit more soy than the average American. The studies I found on the web say the average Japanese consumes at least 50-80 grams a day, while the average American consumes only 5 grams. (Which makes sense then that Japanese women excrete more soy isoflavones in their urine.) While the rates of hypospadias in Japan have gone up in the past 20 years, they are still ten times _less_ than what they are in the U.S. This seems contradictory to the soy causes hypospadias argument.


----------



## Mona (May 22, 2003)

starrynight-- as someone else pointed out, perhaps the low incidence of hypospadias in Japan is due to the kinds of soy they consume?


----------



## Ravin (Mar 19, 2002)

Round-up Ready Soybeans, that obnoxious GMO invention, is made by splicing a gene for resistance to herbicides that occurs naturally in another plant (don't remember which one). Herbicides are not spliced into the DNA, that's not how genetic modification works.

I didn't like the article and smelled a rat. I want to thank the posters here who went to the time and energy to point out some of the fallacies and inflammatory language.

I have chronic hypothyroidism. I was diagnosed with it at age 11. It's a genetic thing, my mother and grandmother have the same problem. Since I first heard about possible links between thyroid function probs and soy, I have cut back some on my soy consumption, but I do think moderation is the key here. My mom has never eaten much soy, and she still has problems, so I'm still going to have to take that little pill every day, kwim?

Anyway, I do not eat unfermented/unprocessed soy products, e.g. edamame, because on the one occasion I did I very nearly drove my DH to needing a gas mask. I also eat tofu in moderation, and drink about a gallon a month of soymilk--I put it on my cereal and in my coffee.

I also try to eat a variety of other legumes and nuts, and I eat dairy--although that is directly the result of government machinations, because I get WIC and can't afford to turn down the free protein and calories it represents even though I leave the milk for DH, I eat some cheese and eggs. And once in a blue moon, a bit of fish in sushi (an extremely luxury item for me)

I do think moderation is the key, unless you're allergic to something. Just because it's an allergen doesn't make something bad for everyone. I do think there is something to the idea that many foods people eat today aren't ones they are well adapted to eating. But when you're a mutt of multiple ethnic backgrounds, it's kind of hard to look to your ancestors to see what they ate, and if what they ate isn't readily available then what?

I think people have to go with what works best with their families, and think moderation. A diet that relies on just a few staples is generally not as healthy as a varied diet. This is true whether the staple is potatoes, soybeans, rice, wheat, dairy, or anything else.


----------



## ftcmj (Apr 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EBM*
ftcmj,

What is your opinion on this?
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index...les/index.html

Propaganda. Not even particularly well-written. I'm not saying that the conclusions are necessarily untrue. In fact, I agree with a lot of the complaints, though not the diagnosis. If Rush Limbaugh and Noam Chomsky had a love child, this site is probably what he would write. Assuming the child inherited neither the former's wit (revolting as it is) nor the latter's intelligence.

But I don't want people to take my opinion. I just think they need to read critically. Of course, that's just my opinion.


----------



## ftcmj (Apr 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EBM*
I'm not a doctor so can someone explain this in relation to the discussion on this thread?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15084758

Well, EBM, I'm not a doctor, either, but I can explain what I think I understand about the abstract. I may be wrong about some of it, because I only have a little biology training. Don't make any health decisions based on what I say!!!

I think most doctors wouldn't understand the details of this research, though they'd probably get the gist. Molecular cell biologists with intimate knowledge of estrogen pathways probably feel right at home reading it.

The article title is *Phytoestrogens and Their Human Metabolites Show Distinct Agonistic and Antagonistic Properties on Estrogen Receptor (ER){alpha} and ER{beta} in Human Cells.*

So, first, that title. Whew. Cells communicate with each other by sending chemical messages back and forth. You've probably heard of a lot of these chemical messages--insulin is one. So is estrogen. A cell's membrane, which is sort of like its "skin", has specific molecules embedded in it called "receptors", which a specific message molecule can plug into. When a message molecules plug into receptors on a cell membrane, the cell responds in some way. For example, when insulin molecules bind to a cell's insulin receptors, the cell often responds by absorbing sugar from the blood. This title says that the estrogen-like chemicals in plants (like soy) increase and decrease specific responses in cells that are also increased and decreased by estrogen itself. So, basically, some of your cells think they're receiving messages from other cells that produce estrogen, when in fact, they're actually receiving a message from a soybean (so to speak). The "phytoestrogen" is so similar to estrogen that some cells are fooled, and react as if they have received an estrogen message.

Often, these messages interact a lot with one another. Just as smoke may make you salivate (barbeque), cough (cigarette), or run like hell (house fire), what a particular chemical message means depends on the other things going on in and around the cell, including and especially what _other_ messages the cell is receiving.

These scientists have measured how several phytoestrogens (substances purified from soy and other foods) affect how cells respond to estrogen. The natural soy substances are broken down by the body in various ways, so the scientists also looked at the effect of some of the breakdown products ("metabolites").

What the scientists found is that it's possible that soy affects how the body responds to estrogen. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact (as the abstract says), it probably explains the well-documented health benefits of soy foods. Some diseases involve mixups in either the amount of estrogen, or how the body responds to estrogen. The scientists have measured what cells do in response to specific, purified phytoestrogens. What they find is that some substances intensify some estrogen effects, while others decrease the effects.

Their conclusion is that three specific substances in soyfoods (three phytoestrogens) may affect, for better or worse, with the messages estrogen sends in the body.

It's easy to jump to conclusions here and say, "Oh my gawd soy is going to screw up my estrogen and I'll get cancer/my children will be malformed/my breasts will fall off" or whatever. But that's not what this article says. It may actually be _good_ for you, depending on what your physical state is, to decrease or increase the effect of estrogen on some of your cells. It may also be bad for you in some cases, or for some cells. Foods have all sorts of effects on our internal chemistry, not just drugs and hormones.

The result that soy may be both good _and_ bad for you at the same time isn't too surprising. Cells and bodies are incredibly complex things, and they're very sensitive to all sorts of things in their environment. And lots of things can go wrong. Most things are probably both good for you and bad for you at the same time. Also, it usually depends on what's going on in your body.

For example, did you know that if you have cancer, Vitamin C might actually make things worse? Cancer researchers have discovered that cancer tumors require a lot of vitamin C, which has led to more research into the nutritional needs of cancer. Vitamin C might also interfere with chemotherapy by blocking chemo's ability to kill the cancer cells. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0916074820.htm

But the following article says that, in some cases, combinations of vitamins C and K3 (don't ask me, I don't know, either) can cause cancer cells to die:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

These things aren't proven, they're just possibilities. But the examples show how there's no such thing as "good for you" and "bad for you", but rather "better for you" and "worse for you", depending.

Again, my point is not that Daniel is wrong. I don't know if she's wrong. Probably she's right about some things. It's that, in my opinion, her reasoning is bad, and (again in my opinion), her writing is propaganda. Science doesn't need propaganda. Evidence makes cases, handwaving doesn't.

I have a correction to make. Daniel didn't say that soy caused hypospadias, she correctly stated (as the study does) that hypospadias was linked to maternal vegetarianism. But she did so in a series of statements about soy--soy this, soy that, vegetarian/hypospadias, soy the other thing. That's why I misread. I still say the result is misleading because it is incomplete, and the hypospadias sentence appeared in a paragraph that was otherwise consistently about soy.


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

ftcmj,

Good explanation







. I don't think most doc's could have explained it as well as you did







.


----------



## luv my 2 sweeties (Aug 30, 2003)

Wow, ftcmj!







Thank you so much for your time and effort on this. I was tempted to be alarmed by the article, but my bs meter was humming too, so, like many previous posters, I simply made a mental note to make sure we aren't over-relying on soy. My dd has recently developed lactose intolerance, so she's eating more soy than she did before (soy yogurt, etc.) I was hoping to check out some of the sources, but wondered when I would have the time. Thanks for doing some of the work for me!

What *does* alarm me is that some people seem to welcome in Mothering *anything* that goes against the mainstream, regardless of it's accuracy or bias. The fact that many mainstream mags publish biased information doesn't mean that doing the same thing in reverse is warrented. The best thing my alma matter (Mount Holyoke College







) did for me was *not* give me job skills. (They don't teach you how to be a homeschooling SAHM -- Heaven forbid! :LOL) Rather, they taught me how to spot bias, "straw man" arguments, and propaganda in articles such as this. Unfortunately, I often find Mothering's "scientific" articles to be problematic in this way. Like ftcmj said, they may be correct in their conclusions, but I feel I have to take them with heavy doses of salt and skepticism. (Most of the articles in the cosleeping issue seemed to be a refreshing exception to this, however.) I love Mothering for lots of reasons, but I don't need to be titilated by every counter-cultural idea that comes across the radar. I'd have been much more interested in an article that presented the pros and cons of soy in a more balanced manner. An author doesn't need to scare me to get me to re-examine my choices in light of good information. I'm sure most Mothering readers are equally intellegent; articles like this don't give us enough credit, IMO.

edited to say: I don't mean to imply that MHC did not give me job skills -- my poorly written sentence could be read that way! I'm too tired to re-word it, though.


----------



## MOV (May 4, 2004)

ftcmj, I really appreciate the input you've had on the soy article. Thanks!
I would like to correct your correction, however. You said, "I have a correction to make. Daniel didn't say that soy caused hypospadias, she correctly stated (as the study does) that hypospadias was linked to maternal vegetarianism." Daniel did get that right in the body of the article, but in the "how much is too much?" box, she wrote, "The evidence is mounting that greater numbers of boys with birth defects such as hypospadias are born to soy-eating vegetarian moms." Her citations on that point are a study of rats and the study that did find a higher rate of hypospadias in the vegetarian moms who participated but they were not found to have significantly higher soy intake. That doesn't seem like mounting evidence to me.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

whoa, ftcmj!
i feel like i really know the whole deal now; thank you so much for putting all that effort and time into your posts!


----------



## jkstewart (May 19, 2004)

Hi ! I am brand new to this message board. The soy article scared the living bejeezes out of me! I was so happy to see so many discussions on the subject. One question that still has not been answered for me.... Is it okay (beneficial even) to give babies/toddlers tofu as a finger food. Before this article and these posts... I had read (in mainstream and vege books & mags) that cooked cubed tofu was a "PERFECT" finger food for babies/toddlers. Now I have read several posts that say just the oposite, that it is dangerous ....? Can anyone help me ?









Thanks - Julia
:bf SAHM of Braden 6/03 and Calhoun







: Chole







: DH


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Okay. It's perfectly logical.

The more processed the foods you ingest are, the less "good" they are for your body.

It's as simple as that.

ANYTHING IN MODERATION. Another logical point. Eating/drinking soy a few times a week is really no big deal. But many people eat a crapload of disgusting meat-wannabe products that are so dyed and processed and flavored that it's ridiculous. It's just common sense that eating a lot of processed foods - whether they're made from soy or not - is not good for you.

I don't see what's so confusing about that.


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

Tofu is great for babies.. i have read numerous articles... tofu is the least processed and actually quite easy to make at home.... jus make sure they come from NON-GMO organic soybeans....


----------



## cathe (Nov 17, 2002)

jkstewart - I wouldn't worry about giving tofu as a finger food. It has good nutrients and your baby would not eat enought to have any ill effects. The danger of soy is in overuse (just like many other foods).


----------



## jkstewart (May 19, 2004)

Cathe - Thanks for your advice, one more question; you said - the amount I would feed my baby wouldn't be enough to HARM (ill effects) him... I always thought that tofu was BENEFICIAL to our systems......... I am so confused? I am a vegetarian and have thought that TVP and 'fake meat' was a godsend. I feed my baby peas and beans and other sources of protien, but it is only partially digested... the low-sodium 'burgers' with 15 grams of protien, seemed like the perfect solution (btw he will not eat cottage cheese).... I knew that the processed food was better than meat but not great... so I have been giving him plain baked tofu... and now it sounds like that tofu is just as bad......

and in response to candiland's comment about disgusting meat substitute products... isn't WAY better than eating REAL disgusting meat?

I know the old addage: everything in moderation.... and the logic that even too much orange juice could be detremental BUT no one would ever drink THAT much... so when it comes to Soy walking the fine line between good for you and detremental.... what is the cut off? And what types of soy... tofu and soy milk, soy yogurt and such can't be as bad as boca burgers or TVP- or are they.... when people say limit soy, is that ALL forms?


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

Ok overly processed food is gross if consumed daily at all meals.... TVP, tamari, Miso, Tofu, Tempeh, etc are all good for you.. you would have to consume soo much that its not possible to do so to get all the ill effects of soy... its a very high amount... and has to be all bad sources.... like the overly processed kind.. we are all aware that overly processed any type of food is not healthy.. it has who knows what in it... but i would never stop eating veggie burgers, fake meat, etc cuz well i like them.. do i consume them every single day 3x a day.. umm nooo... and Soy is good if its NON-GMO organic soybeans.. and most soy milks up here at least are all NON-GMO so i really dont have to worry.. the only one i know of off hand that isnt is Sensational Soy... Whole foods is the best but not everyone has time to make everything from scratch..

ok thats my .02 for the moment...


----------



## cathe (Nov 17, 2002)

I don't know that I agree about fake meat being okay - I used to use TVP but read some disturbing stuff about them - first of all TVP and other fake meat products use soy isolates which is created using very high temps which basically leaves the bad stuff in the soy without the good. Also, I understand that TVP contains a form of MSG. Personally, I would rather eat fish and eggs than eat fake meat products because I don't like to eat processed stuff. (Please don't jump on me for this - this was a personal decision that I'm not trying to push on anyone else.)

As for tofu, tempeh, miso, naturally fermented soy sauce - I think they are all good foods, high in protein and nutrients. We eat those regularly.


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

cathe said:


> I don't know that I agree about fake meat being okayQUOTE]
> 
> Ok im lost who said fake meat is ok?? its overly processed and not good for you... i personally still consume some... not everyday or every week.. but once in a while i like a good veggieburger...


----------



## jkstewart (May 19, 2004)

Thanks you two for all the great advice. The article in Mothering really upset me. When I was pregnant with my son, and did not have a taste for, or want to eat meat. I ate the fake stuff everyday.... now learning all this new information, what is a girl to do the next time a baby is on the way? Besides miso,tofu etc... are there any really good sources of protein (besides meat or fake meat) If I remember correctly you are supposed to get 60g a day of protein when you are expecting... I do eat a lot of beans - but they don't have 15g of protein a serving..... .....


----------



## cathe (Nov 17, 2002)

Sorry - I guess I read your post too fast the first time - now that I read it over I see that's not what you are saying. That's what happens when I try to do 5 things at once. I just saw the line TVP being good for you and 'i would never stop eating fake meat' and my fingers started writing. Sorry, I took them out of context.


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

protein is not an issue.... especially if your vegan or vegetarian...the problem is our society is intaking way tooo much protein.... everything has protein in it.... if you alot of fruits, veggies, beans, tofu, grains, etc there are alot of high protein meals without soy in it... there is actually a thread on it.. i will find it and bump it...


----------



## cathe (Nov 17, 2002)

jksteward - I am in the process of fininishing up a cookbook for vegetarian pregnant and breastfeeding women. The latest recommend daily allowance is actually 71 grams of protein per day! I have been working with several midwives and nutritionists (specializing in vegetarian/vegan diets) on this book. They all stress the importance of protein. In fact, protein and B12 were the nutrients they say many pregnant veggie woman are lacking.

Here are some other sources of protein besides soy (and by the way - the vegan nutritionist recommends 1 to 3 servings of soy products per day).

Beans and legumes (try burrittos, tamale pie, bean loaf or burgers, soups, etc.)
Nutritional yeast flakes (also good source of B vitamins and you can get b12 fortified)
nuts and seeds (use nut or seed butter instead of butter on toast, grind nuts and seeds and add to cereals, baked goods, sprinkle over grains)
whole grains, especially quinoa, millet, amaranth, oats, and buckwheat)

If you want any specific recipes, you can pm me and I'll send you some. I have a recipe for a high-protein porridge, tempeh rueben, and a meal shake that you might like.


----------



## jkstewart (May 19, 2004)

Cathe- I knew the protein amount was high 71grams -WOW - Thanks for the information... I was on the phone with a good friend (and Mothering reader) talking about sources of protein during pregnancy and all that. But here is the catch.... I feel so conflicted now when I read/hear statements like _"and by the way - the vegan nutritionist recommends 1 to 3 servings of soy products per day"_ THAT is what is confusing me.... I have heard nothing but good things about soy (tofu and meat replacement stuff) until yesterday.....
Oh well, I am a big bean eater, and I am a firm believer in wheat germ! Thank you for re-afirming me!


----------



## Attached Mamma (Mar 16, 2004)

Quote:

The latest recommend daily allowance is actually 71 grams of protein per day!
I believe the recommended intake of protein depends on weight. What I have read is 1/2 gram per pound of body weight.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

bump for those as need to read without us all rehashing this again.


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

ot- some of us think a lovely bison burger is not in the least nasty (and i have fed my kids plenty of boca burgers, etc, and i know what they prefer.)

suse


----------



## ericaz (Jun 10, 2003)

just wanted to report that sally fallon is aware of the soy article and wrote about it in the spring 2004 Wise Traditions magazine.

here is the qoute found in the Soy Alert! section:

MOTHERING ARTICLE
The May issue of _Mothering Magazine_ carried an excellent summary of soy dangers by Kaayla Daniel, PhD, author of _The Whole Soy Story_ (NewTrends, Summer 2004). The article provoked a storm of letters, some supportive and some in whiny complaint that a major magazine would dare to air anything negative about soy. Mark Messina, John Robbins and Brian Strom, all advocates of eating lots of soy (Strom was principle author of a white-wash study on soy infant formula), wrote long letters of complaint. Look for Dr. Daniel's excellent responses in the July issue of _Mothering_.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Legitimate researchers should not refer to all dissenting opinions as "whiny." That itself does not speak highly of Ms. Fallon for me. There were some legitimate, non-whiny responses posted here; many of these critical responses refered to actual research that the posters did not misinterpret in order to support their points (Dr. Daniels did misrepresent research in a number of instances in her article). Although I haven't seen the responses to which Ms. Fallon refers, I can't imagine that they are nothing but whining. Calling names is unprofessional.


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

uhh ohh i dont like the term "whiny" either... very unprofessional... sounds like someone thinks they are a know it all.... i hate ppl who think they are superior... jus my take on it.. and it wasnt the fact that they were mad at the negatives being brought up.. but also some had issues with the terminology, the writing, and the facts the writer used as well as the fact she didnt help anyone out not giving people alternatives....

thats jus my .02 i didnt even read the article cuz i dont get mothering... and im not about to debate soy vs non soy to anyone....


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

Yeah, me again. And AGAIN I'll say too much of any one thing probably isn't great for you. AGAIN, some people should avoid soy. AND, feeding a newborn nothing but soy (which is often a high allergen among other things) is probably not a good idea. But soy is NOT some great evil for most people. People get sick and die all the time from peanuts, shellfish, apples for goodness sake. Does that mean eveyone should forego them? No. Any blanket statement from any one person makes me nervous. No one thing is all bad or all good (okay, so maybe Big Macs fall into the "all bad" category!







) Anyhoo, if soy bothers you, don't eat it, if it doesn't, eat it. Everyone should have a varied diet with lots of colors in it. BTW, I am a vegetarian, an holistic nutritionist and have had four vegetarian (one vegan) pregnancy. Over and out...


----------



## ericaz (Jun 10, 2003)

To get a few things straight -

Sally Fallon/WAPF does not advocate a zero soy diet for every person. Certain people have an easier time with soy than others. What everyone should avoid (if they're trying to eat a nutritious diet) is any soy that is heavily processed, which happens to be a lot of what's available commercially. Naturally fermented soy can be enjoyed by many people when used sparingly. As a condiment.

The article in Mothering specifically mentions that the problem with the way our society has glorified soy is that it's too much. Soy has traditionally been used as a condiment only, not as a meal replacement. That's where the trouble lies - with highly processed, meal recplacing, definitely GMO (unless certified organic) soy.

Quote:

Anyhoo, if soy bothers you, don't eat it, if it doesn't, eat it.
I don't know how a holistic nutritionist can make that statement, Layla. As someone who has also studied holistic nutrition I have a hard time chalking up a healthy diet to "if it bothers you don't eat it." Most people I have consulted have no idea that their health woes are a result of improper food choices. Not all people have food allergies that pose a threat of death - many have delayed reactions that can be anything from headaches to dry, flaky skin.
And soy is on the little list that every qualified nutritionist will tell a sensitive person to be on the look at for when it comes to potentially allergenic foods.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ericaz*
Mark Messina, John Robbins and Brian Strom, all advocates of eating lots of soy .

This information is false. I do not know about the other 2 individuals mentioned here, but John Robbins does not advocate "eating lots of soy." In fact, some quotes from a recent lengthy response that he wrote to Ms. Fallon & Ms. Enig's anti-soy articles include:

"There are legitimate questions about certain soyfoods, and much we have yet to learn. Becoming soy-a-holics and automatically downing anything made from soybeans is not the road to health, but neither is shunning and stigmatizing soyfoods."

"It's true that soybeans contain substances that in excess can be harmful. But to imply, as some do, that as a result eating soyfoods poses a risk to human health is taking things much further than the evidence warrants. There would be dangers in eating a diet based entirely on soybeans. But, then, the same could be said for broccoli or any other healthy food. This is one of the reasons why varied diets are so important. Diversity protects. For most people under most circumstances, soy products are a healthful addition to a balanced diet that includes plenty of vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, fruits, and other legumes. For most people, substituting soyfoods for some of the animal foods they now eat is one of the healthiest dietary changes they could make.

What, then, would be a healthy relationship to soy in the diet? Are some forms of soy healthier than others? In my view, the best way to take advantage of soy's health benefits is to follow the example of the traditional Asian diets and stick with whole foods. As a population, these are cultures that, when they have eaten their traditional diets, have tended to be healthier and live longer than Americans."

The entire article can be found at:

http://www.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htm


----------



## layla (Jul 2, 2002)

First of all I did not imply that if it bothers you don't eat it constitutes a healthy diet. A varied diet fulll of lots of colors was what I said. And in lay terms, for generalization, that is easy for most people to remember. No one person's diet can or should be summed up in some generalization or by any blanket statements. Every person's diet should be unique unto them. If it bothers you don't eat it is pretty standard for most food related problems as many people know when something doesn't agree with them. Nausea, rash, gas, vomiting, swelling...people notice that kind of thing. If a person doesn't know why they have gas or dry skin or headaches, that's whole different story as a person who has studied nutrition would know, right, ericaz? Also, I believe that I have mentioned numerous times that soy is a high allergen and that no one should eat it in large amounts. I absolutely agree with the fact that soy is over glorified and eaten too much, but don't agree with the idea that it should be avoided by all people altogether. As I've already said. I've mentioned whole foods, fresh fruits & veggies and blah,blah, blah here and on other posts, but the truth is, not me, not ANYONE can tell the general public what to SPECIFICALLY eat. General or blanket statements are to all be taken with a grain of salt. Every person is different and can only follow basic guidelines unless they consult with a professional about their SPECIFIC needs.


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

:

i will continue to consume soy... i like my non gmo soy milk, organic soy ice cream, tofu, miso and tamari.... i dont consume overly processed soy products daily... and my daughter and i are perfectly healthy... and she doesnt masturbate due to her soy intake (and yes there was a group of fanatics that actually say that) and she is quite tall 95% percentile.. so im not worried....


----------



## MOV (May 4, 2004)

I have to say that I am not looking forward to "Dr. Daniel's excellent responses in the July issue of Mothering" -- probably because I did not think highly of her original information. Like others here, it does not make me want to know more of Sally Fallon's ideas being amongst those she no doubt sees as "whiny" as opposed to the "excellent" Dr. Daniel.
All-in-all, it is probably all for the good that I read the original article because it did give me a kick to lessen my use of processed soy and diversify my foods more.
I do hope the info in the next Mothering mag is more balanced and not just Daniel holding the whole (soy) stage again.


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

i jus got the issue of mothering at the library and will be reading the actual article... and then i can voice my .02


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

yk, that is exactly my big issue with Sally Fallon/Nourishing Traditions. Even though my diet is closest to being described as "NT", I actually do not own a copy of Nourishing Traditions because of its snide tone (and the huge amount of animal products they recommend). However, it still remains the closest book that encompasses the major ideas of what I feel constitutes a healthy diet, so I will continue to recommend it (albeit with those caveats in place). I like the tone of Body Ecology Diet or The Maker's Diet better, but they are not quite as in-depth as NT. JMHO.

I still consume soy, but only in traditional fermented forms and not as the basis of my diet. Too many tasty things in this world to eat to focus solely on one single bean.


----------



## Curious (Jan 4, 2002)

We love tofu here. Dd is wild for it (maybe it's my tamari-vinegar-ginger-cinnamon sauce). We use it in moderation. Same for tempeh. I prefer the food sources to the isolates/supplements etc.

I am looking more carefully at how much soy milk sneaks in. I make a LOT of chai with it. Every so often I make almond milk, and I'm looking to be more organized about doing that - I can never remember to put the nuts in to soak overnight...it's a messy process and it only lasts a few days.


----------



## MOV (May 4, 2004)

Curious,
Not exactly on topic, but I'm curious about the sauce you make! Recipe?


----------

