Jump to content

Soy Protein. Good or Bad?


Onlybrad
 Share

Recommended Posts

Glad this came up. Like Brad says, a lot of the concern is genetically modified GMO soy and organic soy is non-GMO.

 

That said, I think Vega products are soy and gluten free. Is that true and, if so, I'd love to hear someone talk about vegans avoiding soy and why.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stay away from GMO soy which is 99% of the soy/soy ingredients/additives in food at the grocery store. It has to say non-GMO soy or if it is organic soy it is automatically non-GMO. Otherwise, EAT ALL YA WANT!

 

There's no evidence that GMO soy is any different from non-GMO in terms of nutrients or health. The only reason to stay away from GMO is because it's controlled by unethical companies.

 

That said, the only reason to stay away from soy nutritionally is if you have a sensitivity. Same thing for gluten, nuts, etc. Eat as much as you want as long as you're not having issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

 

"After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

 

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths--a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy."

 

That isn't evidence?

 

I'm not going to debate over GMOs. You tell people to eat it by the mouthfuls all you want. Even without any "evidence" I know to stay away from something that isn't natural. That's just common sense. Well, at least to me it is. Maybe it isn't to you.

 

You can't beat nature. You never will. Stop trying to get around it or its going to bite you in the ass or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

 

"After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

 

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths--a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy."

 

That isn't evidence?

No, it's not. They were breeding single, isolated groups across multiple generations without additional samples. They were increasing uniformity within the groups while decreasing diversity across. That's simply how multi-generational inbreeding works. They didn't have sufficient control over the feed, either, since by their own admission they can't be sure which components may have had an effect. Finally, nutritional research on rodents is often inapplicable to humans, as we differ quite remarkably in the way we process food.

 

It's simply not a good study.

 

I'm not going to debate over GMOs. You tell people to eat it by the mouthfuls all you want. Even without any "evidence" I know to stay away from something that isn't natural. That's just common sense. Well, at least to me it is. Maybe it isn't to you.

 

You can't beat nature. You never will. Stop trying to get around it or its going to bite you in the ass or worse.

Sounds good, buddy!

 

Have a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not. They were breeding single, isolated groups across multiple generations without additional samples. They were increasing uniformity within the groups while decreasing diversity across. That's simply how multi-generational inbreeding works. They didn't have sufficient control over the feed, either, since by their own admission they can't be sure which components may have had an effect. Finally, nutritional research on rodents is often inapplicable to humans, as we differ quite remarkably in the way we process food.

 

It's simply not a good study.

 

 

Wow you obviously know a lot more about this study than me. I just learned about this one myself.

 

Surely you can show really good studies showing evidence that GMO soy is really good for human consumption, especially since that would have been required by the federal government in order for it to be approved, right?

 

Also, this evidence you are going to show me (I'm sure you have it) must not be well known in most all of the other developed nations since they have banned GMOs for human consumption.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow you obviously know a lot more about this study than me. I just learned about this one myself.

I thought you weren't going to argue about GMOs. I don't know anything about that study. I just read the abstract and some summaries. The flaws are apparent from a distance.

 

Surely you can show really good studies showing evidence that GMO soy is really good for human consumption, especially since that would have been required by the federal government in order for it to be approved, right?

I assume that last part is sarcasm, since most of what we eat hasn't specifically been proven safe in laboratory studies. The only "study" that proves most things are safe for humans is widespread consumption over time. Unless the FDA requires specific research indicating a crop is safe, nobody's going to bother. And in most cases, including soy, the FDA considers the GM substantially similar enough to the natural that it rubber stamps the approval.

 

Also, this evidence you are going to show me (I'm sure you have it) must not be well known in most all of the other developed nations since they have banned GMOs for human consumption.

That's simply not true. GMOs are legal in almost all of the EU. Britain and Spain even grow their own. Canada grows a massive amount. Most of Australia is fine with them. Poland, Portugal, Germany, and Sweden all grown some GMO crops, though not many. The EU in particular does go back and forth pretty frequently, though.

 

Anyway, like I said, there aren't studies to show that it's safe, but I didn't claim there were. There just also aren't any proving that it's dangerous. There are definitely good reasons to avoid it and even to ban it, but they aren't health-related. A lot of people avoid it because of a nebulous fear that it's not "natural," that it's some sort of franken-crop. They're certainly free to do so, but the evidence just isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edited to make this short;

 

I assume that last part is sarcasm, since most of what we eat hasn't specifically been proven safe in laboratory studies.

 

Most of what we eat hasn't been specifically modified at the genetic level by corporate scientists and marketed with a patent based on such. My question STANDS. Where is the evidence that it is healthy? Oh wait...

 

The only "study" that proves most things are safe for humans is widespread consumption over time.

 

I think that concludes your own contradictory statement that there is no "evidence" that it is "bad".

 

My point stands. Unless you want to be a health guinea pig for a MONSTROSITY of a corporation looking to grab for a global monopoly on the human food supply, stay away from GMOs.

Edited by HorseSense
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with soy protein is it is made up of isolates. Feel free to ask Dr. McDougall MD but he has seen studies that it increases IGF-1 (which increase mutagenisis) aka cancer growth. Stick with hemp it has the a BCAA closest to our muscle body type and is very well assimilated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edited to make this short;

 

I assume that last part is sarcasm, since most of what we eat hasn't specifically been proven safe in laboratory studies.

 

Most of what we eat hasn't been specifically modified at the genetic level by corporate scientists and marketed with a patent based on such. My question STANDS. Where is the evidence that it is healthy? Oh wait...

My answer isn't going to change. Those studies don't exist, and I never claimed they did.

 

The only "study" that proves most things are safe for humans is widespread consumption over time.

 

I think that concludes your own contradictory statement that there is no "evidence" that it is "bad".

Not at all. The lack of evidence is not itself evidence. We don't have evidence either way in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thank you for this link. It was really interesting and as added kudos--the authors are trained in dietetics and nutrition as well as Exercise Physiology. I have a huge problem with people who don't hold degrees in nutrition and dietetics telling people to what to eat. Even medical doctors get this stuff wrong. I just read an essay by an MD who has developed a dietary plan but along the road he advocated Pritikin (high carb & fiber, low fat & protein), Fit for Life, Eat Right for Your Blood Type, vegetable juicing, and no grain diets. He claims one of these diets gave him diabetes, one lowered his cholesterol to unsafe levels, some caused problems in his patients, etc... He's negatively affected his own health and that of his patients, following his advice and the advice of other MDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have evidence either way in this case.

 

Then what is your POINT?

 

We have POTENTIAL evidence that hasn't shown up yet, according to even you. You HONESTLY think Monsanto or the federal government gives a crap about you?

 

Yet it seems you don't give two flips about that thought, even trying to shoot down others' advise to stay away from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have evidence either way in this case.

 

Then what is your POINT?

 

We have POTENTIAL evidence that hasn't shown up yet, according to even you. You HONESTLY think Monsanto or the federal government gives a crap about you?

 

Yet it seems you don't give two flips about that thought, even trying to shoot down others' advise to stay away from it.

Go back and read my first response to you. It contains both my original point and my thoughts on the GMO companies.

 

"There's no evidence that GMO soy is any different from non-GMO in terms of nutrients or health. The only reason to stay away from GMO is because it's controlled by unethical companies."

 

To be even more clear, my point is that when advising someone to stay away from GMO products, be specific as to why. There's no need to feed into fear-mongering about GMOs being unhealthy, but it's worth noting how awful Monsanto et al are. That way, people aren't misled and can make their own choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for your point.

 

There's no "evidence" that its bad for your health, but there's none that it isn't.

Exactly, yes. That's my point. There's no evidence, so don't claim it's unsafe. Be honest. Say that we don't know for sure whether it's safe or not. There's no shame in it.

 

You didn't have to explain yourself but I have to explain myself? pffft lol

In my opinion, you have to explain yourself when you make an assertion. You claimed GMOs were unsafe by appeal to a flawed study. I think that's dishonest and requires an explanation.

 

My assertion is to lack of evidence which, admittedly, is inherently resistant to explication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I was just clarifying your comment for other readers. Just happy to help!

 

You ignored the one study that took me all of 30 secs to google (I refuse to go deeper), never answered most of my questions and hence never made a point beyond mine, wasted everyone's time, and now the truth of why you did all this surfaces.

 

Your prejudiced opinion of me and my posts is dually noted and well marked. I will remember your motives in the future and never, ever respond to your posts again.

 

Have a nice day.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Recent comprehensive literature reviews have concluded that there is currently no scientific consensus regarding the safety of genetically modified organisms. There are numerous concerns with GM organisms and the scientific community remains divided on many of these issues.

 

While the nutritional value of GM foods is likely similar, there are concerns regarding allergenicity, toxicity, and gene transfer. Additionally, there are numerous environmental concerns.

 

Simply put, the health and environmental effects of genetic modification are unknown. GM organisms have not been around long enough for us to have valid long-term data on the subject. The scientific community is divided in their predictions. In cases of uncertainty and potential harm, we abide by the precautionary principle. The potential benefits of genetic modification do not outweigh the potential for harm. Our time and resources would be better spent on creating seed-banks, saving heirloom seeds, trying to reverse the unsustainable trend of monoculture factory farming, et cetera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, yes. That's my point. There's no evidence, so don't claim it's unsafe. Be honest. Say that we don't know for sure whether it's safe or not.

 

The fact that there is no evidence is precisely why it is unsafe.

 

Absence of evidence of harm does not = evidence of absence of harm.

 

It is perfectly valid to claim that genetic modification is unsafe, and I will explain why.

 

First, we must define safe. Google defines safe as "Protected from or not exposed to danger or risk; not likely to be harmed."

 

Because the effects of genetic modification are entirely unknown, we cannot assume that we are protected from danger or risk. When dealing with unknowns, we cannot assume that we are not likely to be harmed. Until we can be confident that we are protected from danger or risk and not likely to be harmed, the activity is unsafe.

 

Suppose that there is a very tall tree by the river with a branch growing out over the water. You want to climb the tree and jump off of the limb into the water because it looks super exciting! The depth of the water is unknown. There is no way to determine the depth of the water at this time. There is also no way to determine what might be underneath the water, hidden from view. Perhaps there is a fallen tree under the water. Maybe there are rocks. Maybe there is an alligator. Given these circumstances, if someone told you that jumping is not safe, would you think "We don't know whether or not it is safe to jump." ? Until the depth of the water is known, jumping is not safe.

 

Suppose that you are blind and deaf and you are considering crossing a roadway while alone. You don't have any evidence suggesting that a car is going to hit you. Is crossing the road safe or unsafe?

 

The effects of genetic modification are unknown. Until we fully understand all of the long-term effects of genetic modification, production is not safe.

 

The precautionary principle is not a challenging concept. I am convinced that most scientists and doctors today don't receive sufficient instruction on the philosophical disciplines of epistemology, logic, and ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, yes. That's my point. There's no evidence, so don't claim it's unsafe. Be honest. Say that we don't know for sure whether it's safe or not.

 

The fact that there is no evidence is precisely why it is unsafe.

No. No, it's not. You're just going in the other direction. "It's unsafe because we have no evidence that it's safe" and "it's safe because we have no evidence that it's unsafe" are equivalently invalid. You just chose the one you agreed with.

 

Absence of evidence of harm does not = evidence of absence of harm.

But, according to you, absence of evidence of safety = evidence of absence of safety. Do you see where the issue is?

 

It is perfectly valid to claim that genetic modification is unsafe, and I will explain why.

 

First, we must define safe. Google defines safe as "Protected from or not exposed to danger or risk; not likely to be harmed."

 

Because the effects of genetic modification are entirely unknown, we cannot assume that we are protected from danger or risk.

We can't assume that we're exposed to it either. We can't assume we're likely to be harmed.

 

When dealing with unknowns, we cannot assume that we are not likely to be harmed. Until we can be confident that we are protected from danger or risk and not likely to be harmed, the activity is unsafe.

Your first sentence went on too long. It should read, "when dealing with unknowns, we cannot assume." This whole time, I've been talking about evidence. "Unsafe" is not the default state in the absence of evidence of safety.

 

Suppose that there is a very tall tree by the river with a branch growing out over the water. You want to climb the tree and jump off of the limb into the water because it looks super exciting! The depth of the water is unknown. There is no way to determine the depth of the water at this time. There is also no way to determine what might be underneath the water, hidden from view. Perhaps there is a fallen tree under the water. Maybe there are rocks. Maybe there is an alligator. Given these circumstances, if someone told you that jumping is not safe, would you think "We don't know whether or not it is safe to jump." ? Until the depth of the water is known, jumping is not safe.

Actually, it could be perfectly safe. You don't know. If the water is deep enough, you are not exposed to harm. Your knowledge doesn't change that. It doesn't in any way affect the empirical safety of jumping. You went a bit nutty with the fallacies here. Argument from ignorance, bandwagon fallacy, and some bizarre, inverted appeal to consequences that I'm sure has a formal name.

 

The precautionary principle is not a challenging concept. I am convinced that most scientists and doctors today don't receive sufficient instruction on the philosophical disciplines of epistemology, logic, and ethics.

The precautionary principle is a policy methodology, and I've been focusing on scientific fact. However, even the precautionary principle isn't a blanket prohibition on activities that may cause harm. There is always a threshold of plausible risk. In the words of the EU, there need to be "reasonable grounds for concern." So you still need something besides your own opinion, though the burden of proof is lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...