PDA

View Full Version : Soy Products???


sandsplinter
02-15-2005, 02:46 PM
Anyone have any opinions on soy?

I have noticed most of my processed products now contain it.

Sure, small amounts are good- I suppose, but it is in almost literally everything!!! Look in your own kitchen and see for yourself.

The fact that the US produces more than 50% of the world's product helps but there has to be something else. Yes, it is cheaper and that is reason enough I suppose. But Americans consume much more of it than anyone- evan the Chinese who suposedly "live off of it" - (but they don't use nearly as much of it as we do...)

get_real
02-15-2005, 03:08 PM
www.mercola.com/article/soy/

Mawashi
02-15-2005, 06:11 PM
It seems just about everything's got soy in it these day, mainly as a filler, I suppose.

I think to get any real benefit from it though, you need to eat the stuff in its least modified forms, and I think the non-GM stuff is best. I live in Japan, and soy products make up a big part of the diet here. One reason why there are so many old people around... First, there's good ol' tofu, which has zero fat and loads of protein. I like the firm type. Then there's miso soup. I'm not a fan, but it is healthy. Then there's the pungent natto (fermented, sticky soybeans). Reeks a bit, but an acquired taste.

Soy milk. Tastes like sawdust to me.

Mawashi
02-15-2005, 06:20 PM
After reading some of that Mercola stuff, I don't think soy is inherently bad, but like most other things, moderation is OK and don't believe the marketing hype. I'll stand by what I said in my previous post.

Draken
02-18-2005, 01:32 AM
I think this should take care of it... ;-)


HIDDEN DANGERS OF SOY ALLERGENS
- by Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Soy%20Allergens.html

EMERGING DANGERS OF SOY PRODUCTS
- by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig PhD
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/soydangers.html

HIDDEN DANGERS OF CANOLA OIL
- by Sally Fallon & Mary G. Enig
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/canola.html

THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF COCONUT MILK AND OILS
- by Mary Enig PhD.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/coconuts1.html

sandsplinter
02-18-2005, 11:41 AM
Thank you all for the input.

The main reason I asked was because I recently found out that I am allergic to soy protein (egg whites and milk proteins too) and was absolutely amazed at how many items contain a variation of it.

I guess I want to feel better about the loss if I find reasons not to eat it anyway!

Thumper
10-12-2005, 09:10 PM
funny, i start a thread on this topic as well. Does anyone know about the purported excess estrogen that our bodies produce when we eat too much soy? Apparently they're using it to feminize society and soften us up for domination :-P

Shannow
10-13-2005, 12:37 AM
The eostrogen mimics are a bad thing, as are the peanut genes in Round-up ready soy.

Funny, we are told to keep peanut butter, or utensils that have used it, away from our kids for two years, and then can give them peanut proteins in their formula/cereal...pathetic (And one reason why my kids have only breast milk for at least 18 months...see also coconut oils).

I think that most of the traditional uses of soy involve fermentation, and are pretty safe.

nomad
10-13-2005, 03:17 AM
Mawashi wrote:
After reading some of that Mercola stuff, I don't think soy is inherently bad, but like most other things, moderation is OK and don't believe the marketing hype. I'll stand by what I said in my previous post.

Hi Mawashi,

Great to hear you're from Japan. Listen, are

the few Jewish tribesmen in Japan doing well for

themselves ?

10-13-2005, 10:52 AM
My thoughts are that whenever they start pushing a drug, a product, etc. on us and then begin lacing our food with it, the only reasonable explanation is that they're "gaining" and we're losing.

Insider
10-13-2005, 06:05 PM
BlueAngel wrote:
My thoughts are that whenever they start pushing a drug, a product, etc. on us and then begin lacing our food with it, the only reasonable explanation is that they're "gaining" and we're losing.

I think you're right here. The more natural a food the better. I really think we are lost though.

10-13-2005, 06:45 PM
Lost on why they would use SOY in so many products?

The negatives for us versus the benefits for them?

There was a thread started by Thumper re soy (estrogen) and the effects on men.

However, I haven't seen any scientific information about this.

Insider
10-13-2005, 07:40 PM
I think we are lost in many ways including food. Do you really think we can resist, we don't seem to be doing a very good job of it so far.

Shannow
10-13-2005, 11:36 PM
BlueAngel (I left out the space).

I don't think that they are putting soy in anything in particular to harm us, similarly, I don't think that Nutrasweet is in foods specifically to cause harm.

It's lobbying, funding, and calling in favours.

Lobbying leads to subsidising, which leads to a product that sells for less than it's true cost.

e.g.biodiesel...a fuel derived from vegetable oils. It's an incredible boon to us road users, particularly if already used cooking oil is used to produce it, turning waste into fuel.

If you look at the "legal" fuel specs in the U.S., they can only be opbtained using virgin (i.e. first use) Soy oil. Similarly, in Oz, the specs have been written around the nuances of using virgin Canola oil.

btw. Canola oil has a number of problems WRT mental health and the fatty acid types contained in it.

Was watching the news this morning, and they were pondering the massive increase in peanut allergies over the last few years...no mention of round-up ready soy.

So I don't think it's purposely harming us, just they won't stop it from happening.

Thumper
10-13-2005, 11:45 PM
I've also read/heard that the hormonal imbalance caused by eating soy products is a weapon, along with media indoctrination, in making our population homo and bi sexual.

10-14-2005, 08:34 AM
Sorry, but I disagree.

Could be upsetting hormonal balance (i.e., as Thumper read).

I wouldn't use nutrasweet EVER!! and I don't drink diet anything for that reason.

A little birdie told me so!

wolff
10-14-2005, 08:35 AM
This topic sound's strangely familiar - Check out the Sci-Flick "SOYlent Green" (another Heston film) I realize it's just a strange coincidence (or is it) but I find it kind of ammusing that the writer's of the movie chose to use a product name that was just being introduced to the american public as an alternative food source about the same time this movie came out.

10-14-2005, 08:38 AM
wolff wrote:
This topic sound's strangely familiar - Check out the Sci-Flick "SOYlent Green" (another Heston film) I realize it's just a strange coincidence (or is it) but I find it kind of ammusing that the writer's of the movie chose to use a product name that was just being introduced to the american public about the same time this movie came out.

There are NO coincidences!!!

Insider
10-14-2005, 08:41 AM
I agree, programing is programing. I remember both these movies. Neither very good.

10-14-2005, 08:45 AM
Until it's proven that young girls and boys need hormone replacement (i.e., soy), I think we can only assume that it is used for libido purposes in young girls.

As for young boys, well, could this be a reason that our population has become increasingly homosexual?

Have there been any studies?

Doubt it!

wolff
10-14-2005, 08:51 AM
I like your thinking Blue Angel. As I think we both realize - The american public have been being scripted for a very long time and there is no doubt in my mind the use of movie's has been a large part of this "sheep herding". They show us a peice of the future without us even knowing it, Then when it becomes reality, it's not such a shock.

10-14-2005, 08:54 AM
wolff wrote:
I like your thinking Blue Angel. As I think we both realize - The american public have been being scripted for a very long time and there is no doubt in my mind the use of movie's has been a large part of this "sheep herding". They show us a peice of the future without us even knowing it, Then when it becomes reality, it's not such a shock.

Right, it's called "conditioning."

If they didn't do this, what would the outcome be, I wonder?

wolff
10-14-2005, 09:59 AM
Check this out......

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/07quietconquest.htm

Just an interesting paragraph - You dont even have to read between the lines.


The economic leadership of America, established to a supreme degree in the course of this century, is based not solely on external power, but also on the fact that all nations on earth have come to depend on America in a variety of ways. Where this becomes a dependency for foodstuffs-and in this America seeks with every possible means to make such dependency absolute-the soybean comes into a position of influencing people's physical constitution, the basis of individual being. What other plant apart from the soybean could have allowed a world dominion to arise, drawing its power from the denial to populations, through diet, of the physical basis for clear thinking and independent, conscious action?

What else is there to say ?

Bouncer
10-14-2005, 01:53 PM
That's a lot of trouble to attribute to a bland little peanut look-alike.

I like soy sauce; it makes almost anything I cook taste good.

What about the concept of artificial soy products? I mean, all of the oil refineries are producing hydrocarbon products. It seems to me that they could re-fit the refineries to produce carbohydrates and simple proteins and could then feed the whole world. And the world would be really hungry, because we'd all have to walk everywhere we went.

Shannow
10-14-2005, 02:05 PM
Bouncer,
interesting point.

The U.S. uses 5 times as much energy producing/treating/processing food than the calory content that makes it to the plate.

Oz runs a positive energy balance (only just), and that's a lot to do with the far North cattle stations where they let the animals roam, and the only energy inputs are at round-up time.

I've always maintained that the western world would be better off if we found a way of eating oil.

Bouncer
10-14-2005, 02:08 PM
Sure! I mean, most of the world has a crude diet already.

Thumper
10-14-2005, 08:56 PM
Soy Blocks Vitamin and Mineral Absorption
Studies indicate that soy (organic and non-organic) causes increased requirements for vitamins E, K, D and B12. Phytic acid from SPI (soy protein isolate) blocks the absorption of essential minerals and creates deficiency symptoms of calcium, magnesium, magnesium, copper, molybdenum, iron, manganese and especially zinc -in the intestinal tract. (2) This may be contributing to the early onset of osteoporosis in Japan, starting there as early as age 20 versus age 34 in the USA. (1b) Also test animals fed SPI developed enlarged organs, particularly the thyroid gland and pancreas, and caused increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.

[...]

Soy infant formula
Daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant formula is 6 to 11 times higher on body-weight basis than the dose that has negative hormonal side effects in adults consuming soy foods.

Approximately 25 per cent of bottle-fed children in the US receive soy-based formula - a much higher per cent than in other parts of the Western world. Toxicologist Dr Mike Fitzpatrick estimated that infants exclusively fed soy formula receive the estrogenic equivalent (based on body weight) of at least 5 birth controls pills per day. By contrast, almost no phyto-estrogens have been detected in dairy-based infant formula or in human milk, even when the mother consumes soy products.

In the 1986 Puerto Rico Premature Thelarche Study, the most significant dietary association with premature sexual development was not chicken, as the press reported, but soy infant formula.

Early maturation in girls is frequently an indicator of problems with their reproductive system in later life, including failure to menstruate, infertility, breast cancer and possibly uterine cancer. (8) Problems in both sexes associated with soy-based infant formula later in life also include extreme emotional behaviour, immune system problems, pituitary insufficiency, irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, thyroid disorders including thyroid problems in babies and infantile leukaemia.



http://www.campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/220903/soy.htm

Bouncer
10-15-2005, 09:59 AM
Thanx, Thumper. I'll check it out in other venues.

Thumper
10-25-2005, 10:41 AM
Pollution makes for more girls

Toxic fumes favour the fairer sex, a group of researchers in Brazil has found.

Jorge Hallak and his team at the University of Sao Paulo turned up the surprising result by studying babies born in their city. They divided the metropolis of 17 million people into areas of low, medium and high air pollution, using test results from air-quality monitoring stations. They then studied birth registries of children born from 2001 to 2003.

The team found that 48.3% of babies were female in the least polluted areas, but 49.3% were female in the dirtiest parts of town. After measuring the ratio of boys to girls born in all the areas, they calculated that 1,180 more babies would have been boys in the polluted areas if they had the same sex ratios as the cleaner areas. The team reported their findings on 17 October at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine meeting in Montreal.

It has been known for the past 60 years that, for humans, the ratio of males to females in newborns usually tips towards sons. Scientists are not really sure why this occurs, but certain conditions, such as those after the Second World War, have been found to alter this balance.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051017/full/051017-16.html

LaDominio
10-25-2005, 12:01 PM
Apparently, Soy contains a chemical, which can increase your chances of getting cancer.

Everything you eat that is not 100% natural is bad for you. If we were to eat only from the land, we would probably live thrice as long.

Thumper
10-25-2005, 12:40 PM
LaDominio wrote:
Apparently, Soy contains a chemical, which can increase your chances of getting cancer.

Everything you eat that is not 100% natural is bad for you. If we were to eat only from the land, we would probably live thrice as long.how come the people before the industrial revolution didn't live thrice as long.

LaDominio
10-25-2005, 12:43 PM
Because this kind of control had already been implemented. In the bible, the normal age to die was about 900.

Thumper
10-25-2005, 01:01 PM
LaDominio wrote:
Because this kind of control had already been implemented. In the bible, the normal age to die was about 900.

you mean they were using chemicals, pesticides, and GMO before the industrial revolution?? :-o

Bouncer
10-25-2005, 02:10 PM
Um, I don't mean to be a party pooper, but didn't God at one time declare that the span of a man's life would be 72 years, on average? I believe it's in the Bible.

That of course does not shed any light on the cause of the foreshortening, but it was well before diesel fuel and nylons.

LaDominio
10-25-2005, 03:39 PM
Yes, but does God use the supernatural to make things change materialistically? He uses 'science' to affect our materialistic world.
I suspect that God had appointed people to do this for him... Think about it… its not far fetched. Its been proven that over 3000 years ago, human civilization was very technologically advanced.
Check this out if you don’t believe me.
www.s8int.com

Then again, it’s just my opinion.

Bouncer
10-26-2005, 10:42 AM
Oh believe me, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Jonathan Gray fan, myself. Remember what the tower of Babel was all about! God mumbled to himself, "Oh oh, if these fools consolidate themselves (foreshadow of the NWO?) then there will be no limit to what they can do . . ."

J. Gray posits that entropy is at work in civilization, so that we go from more advanced to less advanced as time goes on. Althought technology is advancing, our civilization as an entitity is devolving at an alarming rate. Yes?

Also, I believe that mankind before the Great Fall intuitively knew all of the details of how the world works; in other words, there was no need for "science" at that time in history because the mechanisms of matter and energy were common knowledge.

LaDominio
10-27-2005, 06:27 AM
Bouncer wrote:

Althought technology is advancing, our civilization as an entitity is devolving at an alarming rate. Yes?



A person who has a life entirely based on materialism is more of an animal rather than a human.

People believe that we are 'evolving' because we are getting better at doing the practical things. So that is exactly right. We are ‘devolving’!

Bouncer
10-27-2005, 09:23 AM
When they start making beer out of soybeans, then I'll sit up and take notice. And don't forget the blue corn chips.

Bouncer
10-27-2005, 09:27 AM
Oh, I relly enjoyed the OOPARTS site and will return frequently.

One caveat, however: the image of egyptian heiroglyphs has been analysed and found to be retouched; they are just common symbols that were subject to erosion and someone really good at photoshop.
This, however, does not detract from the fact that working model airplanes were in fact found in situ at burial sites.