The Whole Soy Story

[Lighttime]

Serious wake up call.

 

http://www.wholesoystory.com/

 

http://www.figureathlete.com/readArticle.do?id=1512419

 

http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/index....mp;#entry143602

 

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

Edited September 3, 2008 by Lighttime

[Ryan T.]

Serious wake up call.

 

I have been on an anti-soy campaign for many years now. Having worked in retail natural food stores for most of the last ten years I have seen majoy soy abuse. You would not believe how many people feed this stuff to young children or the lion's share of their own diet consists of soy-based products.

 

Phytates, people. Phyto-estrogen. Similar stuff in whole grains as well, brown rice especially. If you want to break down the phytates in brown rice you need to soak, slightly ferment or almost sprout the stuff. Soy should just generally be avoided unless it is in the form of fermented soy sauce, tempeh or miso.

 

Many Taoist texts talk about the problems with grains. Taoists have always been wary of agriculture. I personally believe farming to be the root of most of the problems on the planet!

[de_paradise]

Personally, I eat just the 老白豆腐, the traditional white stuff, coagulated pressed soy beans milk, not the textured soy protein products. This traditional staple food of China and Japan I trust.

 

The soy milk from the supermarket and health food shops are generally all protein isolate with water.

[gendao]

I have been on an anti-soy campaign for many years now.

 

Phytates, people. Phyto-estrogen. Similar stuff in whole grains as well, brown rice especially. If you want to break down the phytates in brown rice you need to soak, slightly ferment or almost sprout the stuff. Soy should just generally be avoided unless it is in the form of fermented soy sauce, tempeh or miso.

I agree - but people are slow to listen, especially if you are not a "recognized authority figure" (ie - a news anchor with a name like "Biff Barkendale" or a guest on Oprah).

 

Only soy I eat is traditionally-prepared forms, as you noted. And those are mostly just for flavoring. Otherwise, all beans are high in protein and fiber - so why do you have to choose soy? When there's plenty of other options available without all the "anti-nutrients?" Can you say, "marketing?"

 

Fact is, they could market black beans or lentils just as easily...

 

And most of the purported health benefits are for WOMEN, anyways. Well, what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander, fellas!

[karen]

And most of the purported health benefits are for WOMEN, anyways. Well, what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander, fellas!

 

And it disrupts hormonal function for women too.. Soy can be synthesized in a lab to produce bio-identical hormones such as in natural progesterone cream, and that can be useful. But otherwise, the purported health benefits of the various unfermented soy foods for women are just part of the whole marketing scam.

[Junbao]

So, if I was interested in trying out a diet that cuts these things, mainly grains and soy, what would be good choices for food? I have had weird digestion things off and on for some years now, and am wondering if abstaining from grains could be helpful. I have a strong digestion, I am really lean and food goes through me fast, but I often get stomach discomfort, and sometimes very bright red ears.

[karen]

So, if I was interested in trying out a diet that cuts these things, mainly grains and soy, what would be good choices for food? I have had weird digestion things off and on for some years now, and am wondering if abstaining from grains could be helpful. I have a strong digestion, I am really lean and food goes through me fast, but I often get stomach discomfort, and sometimes very bright red ears.

 

Junbao,

 

Diet really needs to be individualized for different typologies, but you could start by eliminating the grains and soy and maximizing the healthy foods you're already eating. Raw foods contain the enzymes you need to digest them, so try that, and raw veggie/fruit smoothies are great because the cellulose is broken down. Include fermented foods like unpasteurized sauerkraut, kimchi, kombucha, or other fermented veggies, and kefir if you can make it yourself from raw milk. Probiotic supplements could help; digestive enzymes could help if you're eating a lot of cooked food; and bitter greens or bitter herbs. There are good digestive herb combinations like Hingashtak if you need to warm up the digestive fire.

 

That said, it's best not to add too many new things at once. Try a very simple approach to start with, changing one thing at a time to see how it goes. Sometimes just getting off of gluten grains has dramatic effects.

 

A very simple approach to aid digestion is to do sequential eating. This means that you simply eat all the foods in your meal in a certain order, from the most watery to the most dense. Have the most watery ones first, like salad. Then the next would be other vegetables, then your protein and fats. When you're eating a food like soup that contains a variety of different things, you just go by what comprises 80% or more. In other words, if the soup is mostly vegetables with less than 20% meat, then you can eat it toward the beginning of the meal with the watery foods.

 

The way this works is that the foods that digest quickly (the more watery ones) go into the stomach first, and aren't held up by the slower digesting foods, and the proper enzymes get released to digest them. When you eat an arbitary combination of foods at the same time, the heavier proteins hold up the other foods which decompose and cause indigestion and gas.

 

There are a lot of ways to tweak the diet to optimize digestion. But on another level, digestion can be a deeper emotional issue of how we "digest" our experience.

 

Red ears or any kind of heat in the head is basically the hot metabolic forces that belong in the lower body invading the upper body, and the various subtle bodies are trying to work out a proper relationship with one another. There may not be anything in particular that needs to be done about it, but it depends on the particular case.

 

It's kind of hard to give one-size-fits-all recommendations, but for what it's worth

[Junbao]

Thanks Karen for taking the time to post that!

[Xienkula1]

And it disrupts hormonal function for women too.. Soy can be synthesized in a lab to produce bio-identical hormones such as in natural progesterone cream, and that can be useful. But otherwise, the purported health benefits of the various unfermented soy foods for women are just part of the whole marketing scam.

 

Dosen't it depend when the woman eats the soy? If she has eaten soy all her life, it has some beneficial anti-carcinogenic effects for the breast, if she starts eating soy late in life...it can actually be detrimental?

[karen]

Dosen't it depend when the woman eats the soy? If she has eaten soy all her life, it has some beneficial anti-carcinogenic effects for the breast, if she starts eating soy late in life...it can actually be detrimental?

 

Do you have an idea why the length of time would make a difference? Really I'd like to know if there is one. (Who was it who said, "There are good reasons and then there are real reasons")

 

People in traditional cultures eating soy were eating fermented soy, and small quantities like a condiment, not main courses of soy burgers, tofu, not-dogs, etc.

 

And the marketing for anti-cancer this and that is often more hype. You can find some anti-cancer properties in just about everything that grows in the ground, including grass - doesn't mean it's all good to eat.

 

Oh, I wanted to add about the sequential eating, it was developed by Dr. Stanley Bass, in case anyone wants to look it up. Interesting research on how foods go into the stomach in layers.

 

-Karen

[Junbao]

Yeah Karen, I think I read some articles on that some years ago. About the sequential eating. Also about inspecting the scat you could see the layers in which the food was consumed. I think that was it. It presented some interesting ideas. I'll have to re-look into things.

So would cows milk be better than soy milk then? In cutting out grains would that be things like breads, rice, pastas....along those lines?

Would potatoes be a good alternative for carbs?

[Xienkula1]

Do you have an idea why the length of time would make a difference? Really I'd like to know if there is one.

 

 

-Karen

 

Developmental Biology, epigenesis.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Xienkula1

[karen]

So would cows milk be better than soy milk then?

 

ONLY if it's completely raw, unpasteurized. Raw goat milk is also wonderful. Unfortunately, raw milk of any kind is hard to get in many places, but raw cheese is more available. Well, I can get raw cheese in my supermarket for $14 a pound, if you call that available!

 

In cutting out grains would that be things like breads, rice, pastas....along those lines?

 

Yup. But the gluten grains are usually more problematic, so it's easier for most people to cut those out first. That's wheat, rye, and barley, and it's amazing how ubiquitous wheat is.

 

Then other grains like brown rice can be eaten if soaked first before cooking, to neutralize the anti-nutrients. Some grains like quinoa and millet contain very little phytates and don't need to be soaked. The book Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon is an excellent resource for learning about traditional foods and how to prepare them.

 

Would potatoes be a good alternative for carbs?

 

Depends on the person. For some, potatoes are too starchy but squashes are better. Potatoes also have an interesting effect energetically.. Rudolf Steiner says that potatoes curtail the thinking process to some degree, because of their very strong etheric forces. The term "couch potato" isn't just a figure of speech .

 

-Karen

 

 

Developmental Biology, epigenesis.

 

Ok, thanks. I think we'd have to take a close critical look at the particular argument given, see exactly what it's based on and if it's real or just an abstraction.

Edited June 26, 2008 by karen

[Xienkula1]

 

Ok, thanks. I think we'd have to take a close critical look at the particular argument given, see exactly what it's based on and if it's real or just an abstraction.

 

Read it and Eat!: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80409091727.htm

 

Mwhahahah Yah it's shakey evidence, only 3 studies...but interesting nonetheless.

 

What about the effects of isoflavenones from other sources like rain tree, red clover and fenugreek? Fenugreek is supposed to be great for hair loss according to my Mataji.

 

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6017893/description.html

Edited June 26, 2008 by Xienkula1

[karen]

Yah, "shaky" is an understatement! This kind of report which illustrates every logical fallacy in the book, is what makes "science news."

 

So they're saying, there is evidence, but we really don't have evidence, and here's a possible mechanism but we really don't know the mechanism. They're using rat studies. They're mentioning epithelial cells as the "cause" of cancer, which is pretty ludicrous. At best, they're studying an isolated chemical, genistein, and are seeing certain effects but really have no way of interpreting thsoe effects in any meaningful context.

 

What I do think is interesting is the study of epigenetics, Bruce Lipton's work, but that's not gonna make mainstream media headlines anytime soon

 

What about the effects of isoflavenones from other sources like rain tree, red clover and fenugreek? Fenugreek is supposed to be great for hair loss according to my Mataji.

 

Sure, it depends on the dose, and there's a self-limiting factor with such things - you just don't normally eat enough red clover and fenugreek to have harmful effects. Except that concentrated supplements have been made from red clover extract, and I wouldn't use those on a regular basis, same caveat as soy.

 

All due respect to your Mataji, and maybe her recommendation is personal and not for us to judge. But in general, what's "great" for this symptom or that symptom really has to be viewed in a larger context. Many things can make a symptom go away but be causing other problems. You want to treat the cause and understand why the symptom was there in the first place, otherwise it wil just express itself again in another form.

 

Often when you take herbs in large enough doses to get a therapeutic effect, you also get unwatned drug effects, which is why synergistic formulas are the way to go when you're taking medicinal doses of herbs, and ideally should be given by a skilled herbalist who can individualize the formula.

[Xienkula1]

Yah, "shaky" is an understatement! This kind of report which illustrates every logical fallacy in the book, is what makes "science news."

 

So they're saying, there is evidence, but we really don't have evidence, and here's a possible mechanism but we really don't know the mechanism. They're using rat studies. They're mentioning epithelial cells as the "cause" of cancer, which is pretty ludicrous. At best, they're studying an isolated chemical, genistein, and are seeing certain effects but really have no way of interpreting thsoe effects in any meaningful context.

 

 

Most if not all studies of toxicology are first done on rodents and primates for humans. Sure, it is not as as accurate, but doing research on humans is a lot more costly, and the cost is often prohibitive of research. It has been demonstrated in rats and mice that genistein has shown epigenetic modification of mouse genome.

That is worth acknowledging and not dismissing. Many genes are conserved between mouse and primate. Although we cannot extrapolate data without complications due to variation, there is enough similarity to prove something. Like lead toxicity effects mice via the same mechanism of action that it effects humans. This will not always be the case, it is just an example of why such research can be valid. I don't think they mentioned epithelial cells as a cause of cancer at all, but actually budding cells on the mammary glands which do not undergo differentiation, have a higher risk of developing cancer, Why? Obviously it is not yet clear, we are dealing with cells after all, a world which we cannot even directly perceive.

 

 

What I do think is interesting is the study of epigenetics, Bruce Lipton's work, but that's not gonna make mainstream media headlines anytime soon

 

Not likely, since Bruce doesn't study or contribute to journals of epigenetics anymore

 

 

 

 

Sure, it depends on the dose, and there's a self-limiting factor with such things - you just don't normally eat enough red clover and fenugreek to have harmful effects. Except that concentrated supplements have been made from red clover extract, and I wouldn't use those on a regular basis, same caveat as soy.

 

All due respect to your Mataji, and maybe her recommendation is personal and not for us to judge. But in general, what's "great" for this symptom or that symptom really has to be viewed in a larger context. Many things can make a symptom go away but be causing other problems. You want to treat the cause and understand why the symptom was there in the first place, otherwise it wil just express itself again in another form.

 

Often when you take herbs in large enough doses to get a therapeutic effect, you also get unwatned drug effects, which is why synergistic formulas are the way to go when you're taking medicinal doses of herbs, and ideally should be given by a skilled herbalist who can individualize the formula.

 

Actually Mataji told everyone that it is a tradition in our family, to use crushed fenugreek seed paste on the scalp and leave it on for 1/2 an hour. She told us not only could it make the hair beautiful, but prevent hair loss. She has been doing it her whole life, with no side effects but a gorgeous head of hair, and so do her sons and daughters and even her husband whom she massages with the paste. It is a remedy she has been taught from her mother, and her mother's mother. Usually such information isn't passed along unless it's useful in some way. Dose is important, but she uses it externally. Internally, she tells me it strengthens bones. This is what the maternal wisdom has dictated for centuries in our family. It has worked for us, but we don't eat soy.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Xienkula1

[witch]

I rail against soy in my book.

[karen]

Hi Xienkula1,

 

Most if not all studies of toxicology are first done on rodents and primates for humans. Sure, it is not as as accurate, but doing research on humans is a lot more costly, and the cost is often prohibitive of research.

Yup, and these studies are fraught with problems.. one is that we're looking under the streetlamp because the light is better there not because the solution lies there. The many fallacies associated with clinical trials whether on humans or animals, could be a whole 'nother discussion.. Harris Coulter's book, The Controlled Clinical Trial is an important analysis of the problems.

 

About genetics, again, a lot of false assumptions that I think Lipton does a good job beginning to clear up.

 

And the world of cells is the world of material science, which will never be able to penetrate to the real cause of disease, because disease is energetic. Its effects are material, and that's what they're all looking at. Like Plato's allegory, material science is looking at shadows on the wall, not the thing itself. It can identify proximal causes, and that can be useful within its jurisdiction, as long as we know the limitations we're dealing with.

 

Cancer is commonly known as a disease of abnormal cellular growth, but isn't it strange that we know it takes decades to develop, yet it's only diagnosed once the growth begins to cause physical, biochemical changes that can be measured? You have to wonder what was happening all those years. But material science can't go there, because it can't see in that dark alley, so it keeps looking under the street lamp and dismisses the reality of the dark alley. That's the Kantian worldview that material science is based on, so it can't go beyond that.

 

Have you seen Dr. Hamer's work on cancer? He won't be published in the journals either, of course!

 

 

Not likely, since Bruce doesn't study or contribute to journals of epigenetics anymore

 

Ah yes. It's what gets into the journals that counts

 

This is what the maternal wisdom has dictated for centuries in our family. It has worked for us, but we don't eat soy.

 

What a wonderful and loving thing to do. I'm sure it does help, as long as there are no disease causes for the hair loss and a little toning up is all that's needed.

 

-Karen

[phore]

Phytoestrogens!!

 

Only pure testosterone can save us now.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO_xtI9VHQA