repoman

I have been reading much about soy recently and I want to field some responses to the following websites:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/sept/17/soy_brain.htm
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/Marketplace.htm

I have lots more but much of the same information is repeated in most.

My summary of the arguments against soy is that it is full of antinutrients effecting protein and mineral absorption, its isoflavones, also called phytoestrogens, can cause as well as prevent cancer (the prevention is claimed to occur only in fermented soy products). The phytoestrogens when taken in large amounts act as endocrine disruptors.

Another problem I have with soy on its face is the amount of processing it has to endure to be edible in the forms it is normally eaten. Of course tempeh, miso, and natto seem to have much, much less of these problems since many of the antinutrients and converted by bacterial action into other substances and the phytoestrogens are "improved".

But in this fast, high output society soy is great for food manufacturers who can seperate all of the parts and put them into processed foods like soybean oil, modified food starch and of course various soy protein products. One thing I just found out is that the hydrolyzed soy (and whey, corn etc....) proteins contain free glutamic acid which is the same as monosodium glutamate (MSG) but that this is not required to be put on labels. So the food companies keep the flavor (umami) enhancement without the bad press of MSG.

I do appreciate that there are many people who do want to have the purported benefits that marketers say that soy has especially its being vegetarian, but I think its shortcomings and possbile dangers have been overlooked to long. I also want to know why there are not products made from other beans such as black or kideny beans. Can't you make black bean milk or kidney bean tofu? They have lower levels of phytoestrogens, trypsin inhibtors and phytates than soy and they taste better to me, at least.

Basically, I am just really skeptical of this whole soy craze, because I see how much money can be made by so many companies.


I am guessing that the effects, good and bad, of the phytoestrogens (isoflavones) are definitely going to be the most controversial part of the upcoming debate (dare I hope?). But I think that we should not ask whether it can help somewhat with heart disease, but whether it is the same as using hormones to combat heart disease. If that is the case, then I would NOT take soy for that even if I was a woman (as a man I don't want many plant estrogens in my system). I would go on a mediterranean diet instead and do other habit changes that help the heart.

Oh, I gotta crash, but I guess I can't add much more now.

Godot

My brain isn't working porperly, so I'm not going to waste space by formulating a hlaf-assed response. The best place for you to go and look for reliable information, as well as being the current consensus on the literature is at Highwire.

To make your job easier:

http://highwire.stanford.edu/

Happy searching!