This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I thought we decided to keep the taxonomy simple in the table with only unsing sub and super taxons to organize children lists? -- maveric149, Friday, July 19, 2002
The entire "caveat" section is highly reminicent of this: The Dangers of Soy: Advertising and Your Health Call me skeptical, but I doubt islamonline.net does the world's best research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.98.78 ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 13 April 2005 (UTC)
Having just read the soybean article I don't find poor grammar or much that would be considered unobjective. What does the soy article have to do with MSG? It makes no claims about MSG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.191.138 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 April 2005 (UTC)
This article claims soy comes from Japanese shoyu, but which in turn comes from Chinese "Soy yu". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.167.219 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 June 2005 (UTC)
The Cantonese name of soy sauce should be considered as an origin of the word: 豉油 (si6 yau4) -- Kvasir 20:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I heard on the news the other day that Brazil surpassed America in soy production last year, which contradicts this article. Has anyone else seen data on this? TastyCakes 22:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
When did this become an anti soybean article? It needs some serious reworking, the negative information about soy needs to be moved to an article called " Critcism of soybeans Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The anti-soybean material has been made so it doesnt display with "<!==", yet it is still in the body of the article. Its no joke. Maybe its time to move ir to its own page
The dramatic increase is largely credited to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of health claims for soy which very likely is unfounded (see below: #Reduce Cholesterol?).[3] Since the bulk of the soy grown in the US is GMO variety the chief beneficiaries of the increase are the biotech seed companies. Dr. Jane E. Henney who was the FDA commissioner at the time, now sits on the board of biotech giant Astra Zeneca. Many top agency officials from the Bush Administration, have been under criticism for close ties to industry and possible financial conflicts of interest. The former USDA Secretary of Agriculture, Daniel Robert Glickman, also left to accept seats on the boards of soy related companies including Hain Foods.
Does this belong in the article? Does it matter to the general world of soybeans who sits on what board? Does unsubstantiated charges of "close ties" or "possible financial conflict of interest" have any sort of bearing on soybeans in general? It seems to me the answers should be "no". I read this section and I was thinking "So what?" after each sentence (except for the first). ScottMo 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: Can someone explain why an omega3:omega6 ratio of 3:1 in flax seed oil would decrease omega 3(aLNA) conversion to DHA and EPA? That is stated within the article in comparison with soy's 1:7 content. I would think that this should increase the conversion rate by increasing the substrate of the reaction. Is there feedback inhibition here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.63.205 ( talk) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
So I lift weights on a regular basis. I get a lot of advice from fellow artisans of holding heavy things aloft but I also get advice from people with nutrition and biochemistry degrees who also lift weights; none of them seem to take steroids. They insist that soy is not a complete proten and swear by whey protein supplements. The whey weight lifters do have results to show by where as the vegan/vegetarian weightlifters, while also in excellent shape, are often of the very lean and toned variety and not of the large muscular variety.
So who's right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.85.201 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Something else occurs to me, too. One of the possible reasons for the difference between vegan and non-vegan weightlifters is perhaps it is an artifact of the two very different subcultures. Most vegans I know are very active outside the gym, enaging in rockclimbing, cycling, etc whereas most weightlifters, myself included, are more sedentary in home life, focusing more on the challenge of weightlifting and bodybuilding or staring at the wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.85.201 ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
"Soy protein is a complete source of protein containing adequate quantities of all 9 essential amino acids which are necessary for the building and maintenance of human body tissues (Erdman & Fordyce, 1989). The soybean does not lack sulfur-containing amino acids cysteine and methionine, as some people think. Soybeans are limiting in methionine and cysteine, not lacking. In addition, cysteine is not an essential amino acid. Several years ago the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) adapted a new method for evaluating protein quality which is not based on the growth of young rats (as was the old method, the Protein Efficiency Ratio). The new method, called the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), compares the amino acids in a protein with human requirements and adjusts for digestibility. Using this new method of evaluating protein quality, soy was given a score of one (the highest possible) and is now considered to be equivalent to animal protein (Sarwar & McDonough, 1990). Soy protein isolates and concentrates are complete proteins which are well-tolerated and can easily serve as the sole source of protein intake for adults as well as children. (Young, 1994)."
"Infants fed normal adult soy milk for any length of time, have become extremely malnourished and even died. This is so because undiluted soy milk contains about the same proportion of protein as cow's milk~ ***around 30% ***which is way too much for a human infant--***human milk is about 6% protein.*** THIS IS VANDALISM..a little common sense please: 30% protein in cow's milk is laughable as is 6% for human milk....
I came across a great review on soy's benefits at http://www.revivalsoy.com/benefits - the FDA has stated there is NOT any statistically-signifcant evidence that soy causes harm to any patient group. What is funny is that the anti-soy sites don't have any of the recent safety studies posted. With billions being lost by the beef and dairy industry, you would have to be naive to think that these groups aren't being funded by the cow lovers! So eat your soy and become smart enough to learn the truth! :)
From what I've seen, quite a few "anti-soy" sites have lots of other "out there" claims about other safe foods as well, and also other unsubstantiated and biased bits of health "advice". Ralphael 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I came across a recently added sentence in this part of the article yesterday. "In fact, scientists are in general agreement that grain and legume based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries". While it doesn't seem completely implausible that this is the case, does anyone have any actual reports or evidence that backs this up? Ralphael 22:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Since I couldn't find any evidence for this sentence, I removed it for now. Ralphael 02:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) soy started in germany
I'd like to know where the scientific evidence to support the claim isoflavones can prevent cancer is. Surely this isn't NPOV or factual. Also mentioning *EARLY* research showing the *POTENTIAL* for phytic acid to combat colon cancer is highly misleading. How about sticking to completed research that has reached a conclusion? Conversely research into the effects of soy on thyroid functionality is well documented. I personally know scientists strongly opposed to soy infant formulas that have no connection at all with Weston Price or Mercola. The negative effects of soy are not new "loud" claims. There have been studies since the 1930's raising concerns about soy consumption. If someone could point to a *CONCLUSIVE*, *NON-BIASED*, *INDEPENDANT* study supporting ANY positive health claims in relation to soy I'd be very interested. With 85% of the edible oils consumed in the US being from soy it is little wonder there is an obesity epidemic (As anyone with more than a primary school education should know, estrogens cause laying down of fat). What about decreasing fertility? Isn't anyone even remotely conecerned about the effects estrogens could have on male sexual and more importantly cognitive function??? I'd be very surprised if those responsible for the edits don't have industry connections.
Dear Anonymous Poster, I wish I had industry connections, I could use a better job at the moment. I was going to post a listing of some research for you, but I wouldn't know where to start. The beneficial effects of isoflavones are supported by an overwhelming set of studies (some will be rightly disputed, but a great chunk of it is good). Run a search at your local library in an academic database or a local university. If you are in New York state, you can also use the NOVEL databases with your driver's license as password. Go to the New York State Library's website to access them. It should more than satisfy you. I haven't found any studies that actually produced results that hold up under scrutiny in terms of health problems in those not allergic. I tried very hard for a friend who *is* a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation while I was employed at an academic library. Phytoestrogens are not estrogens. They are chemically similar and marketed by unregulated supplement manufacturers for menopausal women...often with no real effects there either. Read the research on the topic. Again, there is a huge amount out there. The only conclusive biological research is that which rules out a claim, not that which supports it. Non-biased is very easy. Any double blind is very tricky to bias without some very odd conclusions that are usually caught in the next issue of the journal by the scientific community. Independent? From who, universities? doctors? soy farmers? Research is research. If the study is well contrived, it will float. If it isn't, the community will balk at it, and it will likely not be published. It is very convenient to dismiss any research you see because you imagine that it must have been funded by some special interest. That just isn't how evidence works. It either exists or it doesn't (statistical errors and rehashing via careful manipulation of numbers aside..thus the need for double blinds and the rest of the scientific community). As anyone with a college education in anatomy and physiology would know, estrogens lay down a subcutaneous layer of fat and spur the development of secondary sexual characteristics of women--they are not going to cause male obesity without first making his skin buttery-soft, taking off his body hair and producing breasts! Fertility is not a problem in the US in the levels that it would be if what you say is accurate (my son was conceived on the first try and born on the due date--he'd have been a miscarriage if my wife had taken estrogens). Cognitive function? Read the studies--only one suggested anything there, and it was awfully speculative and produced a rather spurious correlation. Soy oil has been the number one fat in the US since 1953 according to Food Review, Sept-Dec, 1998. I think we'd all be dead, transgendered or idiots if what you say is true. The best test of long term safety is long term use (unfortunately). We live longer than we did then. We have had declining heart disease mortality (deaths from heart disease peaked in the 1950s...when lard was number one over soy until '53). I, personally, don't need a study to interpret that. I don't think I need to mention Japan, do I? They are some of the longest lived people in the world, and they eat far more soy than Americans. I would be out there screaming to any official I could get my hands on if this were all true. I assure you of that! I write letters to politicians and go to demonstrations at the very least when there is a problem. This isn't one of those problems. -- Starsapphire 22:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Raphael's reply follows--sorry to stick mine in between.
>>>Industry connections? Really, I'm just interested in Wikipedia having a factually accurate article about a commonly eaten, nutrient-rich bean that's been a part of the human diet in many countries for centuries now.
Phytoestrogens are found in other legumes as well, peanuts included. Do you really think that those who consume peanuts are going to become mentally challenged, obese, and infertile? Please, if you have any neutrally-oriented, accurate references with studies that show a significant co-relation between legume consumption and obesity or other health problems in humans, show them.
Granted, if one consumes excessive amounts of fat, like that in soybean oil, one very well could become overweight. It's well-established that overconsumption of calorie-rich foods can cause obesity. The phytoestrogen content of the food does not matter in this respect.
As for studies which show that soybeans can be a healthful addition to one's diet...
"[Dr. Alice] Lichtenstein reported that scientists at FDA, the agency that regulates the health claims that US food manufacturers use to advertise their products, considered more than 20 years' worth of research on soy protein and its effect on blood cholesterol levels. In these studies the effectiveness of soy varied from none to beneficial. However, the most consistent finding was that when people with elevated cholesterol level replaced some of the animal protein in their diet (from meat and dairy foods) with about 25 grams of soy protein (a plant-derived protein), their total and LDL cholesterol levels declined.
In addition to its protein, soy contains compounds called isoflavones that may contribute to heart health as well. The research into these compounds is not yet conclusive, but some studies have suggested that isoflavones help to decrease both total and LDL cholesterol and possibly increase "good" HDL cholesterol levels."
Source: healthandage.com
While as the excerpt states, research into the effect of isoflavones on heart health are not "conclusive", much nutritional research is not. Still, one would be much more hard-pressed to find definitive evidence that moderate consumption of soybeans carries any health risks whatsoever for non-allergic individuals. Ralphael 18:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't this section seem relatively biased (and in some parts, almost ridiculous)? I have some doubts that the soybean can be legitimately considered a "highly toxic" legume, considering millions of people consume it daily without adverse health effects; if I'm not mistaken, highly toxic implies consumption could be very dangerous, or even fatal.
Ralphael 20:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I have encountered much of this language before. None of it has ever panned out. It is largely the sort of nonsense peddled by the Weston Price Foundation (www.westonaprice.org) and Dr. Joseph Mercola (mercola.com). I've been trying to substantiate their rather loud claims for six months with literature reviews. They vastly distort research to (in the case of Mercola) sell competing products. Their ideas are becoming very popular in holistic health circles right now. I imagine it will flood wikipedia in the coming months. Watch the articles on refined sugar, pasteurized milk, fatty acids and anything about flour. I can't even find the 'research' source of the claims in the health warnings section. They are pretty far out there. I am not sure what the most appropriate response is within wikipedia, being new. I could write a new section with some actual citations. Note that the only cited reference in this section denies the author credibility (possibly inserted by someone else). The folks I've confronted who believe this sort of stuff have justified this sort of reinterpreting of evidence to me by way of channeled writings about aliens enslaving us through grains...I'm not kidding. It isn't impartial nor is it going to go away, in my opinion. On the other hand, it is an opinion some people hold. -- Starsapphire 03:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the section in question; hopefully now it's more NPOV and factual. If you can see any way to improve it though, definitely go ahead. Ralphael 19:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, someone altered the recent edits only hours after I made them, adding a >lot< of dubious claims; once again, I'll try and fix them, and I'll start watching the article from now on. I certainly agree with respecting the opinions of others and providing a fair, accurate article, but altering this section with hypotheses that have little verifiable evidence is pushing it, especially ones that basically say the soybean is "dangerous" or unfit for human consumption. Ralphael 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
recently my sister has been diagnosed with Hashimoto's Thyroiditis which is an autoimmune diesase which results in the inflamation of the thyroid gland (which in turn causes goitre)and hypothyroidism. after doing some reasearch on this we found a link between consuming soy products and this diesease. if anybody has any information on this could you please post it on this page. [unsigned]
From WP:CG:
Thus, if this article is in category "soy", and category "soy" is in "food crops" and "beans", then this article should not be in the food crops and beans categories. If you think about it, it does make sense. -- DannyWilde 01:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
US FDA says it weighed soy concerns versus benefits By Lisa Richwine
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. health regulators weighed concerns that soy products might be harmful but decided soy's positive effects justified touting its benefits to consumers, a Food and Drug Administration official said Monday.
The agency comment came in response to published remarks from two FDA scientists that eating soy might cause health problems, particularly if given daily to infants in soy milk formulas.
Drs. Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan, the FDA scientists, have spoken to media organizations to warn that infants given soy formula might grow up to develop fertility problems.
They also worry that eating soy regularly might increase the risk of breast cancer in women and brain damage in men. Their most recent comments were published in Britain's Observer newspaper Sunday.
FDA officials considered the scientists' views and those of other critics before announcing last October that they would permit manufacturers to advertise that eating soy could help adults cut their risk of heart disease.
``We are well aware of the concerns, but we did balance those concerns with the other positive effects, an FDA official said in an interview Monday.
The FDA reviewed scientific studies on soy before concluding that adults who consume 25 grams of soy protein per day could see a ``significant lowering of cholesterol, which would lower their risk of heart disease. High cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, the leading killer of Americans.
Critics told the FDA soy could cause harm because it contains a chemical similar to the female hormone, estrogen, that might disrupt normal hormone levels and impair development. Some warned about the possibility of cancer, impaired fertility or thyroid problems.
The FDA said the concerns were not supported by conclusive scientific research. While chemicals in soy do exert hormonal effects, the impact is ``very limited and much lower than that of natural or synthetic estrogens, the FDA said when it announced it would permit the soy health claim.
Concerns that soy infant formula could be harmful were speculative pending the outcome of definitive research, the agency said.
Critics who worry about the effects of soy infant formula recommend that it be used only when no alternatives exist.
A farmer-supported group said Monday concerns about soy's health effects were not new but were not widely held.
``The overwhelming body of published peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows soy has numerous health benefits, said Michael Orso, a spokesman for the United Soybean Board. ^ REUTERS@
17:23 08-14-00
Copyright 2000 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. [unsigned]
Did major cleanup. Had some "conflict" with another edit - I hope i preserved the integrity. Didn't change content, just rearranged and organized. JamieJones 15:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
In recent years there has been some concern that consumption of certain soy products may lead to higher likelihood of dementia in the elderly. Primarily this issue was raised by the Honolulu Heart Program, which studied food consumption in Japanese-Americans and isolated a neurological degenerative aging of up to five years to the regular consumption of tofu, with some statistically insignificant suggestion that miso might also be implicated. The results of the study came out in 1999 or 2000.
I don't know where the right place is for a discussion of the above effect, but at the time of the release it was considered quite a bombshell and as such I think it would be negligent to avoid a mention that soy may have adverse cognitive effects, particularly in men. This is not a fluff issue, nor is it a scare of the Mercola or Weston A. Price ilk.
If there's someone who knows where to appropriately cover adverse cognitive effects of soy consumption, I encourage you to add a paragraph or two on the above-mentioned study. The best summary discussion I've found so far is here: Soy: Brain Atrophy Link?. The page is reference-heavy and contains abundant links to journal articles and other discussions. [unsigned]
"Soy based infant formulas with no more than 2.3% protein, from isolated soy protein as the sole source of protein, fortified with vitamins, minerals, lipids, and the amino acid methionine is the equivalent of formulas derived from either cow's milk or soybean flour. Formulas based on isolated protein produce a lower incidence of anal irritation than ones made from soy flour due to the absence of fiber in the former." [1]
If you can tell me in a sentence or two what this was supposed to mean, it can be put back. It looks like it was just a cut and paste from an article. I thinks its trying to tell me what the eqivalent of sot to cow or human milk is and maybe its just worded poorly. [unsigned]
Sorry if i missed it, but can someone with expertise put up a section about soy and health? Specifically, i'm reading things like Soy Alert and I'm confused/unsure of who to believe. JamieJones talk 12:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The part commenting on Phytoestrogen in men has two sources, however these sources both require logging in to a password protected site to view them, making them worthless. Other sources need to be found.
I updated the links to more easily accessible sites for both the men and infant formula sources. The NIH sites may require the creation of some sort of profile, however. -- Mego2005 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to know how many calories are in a bushel or ton of soybeans - to gain some perspective on its impact on the world. [unsigned]
The article misrepresents the findings of the research it cites in an attempt to debunk the soybean's effectiveness to improve cardiovascular health.
From the Circulation article [2]
...
Clearly this study fed subjects soy protein isolates and not whole soy foods. All of the nutrients in isolated protein are removed by heavy mechanical and chemical processing so the beneficial fats, vitamins, minerals, and other phytochemicals of soybeans are not present. This study does not show that whole soy food's benefit to cardiovascular health is in question as the article suggests. The study does show that soy protein alone like you would find as a filler in meat products or as powder in protein shakes has no benefit to cardiovascular health. This is a very important difference and it is irresponsible to misconstrue the findings!
From the conclusion [3]
Clearly the study does not deny that soy foods are beneficial to cardiovascular health. The question is what component of soy foods provides the benefit. In the past researchers have assumed it was only the protein that was beneficial. The Circulation study attempts to test that assumption. While the study failed to show it was the isolated soy protein that was the active nutrient, it did not fail to show that soy foods are beneficial. In fact they have processed and washed away the very soy nutrients they later cite in the conclusion as being beneficial!
The difference between isolated soy proteins and whole soy foods should be made absolutely clear. There is no harm in being more accurate especially when the topic, nutrition and health, is so poorly understood. [unsigned]
Under Soybean#Nutrition I find the phrase above. Can someone explain why there is a qualification here -- why does it say "may actually"? I think the article could be improved by getting rid of this vaguery or at least putting in some type of clarification. If rapeseed/Canola is better in some ways but worse in others, or whatever case it is, that should be stated explicitly. Kaimiddleton 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
the "problems" section is very POV. rather than stating the potential problems, someone has come along and just stated why soybeans are perfectly healthy. Justforasecond 00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The following section is almost pure OR and POV, and I've removed it to the talk page. Please cite sources. Captainktainer * Talk 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Soybeans are one of the " Biotech Food" crops that are being genetically modified, and GMO soybeans are being used in an increasing number of products. Monsanto is the world's leader in genetically modified soy for the commercial market. In 1995, Monsanto introduced " Roundup Ready" (RR) soybeans that have had a complete copy of a gene (plasmid) from the bacteria, Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, inserted, by means of a gene gun, into its genome that allows the transgenic plant to survive being sprayed by this non-selective, glyphosate-based herbicide. Roundup kills conventional soybeans. RR soybeans allow a farmer to reduce tillage or even to sow the seed directly into an unplowed field, known as 'No Plow' tillage, greatly reducing the soil erosion.
Currently, 81% of all soybeans cultivated for the commercial market are genetically s that depend on them. Concern is also for the high amounts of residual toxin since the herbicide is sprayed on the soy crop repeatedly during growth.
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is among the of soybeans and soy products. ADM along with DOW, DuPont and Monsanto to industry and possible financial conflicts of interest. The former USDA Secretary of Agriculture, Daniel Robert Glickman, also
Response to above (that is not signed) Is Glyphosate really that bad for us? I think that it may be a generalization to just say that herbicides are all toxins to humans, also as far as crop treatment goes I would imagine that as soy beans are nearing the end of there maturation, weed growth is pretty heavily suppressed by the fairly dense foliage cover, also does anyone know how the plasmid from agrobacterium works? If it breaks down round up in the plant then the plants products will be safe to eat even if a little glyphosate is dangerous wont they? and anything not taken up by the plant will be taken off as the beans are shelled, and no glyphosate will make it through the cow that eats the majority of the soy. Opcnup 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
A)
The external links should be clear like this:
"External links"
Favorable
(put favorable links here)
Critical
(put critical links here)
B)
Please find a valid reference for the setences I wrote below and add to the validity of the article.
Soy contains phytoestrogens that mimic estrogen.
Many consumers shop at health food stores and consume high levels of hormone like plant estrogenics that could increase the risk of breast cancer and other types of cancers. (citation needed)
Thank You. -- 63.17.125.218 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I am an organic consumer who ate large amounts of soy for many years. Now I have had both of my breasts removed. Soy is a very serious issue to me.
The increase in soy consumption has been popularized by natural food companies and the soy industry's aggrassive marketing campaign in various magazines, tv ads, and in the health food markets. However, it would be beneficial to have more research into the safety of consuming an increased diet in plant estrogenics due to the fact that soy acts more like a drug (hormone replacement estrogenic drugs) than a food.
Thanks, 63.17.97.20 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I know it is highly relevant to explain about the health food stores and soy for the critism section. 63.17.97.20 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps expanding the information about this important subjuct would be necessary.
In updating the reference in the "Vitamins and minerals" section, the following page was not found: http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3778S There is not a "Journal of Environmental Nutrition" and there are 34 results when searching on nutrition.org for "soy colon cancer" in 2004 - does anyone have the correct citation? I have removed the reference for now. Original text:
-- apers0n 08:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The article wrongly states soy is a complete protein source along with other POV sentences. >>> Soybeans are a source of complete protein. <<<
This sentence along with other sentences are misinformation propagated by the soy industry.
Here is yet another POV sentence below that is in the article right now. Yes, there is obfuscation here.
>>> However, rapeseed/canola may actually even have a better amino acid profile than soy protein. <<<
" 63.17.51.115 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)"
Hello Greenman,
Whole eggs (BV 100) and Whey Isolate (BV 104) are complete proteins.
Soy is lacking in high levels essential branched chained amino acids.
That is why soy has a lower BV of 74. Saying soy is a complete protein is very misleading and inaccurate.
The BV is more accurate and most importantly relevant.
Biological Value of protein is a scientific term.
The PDCAAS and PER are not accurate especially when compared to the BV method.
The facts speak for themselves. Reference 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 -- Messenger2010 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Great Greenman,
I agree with Greenman (even though Yankee76 completely disagrees with Greenman at every level.)
When Greenman wrote.....
So there is really no such line, in science, as 'complete/incomplete', it's more of a marketing term, or a simplistic description of 'very good', which is inherently POV. .....I completely agree.
I would really appreciate you, Greenman, adding your information to the article to fix the POV (non-scientific info which POV).
Complete protein is just a marketing term as noted by Greenman. It is not science saying soy is a complete protein. We are dealing with an encyclopedia. Those references by Yankees76 are about POV.
Greenman's great sentence and insight is on the ball despite Yankee76s objections! 63.17.78.66 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Soy is a complete protein according to this data: http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20gH.html . -- 150.203.41.19 05:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This sentence below is in the article. It must be verified or anyone can go right ahead and erase at anytime. Hopefully a reference can be found soon or it must be removed.
Consumption of soy may also reduce the risk of colon cancer. ('I really doubt it.')
The policy:
Best Regards, 63.17.71.251 04:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
After reading through the article, I noticed a few odd things.
However, the phrase complete protein can be a bit misleading since proteins vary in their protein values. Whole eggs have a biological value of 100 versus a 74 for soy. Soy protein is similar to that of other legume seeds, but has the highest yield per square meter of growing area, and is the least expensive source of dietary protein.
BV is likely the better formula used when calculating protein for muscle growth and synthesis in humans. The scientific method for measuring protein is the biological value methodology which is an accurate indicator of biological activity for protein quality and utilization in humans.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
The following three sentences contains a large amount of densely-packed information - I had to read them several times before I could take it all in.
'The genus Glycine Willd. is divided into two subgenera (species), Glycine and Soja. The subgenus Soja(Moench) includes the cultivated soybean, G. max (L.) Merrill, and the wild soybean, G. soja Sieb.& Zucc. Both species are annual. The soybean grows only under cultivation while G. soja grows wild in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Russia.'
In particular the use of the word 'soybean' at the start of the third sentence threw me off since several subspecies of bean have previously been identified. I suspect that this sentence is intended to mean 'The cultivated soybean grows only under cultivation...' which seems to be otiose. The otiosity could be disguised by saying 'G. max (L.) Merrill grows only under cultivation...' but what is the point of saying this, since G. max (L.) Merrill has already been identified as the cultivated variety ? Would the author please make it clear what meaning the third sentence is intended to convey, and whether it is worth saying ? Andrew Smith
Suggestions? (from someone who isn't a sockpuppet please).
Yankees76 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Could someone elaborate on the following - how was it an unintended consequence of moving away from the p. hydrogenated oil. Is the new oil not as good a cooking oil?
The following sentences need to be clarified -
'The major unsaturated fatty acids in soybean oil triglycerides are 7% linolenic acid (C18:3); 51% linoleic acid (C-18:2); and 23% oleic acid(C-18:1). It also contains the saturated fatty acids 4% stearic acid and 10% palmitic acid.'
'it' in the second sentence has an unclear referent, and it is therefore not clear whether stearic acid and palmitic acid are esterified or are present as free acid. By using 'it' rather than 'they', the author appears to be saying that 'it' refers to 'soybean oil', rather than 'triglycerides', and therefore that these acids are not esterified. Is this the meaning that the author intends to convey ? I suspect not. Andrew Smith
I have been looking over the Wikipedia "Soy-Scandal," and as to the last comment relating to whether it is linked to reducing risks of Colon Cancer, and have found an article suggesting so. In no way do I know whether this source is even reliable,as I am not a scientist. However, I would urge someone to kindly examine the source and content, and see whether it would be a good citation or not. Please do examine this: [7], and I would be delighted if you would be kind enough to also leave a reply/link on my talk page. Thanks! User_talk:Bhaveer
A minor point: This appears under the Cancer section: "...much higher rates of cancer related to dejection (italics mine) system and thyroid...". I suppose the writer meant "digestion"... Peytonbland ( talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is no unambiguous definition of "complete protein" that is agreed to by the scientific community. I think all references to claims of soy being "complete" or "incomplete" should be removed as it is a very subjective term which differs from one scientist to another. Instead of claiming that it is complete or incomplete, it's much better to simply state how much of each essential amino acid soy contains. The above link by 150.203.41.19 to http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20gH.html clearly states how much methionine and cystine one cup (256 g) of raw green soybeans contains, namely, 402 mg of methionine and 302 mg of cystine. So just put easily measurable facts into the article, rather than subjective ideas of "completeness". Humanoid 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I suggest should be put into the article:
A cup of raw green soybeans of 256g, has the following amount of amino acids:
Total protein | 33.2 g |
Tryptophan | 402 mg |
Threonine | 1321 mg |
... | ... |
Because of these values, most people call the soybean a complete protein.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15].
You can fill in the rest of the values in the table. So instead of saying X, I'm saying that many people say X, include the references you gave above, and provided the raw numbers so that people can see for themselves why claiming X makes a lot of sense.
Humanoid 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327 Soybeans can make you gay?] (NOTE: NOT A JOKE, AT LEAST NOT BY ME, MAYBE BY THE GUY THAT WROTE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE)
I have updated the page to reflect this article and references. Mcas 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an error in the text. An uncited claim in the text states that
Soy was not actually used as a food item until they discovered fermentation techniques around 2000 years ago.
There are are number of finds that clearly indicate that soybean was grown, harvested, and used for nutrition long before the date indicated in the article text. Excavations of a Mumun Period village dating to 800-550 B.C. by the Foundation for the Preservation of Cultural Properties English website here Korean website here found plenty of evidence. Carbonized legumes, about 1,800 grains, were unearthed and found to be associated with the floor of a pit-house at the Won-dong III site (Kim et al. 2003:275-283). Among the grains several hundred were identified as Glycine max. Crawford and Lee also found soybeans and other legumes in the same circumstances dating to the same time period at a number of archaeological sites in Korea (Crawford and Lee 2003:89).
There is other evidence from China too. I propose that we change the above sentence to reflect the reality of mainstream archaeological / palaethnobotanical research. What do you think? Mumun 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: Hello? (echo) (echo)...Uh, I added section on crop history. -- Mumun 無文 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been looking into the claim of soy's protein benefits, and discovered a great deal of research that phytic acid, present in soy, blocks the uptake of minerals by the human digestive system. I think this should be definitely added to the article, but I'm not sure it still has scientific veracity, or if this claim has been disproved. I've even met a few dietics majors who agree with this claim. What do the experts think? Matthew 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I recall there being a large (if not massive) increase in soybean growing recently. There should be mention of the danger of monocrops, plant disease being one of them (eg. the Irish Potato Famine). The results from some soy-specific disease would likely be less severe than thatfamine, but would likely devastate farms specializing in soybeans. I suppose these concerns would be similar to the ones of nearly ANY agribusiness/modern agriculture, considering the widespread status of monocultures... Any thoughts? Kennard2 10:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
with all the media fuss about steroids , and 60% of proceed foods containing soy , containing estrogen (phyto estrogen but it connect to the receptor and does the job , so it's just estrogen for me)
why for an example a report about trace amounts of estrogen in water makes so much noise while the fact that it is contained in soy which most people eat , and none cares?
the only thing I have in mind is the mouth shutting done by pseudo intellectual vegans who prefer men not being men and big corporations who want profits and invest in aggressive """research""" and marketing
also leave the disease prevention aside , quality of life is more important , I think (I'm not a yoga junkie who spends 5 hours a day in pubmed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.215.52 ( talk) 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
I can see that there are a number of editors who regularly contribute to the article and I would like to commend their contributions. It is clear that soy and soy research is a world unto itself! However, many of the major sections such as Uses, Nutrition, The role of soyfoods, etc are in need of their own articles. The time has come to create these sub-articles so that we can address this gigantic, unwieldy, and almost unreadable article. It would be wonderful if the frequent contributors to these and many other sections could start things off. In cases where sub-articles already exist -- why are we repeating information at such length and detail? We then need to address how to effectively summarise the former main article sections into a more conventional, sleek, and educational article. Please leave comments here. -- Mumun 無文 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I trimmed some sections and attempted to remove superfluous and excessive material that is not related to soy and/or did not seem to meet the criteria of WP:Relevance. Some material that I removed is repeated in other articles. Mumun 無文 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, the article contains two references to the personal home page of Ian Goddard, who is clearly a total fringe crank: [16]. I don't give much scientific merit to an article sharing a site with a discussion of "Extraterrestrial microbes in the rain?" among other Art Bell fare. What's the policy on removing crap references? [unsigned]
In the "Chemical composition of the seed" section, it mentions a whey part of soy, I think? But whey is a milk product... not soy. At least that's what the whey article says. Here's the quote: "Since soluble soy carbohydrates are found mainly in the whey and are broken down during fermentation, soy concentrate, soy protein isolates, tofu, soy sauce, and sprouted soybeans are without flatus activity." Am I reading this wrong or something? -- Billyjoekini 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
i'm not finding any reference to "the whole soy story" by kaayla daniel. here's the website: http://www.wholesoystory.com/ it includes quite a bit of info from all angles, probably enough to satisfy the nay-sayers who want research and proof. it was certainly enough for me. ya want protein, eat eggs 76.217.125.14 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be enough going on with soy protein values, edamane, colon cancer, etc. Soybean meal merged with soybean is like merging rope with marijuana because one can make rope from marijuana (hemp) or poultry by-product with chicken by-product (already done by deletionist adms) when there is very little in common. Noles1984 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I came to this page looking for information about soy's effects on hormones, especially testosterone, as it has been widely reported ( http://www.google.com/search?q=soy+testosterone) that soy reduces testosterone levels. I can only assume the phytoestrogen section deals with this - I can only assume because, as a lay person, I can barely understand any of it! It is far too technical and jargon-based for a section within an encyclopedia entry on a foodstuff. Please could someone more expert than myself simplify the section, and if necessary (which I'm not sure it is), move the technical information to a separate article. In my opinion, external links to scientific journal articles etc. at the bottom of the page instead would be the best solution, though I concede there are many scientific articles that are inaccessible to a lay person too, so there may be a place on Wikipedia for the technical information... but this isn't it. -- Pipedreambomb 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree this article is too long and disorganized. However in its entire lenth there is no mention of the Trypsin Inhibiting factor that is in soy beans. How bad is it? I've heard it called everything from a poison to an anti-nutrient. How is it removed, destroyed, bread out of the modern crop etc. I thought this was the one of the reasons it is processed into tofu instead of eaten plain. This was always one of the biggest issues with soy and it is completely absent from this page. This artical need a complete rework from the top down. Get rid of the stuff that belongs with fearies, leprecons and magic crystals and make sure the stuff that is real is covered. --AC 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
in the section on infant formula there is a section on early maturation of girls. what in hell does this have to do with soybeans? 125.239.96.95 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone else please do the remaining conversions to JPG, of all the instances where now only ? and ?? show? I put back the one I did before, but now there are several bad-font characters in this English wikipedia article that need fixing, and I feel its time to ask for assistance from someone who can actually see and understand the contents of information in that font and language to do the conversion to a JPG, so that the order doesn't get messed up, and the beauty of it all can be properly appreciated. Thankyou very much. Zaphraud 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like these characters are actually present in the edit window as well, so I don't think it's a font rendering problem, and they've been there for a while. LotR 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs to discuss more info on the possible negative aspects of soy. I understand that it's an ongoing controversy, but both sides should really be presented equally. Also, these are some things I've heard about soy that aren't even mentioned in the article. Soybeans throughout history have mainly been planted to replenish nutrients into the soil as opposed to being a food source. And there has to be a source for soy being a "popular" food item in Asia as I don't think that's true. Has there been a survey of how much soy people eat in a certain Asian country? If not, then I don't see how it can be called popular and linked to how healthy Asian people are. There are many other factors. One more thing. There should be some info on the soy industry, how they promote their product and where. I believe they are lobbying to get soy into public school cafeterias and I think that's important info to be out there. If this is true, it should be mentioned: raw soybeans were eaten by monks to lower their libido. KannD86 ( talk) 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
For most people edamame is the green soybean that's sold in grocery stores, which you eat after lightly salting and microwaving. Someone who's looking for information about edamame shouldn't be required to go through a treatise on the soybean. [unsigned]
Diabolical example of a POV fork on a high importance article. Even now the article is not even 55kb. We NEVER need to worry before 60kb and articles up to 120kb are fine usually when the topic is a major one like this. Not only that, but the controversy section was not linked in properly. This was the edit [17]. No comment on talk at all. Just the removal of all negative info and forking it to another page which was then not linked in correctly. Lobojo ( talk) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The total amount of production in the Chart: Top Soybean Producers in 2005 is a figure that is LESS than the total of the individual producing nations. I would have searched further, but I cannot access the source of the claim due to restrictions on membership. Norcalal 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
From 1992 to 2003, sales have experienced a 15% compound annual growth rate, increasing from $300 million to $3.9 billion over 11 years
From Wikipedia:
A company may double its sales (an increase of 100%) over a period of four years (from year zero to year four). Applying the formula above, the CAGR is approximately 18.9% (not 25% per year):
eg.
From Edamame:
Am I wrong? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.103.172.9 (
talk) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In looking at this page, I couldn't help but notice that there seems to be a lot of soy industry bias on it, especially as relates to the possible health benefits of soy consumption, versus the proven health risks of soy consumption. A lot of the article seems to be composed of explaining away suspected health risks, without actually discussing the suspected heath risks themselves or the evidence for them.
One of the most glaring examples of this is the section that suggests the soy reduces testosterone levels in men, and so may be protective against prostate cancer. This seems to me a very misleading statement, since lowering testosterone would possibly reduce prostate cancer risk in men with high testosterone, it could also cause feminization and problems with libido and fertility in other men. So to make such a broad heath claim, when no one knows what an appropriate dose is or who may benefit, seems extremely reckless. This was the most glaring example I noticed, although there were many other such areas which seemed to be more "soy is health food" propaganda than objective fact. The fact that there is nothing about the risk of nutrient deficiencies, thyroid problems, precocious puberty, and other very serious health problems in infants fed soy formula is especially disturbing.
I added a couple quick notes, but I don't have the time right now to look up the citations, so I'm hoping that someone else may step in. As a previous poster mentioned, the book The Whole Soy Story is a valuable resources as to the risks of soy consumption, especially in its modern, processed form. While the book is an obvious polemic and is not the most well-written book I've ever read, it does cite some impeccable research that show that, at the least, the popular image of soy as a health food should be very carefully considered.
I hope someone will add some of that research to this page, to balance out the soy industry representative(s) who is obviously one of the main contributers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.40.38 ( talk) 05:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
its really bad for you The data in {{ nutritionalvalue}} on the page seems quite differ from the one which is displayed at original USDA link below the table. Perhaps, someone changed these values randomly. Could you check it once again? Gruzd ( talk) 10:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
The current health risk section currently don't show a number of recent studies associating soy with disorders of the thyroid an alzheimers risk with soy milk:
http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soyandbrain.html
Not sure how to comment but the nutrial values in that side chart look like the data for soymilk not soybeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.46.69 ( talk) 08:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the article Soy Controversy that is linked to from several pages... now it just redirects to this main soybean article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.67.203 ( talk) 22:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't make sense to me that this article redirects here. 220.233.118.133 ( talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Today I deleted the FALSE satement that the soybeans saved the pilgrims from starvation. The soybean was first introducted into the British colonies of North America by Samuel Bowen, NOT by the pilgrims. (See: Hymowitz, T.; Harlan, J.R. 1983. "Introduction of the soybean to North America by Samuel Bowen in 1765." Economic Botany 37(4):371-79. Dec.) I suspect this information was put into this Wikipedia page by a practical joker or by the "anti-soy faction" that does this sort of thing to confuse people. Our Soyinfo Center has been the leading source of information on the history of soybeans and soyfoods since 1976. We have a database of 80,000+ records on the subject. Prof. Hymowitz first alerted me to this false statement on this Wikipedia page.
The following two statements are in the article:
'Soybean oils, both liquid and partially hydrogenated, are exported abroad, sold as "vegetable oil," or end up in a wide variety of processed foods.'
'In the 2002–2003 growing season, 30.6 million tons of soybean oil were produced worldwide, constituting about half of worldwide edible vegetable oil production..."
My understanding is that these statements are true. That means Hydrogenated Soybean Oil is a very important subject. Shouldn't it have its own article? Miranda Meagan Keefe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
I deleted the following paragraph from the end of the "Infant formula" section:
However, more recent clinical guidelines from the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] state: "although isolated soy protein-based formulas may be used to provide nutrition for normal growth and development, there are few indications for their use in place of cow milk-based formula. These indications include (a) for infants with galactosemia and hereditary lactase deficiency (rare) and (b) in situations in which a vegetarian diet is preferred." <ref>{{cite journal |last=Bhatia |first=Jatinder |title=Use of Soy Protein-based Formulas in Infant Feeding PMID 18450914 |journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] |volume=121 |issue=5 |pages=1062–1068 |year=2008 |doi=10.1542/peds.2008-0564 |pmid=18450914}}</ref>
Since this paragraph starts with "however", appears to contradict (or qualify) what comes before it. However, what comes before it is about there being no problem with soy-based infant formulas, and this paragraph does not contradict that at all; it says nothing about the suitability of soy-based infant formulas. All it does is state the non-medical opinion of its authors that the reasons in favour of soy-based formulas are insignifican; i.e. that veganism is only a marginal concern.
The wording ("more recent clinical guidelines") seems taylored to make it appear that the latest medical opinion is against soy-based formulas. There is no reason to accept an irrelevant, POV and misleading paragraph such as this one.
David Olivier ( talk) 17:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Soybean/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Please check up and correct (if incorrect) the protein content (%) in Soyabean.
dont merge oil and meat.... It's awkward..... |
Last edited at 12:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I think these alternative names belong in the lead. Anon believes they belong in the Classification section. I don't see this is part of the classification. Apparently they do, but they've used no edit summaries. Requesting a 3PO. NJGW ( talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I created an expanded section on phytic acid from the out of place stub dangling at the end of the reference section. The original stub claimed that phytic acid is all bad, but the reference it cited didn't actually say that. So I moved it under health benefits section as the article on phytic acid claims there are more pros than cons. I also expanded out the references from phytic acid to link to the best individual articles. UncleDouggie ( talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I eliminated this section because most of text and references were redundant with other sections in the article. I moved the one substantial reference questioning the health benefits to the end of the isoflavones section beside the claims that it was questioning. UncleDouggie ( talk) 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I question if this claim is correct:
Soybeans and processed soy foods do not contain the highest "total phytoestrogen" content of foods. A study in which data were presented on an as-is (wet) basis per 100 g and per serving found that food groups from highest to lowest levels of total phytoestrogens per 100 g are nuts and oilseeds, soy products, cereals and breads, legumes, meat products, various processed foods that may contain soy, vegetables, and fruits.
As the article states, soybean is an oilseed, which is listed as the highest phytoestrogen content! Perhaps the listing of "soy products" refers to soy flour? The referenced article costs money. Does someone have the article or another source to backup or refute this claim? UncleDouggie ( talk) 09:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I thought we decided to keep the taxonomy simple in the table with only unsing sub and super taxons to organize children lists? -- maveric149, Friday, July 19, 2002
The entire "caveat" section is highly reminicent of this: The Dangers of Soy: Advertising and Your Health Call me skeptical, but I doubt islamonline.net does the world's best research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.98.78 ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 13 April 2005 (UTC)
Having just read the soybean article I don't find poor grammar or much that would be considered unobjective. What does the soy article have to do with MSG? It makes no claims about MSG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.191.138 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 April 2005 (UTC)
This article claims soy comes from Japanese shoyu, but which in turn comes from Chinese "Soy yu". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.167.219 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 June 2005 (UTC)
The Cantonese name of soy sauce should be considered as an origin of the word: 豉油 (si6 yau4) -- Kvasir 20:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I heard on the news the other day that Brazil surpassed America in soy production last year, which contradicts this article. Has anyone else seen data on this? TastyCakes 22:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
When did this become an anti soybean article? It needs some serious reworking, the negative information about soy needs to be moved to an article called " Critcism of soybeans Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The anti-soybean material has been made so it doesnt display with "<!==", yet it is still in the body of the article. Its no joke. Maybe its time to move ir to its own page
The dramatic increase is largely credited to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of health claims for soy which very likely is unfounded (see below: #Reduce Cholesterol?).[3] Since the bulk of the soy grown in the US is GMO variety the chief beneficiaries of the increase are the biotech seed companies. Dr. Jane E. Henney who was the FDA commissioner at the time, now sits on the board of biotech giant Astra Zeneca. Many top agency officials from the Bush Administration, have been under criticism for close ties to industry and possible financial conflicts of interest. The former USDA Secretary of Agriculture, Daniel Robert Glickman, also left to accept seats on the boards of soy related companies including Hain Foods.
Does this belong in the article? Does it matter to the general world of soybeans who sits on what board? Does unsubstantiated charges of "close ties" or "possible financial conflict of interest" have any sort of bearing on soybeans in general? It seems to me the answers should be "no". I read this section and I was thinking "So what?" after each sentence (except for the first). ScottMo 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: Can someone explain why an omega3:omega6 ratio of 3:1 in flax seed oil would decrease omega 3(aLNA) conversion to DHA and EPA? That is stated within the article in comparison with soy's 1:7 content. I would think that this should increase the conversion rate by increasing the substrate of the reaction. Is there feedback inhibition here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.63.205 ( talk) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
So I lift weights on a regular basis. I get a lot of advice from fellow artisans of holding heavy things aloft but I also get advice from people with nutrition and biochemistry degrees who also lift weights; none of them seem to take steroids. They insist that soy is not a complete proten and swear by whey protein supplements. The whey weight lifters do have results to show by where as the vegan/vegetarian weightlifters, while also in excellent shape, are often of the very lean and toned variety and not of the large muscular variety.
So who's right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.85.201 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Something else occurs to me, too. One of the possible reasons for the difference between vegan and non-vegan weightlifters is perhaps it is an artifact of the two very different subcultures. Most vegans I know are very active outside the gym, enaging in rockclimbing, cycling, etc whereas most weightlifters, myself included, are more sedentary in home life, focusing more on the challenge of weightlifting and bodybuilding or staring at the wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.85.201 ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
"Soy protein is a complete source of protein containing adequate quantities of all 9 essential amino acids which are necessary for the building and maintenance of human body tissues (Erdman & Fordyce, 1989). The soybean does not lack sulfur-containing amino acids cysteine and methionine, as some people think. Soybeans are limiting in methionine and cysteine, not lacking. In addition, cysteine is not an essential amino acid. Several years ago the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) adapted a new method for evaluating protein quality which is not based on the growth of young rats (as was the old method, the Protein Efficiency Ratio). The new method, called the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), compares the amino acids in a protein with human requirements and adjusts for digestibility. Using this new method of evaluating protein quality, soy was given a score of one (the highest possible) and is now considered to be equivalent to animal protein (Sarwar & McDonough, 1990). Soy protein isolates and concentrates are complete proteins which are well-tolerated and can easily serve as the sole source of protein intake for adults as well as children. (Young, 1994)."
"Infants fed normal adult soy milk for any length of time, have become extremely malnourished and even died. This is so because undiluted soy milk contains about the same proportion of protein as cow's milk~ ***around 30% ***which is way too much for a human infant--***human milk is about 6% protein.*** THIS IS VANDALISM..a little common sense please: 30% protein in cow's milk is laughable as is 6% for human milk....
I came across a great review on soy's benefits at http://www.revivalsoy.com/benefits - the FDA has stated there is NOT any statistically-signifcant evidence that soy causes harm to any patient group. What is funny is that the anti-soy sites don't have any of the recent safety studies posted. With billions being lost by the beef and dairy industry, you would have to be naive to think that these groups aren't being funded by the cow lovers! So eat your soy and become smart enough to learn the truth! :)
From what I've seen, quite a few "anti-soy" sites have lots of other "out there" claims about other safe foods as well, and also other unsubstantiated and biased bits of health "advice". Ralphael 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I came across a recently added sentence in this part of the article yesterday. "In fact, scientists are in general agreement that grain and legume based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries". While it doesn't seem completely implausible that this is the case, does anyone have any actual reports or evidence that backs this up? Ralphael 22:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Since I couldn't find any evidence for this sentence, I removed it for now. Ralphael 02:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) soy started in germany
I'd like to know where the scientific evidence to support the claim isoflavones can prevent cancer is. Surely this isn't NPOV or factual. Also mentioning *EARLY* research showing the *POTENTIAL* for phytic acid to combat colon cancer is highly misleading. How about sticking to completed research that has reached a conclusion? Conversely research into the effects of soy on thyroid functionality is well documented. I personally know scientists strongly opposed to soy infant formulas that have no connection at all with Weston Price or Mercola. The negative effects of soy are not new "loud" claims. There have been studies since the 1930's raising concerns about soy consumption. If someone could point to a *CONCLUSIVE*, *NON-BIASED*, *INDEPENDANT* study supporting ANY positive health claims in relation to soy I'd be very interested. With 85% of the edible oils consumed in the US being from soy it is little wonder there is an obesity epidemic (As anyone with more than a primary school education should know, estrogens cause laying down of fat). What about decreasing fertility? Isn't anyone even remotely conecerned about the effects estrogens could have on male sexual and more importantly cognitive function??? I'd be very surprised if those responsible for the edits don't have industry connections.
Dear Anonymous Poster, I wish I had industry connections, I could use a better job at the moment. I was going to post a listing of some research for you, but I wouldn't know where to start. The beneficial effects of isoflavones are supported by an overwhelming set of studies (some will be rightly disputed, but a great chunk of it is good). Run a search at your local library in an academic database or a local university. If you are in New York state, you can also use the NOVEL databases with your driver's license as password. Go to the New York State Library's website to access them. It should more than satisfy you. I haven't found any studies that actually produced results that hold up under scrutiny in terms of health problems in those not allergic. I tried very hard for a friend who *is* a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation while I was employed at an academic library. Phytoestrogens are not estrogens. They are chemically similar and marketed by unregulated supplement manufacturers for menopausal women...often with no real effects there either. Read the research on the topic. Again, there is a huge amount out there. The only conclusive biological research is that which rules out a claim, not that which supports it. Non-biased is very easy. Any double blind is very tricky to bias without some very odd conclusions that are usually caught in the next issue of the journal by the scientific community. Independent? From who, universities? doctors? soy farmers? Research is research. If the study is well contrived, it will float. If it isn't, the community will balk at it, and it will likely not be published. It is very convenient to dismiss any research you see because you imagine that it must have been funded by some special interest. That just isn't how evidence works. It either exists or it doesn't (statistical errors and rehashing via careful manipulation of numbers aside..thus the need for double blinds and the rest of the scientific community). As anyone with a college education in anatomy and physiology would know, estrogens lay down a subcutaneous layer of fat and spur the development of secondary sexual characteristics of women--they are not going to cause male obesity without first making his skin buttery-soft, taking off his body hair and producing breasts! Fertility is not a problem in the US in the levels that it would be if what you say is accurate (my son was conceived on the first try and born on the due date--he'd have been a miscarriage if my wife had taken estrogens). Cognitive function? Read the studies--only one suggested anything there, and it was awfully speculative and produced a rather spurious correlation. Soy oil has been the number one fat in the US since 1953 according to Food Review, Sept-Dec, 1998. I think we'd all be dead, transgendered or idiots if what you say is true. The best test of long term safety is long term use (unfortunately). We live longer than we did then. We have had declining heart disease mortality (deaths from heart disease peaked in the 1950s...when lard was number one over soy until '53). I, personally, don't need a study to interpret that. I don't think I need to mention Japan, do I? They are some of the longest lived people in the world, and they eat far more soy than Americans. I would be out there screaming to any official I could get my hands on if this were all true. I assure you of that! I write letters to politicians and go to demonstrations at the very least when there is a problem. This isn't one of those problems. -- Starsapphire 22:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Raphael's reply follows--sorry to stick mine in between.
>>>Industry connections? Really, I'm just interested in Wikipedia having a factually accurate article about a commonly eaten, nutrient-rich bean that's been a part of the human diet in many countries for centuries now.
Phytoestrogens are found in other legumes as well, peanuts included. Do you really think that those who consume peanuts are going to become mentally challenged, obese, and infertile? Please, if you have any neutrally-oriented, accurate references with studies that show a significant co-relation between legume consumption and obesity or other health problems in humans, show them.
Granted, if one consumes excessive amounts of fat, like that in soybean oil, one very well could become overweight. It's well-established that overconsumption of calorie-rich foods can cause obesity. The phytoestrogen content of the food does not matter in this respect.
As for studies which show that soybeans can be a healthful addition to one's diet...
"[Dr. Alice] Lichtenstein reported that scientists at FDA, the agency that regulates the health claims that US food manufacturers use to advertise their products, considered more than 20 years' worth of research on soy protein and its effect on blood cholesterol levels. In these studies the effectiveness of soy varied from none to beneficial. However, the most consistent finding was that when people with elevated cholesterol level replaced some of the animal protein in their diet (from meat and dairy foods) with about 25 grams of soy protein (a plant-derived protein), their total and LDL cholesterol levels declined.
In addition to its protein, soy contains compounds called isoflavones that may contribute to heart health as well. The research into these compounds is not yet conclusive, but some studies have suggested that isoflavones help to decrease both total and LDL cholesterol and possibly increase "good" HDL cholesterol levels."
Source: healthandage.com
While as the excerpt states, research into the effect of isoflavones on heart health are not "conclusive", much nutritional research is not. Still, one would be much more hard-pressed to find definitive evidence that moderate consumption of soybeans carries any health risks whatsoever for non-allergic individuals. Ralphael 18:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't this section seem relatively biased (and in some parts, almost ridiculous)? I have some doubts that the soybean can be legitimately considered a "highly toxic" legume, considering millions of people consume it daily without adverse health effects; if I'm not mistaken, highly toxic implies consumption could be very dangerous, or even fatal.
Ralphael 20:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I have encountered much of this language before. None of it has ever panned out. It is largely the sort of nonsense peddled by the Weston Price Foundation (www.westonaprice.org) and Dr. Joseph Mercola (mercola.com). I've been trying to substantiate their rather loud claims for six months with literature reviews. They vastly distort research to (in the case of Mercola) sell competing products. Their ideas are becoming very popular in holistic health circles right now. I imagine it will flood wikipedia in the coming months. Watch the articles on refined sugar, pasteurized milk, fatty acids and anything about flour. I can't even find the 'research' source of the claims in the health warnings section. They are pretty far out there. I am not sure what the most appropriate response is within wikipedia, being new. I could write a new section with some actual citations. Note that the only cited reference in this section denies the author credibility (possibly inserted by someone else). The folks I've confronted who believe this sort of stuff have justified this sort of reinterpreting of evidence to me by way of channeled writings about aliens enslaving us through grains...I'm not kidding. It isn't impartial nor is it going to go away, in my opinion. On the other hand, it is an opinion some people hold. -- Starsapphire 03:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the section in question; hopefully now it's more NPOV and factual. If you can see any way to improve it though, definitely go ahead. Ralphael 19:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, someone altered the recent edits only hours after I made them, adding a >lot< of dubious claims; once again, I'll try and fix them, and I'll start watching the article from now on. I certainly agree with respecting the opinions of others and providing a fair, accurate article, but altering this section with hypotheses that have little verifiable evidence is pushing it, especially ones that basically say the soybean is "dangerous" or unfit for human consumption. Ralphael 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
recently my sister has been diagnosed with Hashimoto's Thyroiditis which is an autoimmune diesase which results in the inflamation of the thyroid gland (which in turn causes goitre)and hypothyroidism. after doing some reasearch on this we found a link between consuming soy products and this diesease. if anybody has any information on this could you please post it on this page. [unsigned]
From WP:CG:
Thus, if this article is in category "soy", and category "soy" is in "food crops" and "beans", then this article should not be in the food crops and beans categories. If you think about it, it does make sense. -- DannyWilde 01:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
US FDA says it weighed soy concerns versus benefits By Lisa Richwine
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. health regulators weighed concerns that soy products might be harmful but decided soy's positive effects justified touting its benefits to consumers, a Food and Drug Administration official said Monday.
The agency comment came in response to published remarks from two FDA scientists that eating soy might cause health problems, particularly if given daily to infants in soy milk formulas.
Drs. Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan, the FDA scientists, have spoken to media organizations to warn that infants given soy formula might grow up to develop fertility problems.
They also worry that eating soy regularly might increase the risk of breast cancer in women and brain damage in men. Their most recent comments were published in Britain's Observer newspaper Sunday.
FDA officials considered the scientists' views and those of other critics before announcing last October that they would permit manufacturers to advertise that eating soy could help adults cut their risk of heart disease.
``We are well aware of the concerns, but we did balance those concerns with the other positive effects, an FDA official said in an interview Monday.
The FDA reviewed scientific studies on soy before concluding that adults who consume 25 grams of soy protein per day could see a ``significant lowering of cholesterol, which would lower their risk of heart disease. High cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, the leading killer of Americans.
Critics told the FDA soy could cause harm because it contains a chemical similar to the female hormone, estrogen, that might disrupt normal hormone levels and impair development. Some warned about the possibility of cancer, impaired fertility or thyroid problems.
The FDA said the concerns were not supported by conclusive scientific research. While chemicals in soy do exert hormonal effects, the impact is ``very limited and much lower than that of natural or synthetic estrogens, the FDA said when it announced it would permit the soy health claim.
Concerns that soy infant formula could be harmful were speculative pending the outcome of definitive research, the agency said.
Critics who worry about the effects of soy infant formula recommend that it be used only when no alternatives exist.
A farmer-supported group said Monday concerns about soy's health effects were not new but were not widely held.
``The overwhelming body of published peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows soy has numerous health benefits, said Michael Orso, a spokesman for the United Soybean Board. ^ REUTERS@
17:23 08-14-00
Copyright 2000 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. [unsigned]
Did major cleanup. Had some "conflict" with another edit - I hope i preserved the integrity. Didn't change content, just rearranged and organized. JamieJones 15:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
In recent years there has been some concern that consumption of certain soy products may lead to higher likelihood of dementia in the elderly. Primarily this issue was raised by the Honolulu Heart Program, which studied food consumption in Japanese-Americans and isolated a neurological degenerative aging of up to five years to the regular consumption of tofu, with some statistically insignificant suggestion that miso might also be implicated. The results of the study came out in 1999 or 2000.
I don't know where the right place is for a discussion of the above effect, but at the time of the release it was considered quite a bombshell and as such I think it would be negligent to avoid a mention that soy may have adverse cognitive effects, particularly in men. This is not a fluff issue, nor is it a scare of the Mercola or Weston A. Price ilk.
If there's someone who knows where to appropriately cover adverse cognitive effects of soy consumption, I encourage you to add a paragraph or two on the above-mentioned study. The best summary discussion I've found so far is here: Soy: Brain Atrophy Link?. The page is reference-heavy and contains abundant links to journal articles and other discussions. [unsigned]
"Soy based infant formulas with no more than 2.3% protein, from isolated soy protein as the sole source of protein, fortified with vitamins, minerals, lipids, and the amino acid methionine is the equivalent of formulas derived from either cow's milk or soybean flour. Formulas based on isolated protein produce a lower incidence of anal irritation than ones made from soy flour due to the absence of fiber in the former." [1]
If you can tell me in a sentence or two what this was supposed to mean, it can be put back. It looks like it was just a cut and paste from an article. I thinks its trying to tell me what the eqivalent of sot to cow or human milk is and maybe its just worded poorly. [unsigned]
Sorry if i missed it, but can someone with expertise put up a section about soy and health? Specifically, i'm reading things like Soy Alert and I'm confused/unsure of who to believe. JamieJones talk 12:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The part commenting on Phytoestrogen in men has two sources, however these sources both require logging in to a password protected site to view them, making them worthless. Other sources need to be found.
I updated the links to more easily accessible sites for both the men and infant formula sources. The NIH sites may require the creation of some sort of profile, however. -- Mego2005 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to know how many calories are in a bushel or ton of soybeans - to gain some perspective on its impact on the world. [unsigned]
The article misrepresents the findings of the research it cites in an attempt to debunk the soybean's effectiveness to improve cardiovascular health.
From the Circulation article [2]
...
Clearly this study fed subjects soy protein isolates and not whole soy foods. All of the nutrients in isolated protein are removed by heavy mechanical and chemical processing so the beneficial fats, vitamins, minerals, and other phytochemicals of soybeans are not present. This study does not show that whole soy food's benefit to cardiovascular health is in question as the article suggests. The study does show that soy protein alone like you would find as a filler in meat products or as powder in protein shakes has no benefit to cardiovascular health. This is a very important difference and it is irresponsible to misconstrue the findings!
From the conclusion [3]
Clearly the study does not deny that soy foods are beneficial to cardiovascular health. The question is what component of soy foods provides the benefit. In the past researchers have assumed it was only the protein that was beneficial. The Circulation study attempts to test that assumption. While the study failed to show it was the isolated soy protein that was the active nutrient, it did not fail to show that soy foods are beneficial. In fact they have processed and washed away the very soy nutrients they later cite in the conclusion as being beneficial!
The difference between isolated soy proteins and whole soy foods should be made absolutely clear. There is no harm in being more accurate especially when the topic, nutrition and health, is so poorly understood. [unsigned]
Under Soybean#Nutrition I find the phrase above. Can someone explain why there is a qualification here -- why does it say "may actually"? I think the article could be improved by getting rid of this vaguery or at least putting in some type of clarification. If rapeseed/Canola is better in some ways but worse in others, or whatever case it is, that should be stated explicitly. Kaimiddleton 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
the "problems" section is very POV. rather than stating the potential problems, someone has come along and just stated why soybeans are perfectly healthy. Justforasecond 00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The following section is almost pure OR and POV, and I've removed it to the talk page. Please cite sources. Captainktainer * Talk 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Soybeans are one of the " Biotech Food" crops that are being genetically modified, and GMO soybeans are being used in an increasing number of products. Monsanto is the world's leader in genetically modified soy for the commercial market. In 1995, Monsanto introduced " Roundup Ready" (RR) soybeans that have had a complete copy of a gene (plasmid) from the bacteria, Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, inserted, by means of a gene gun, into its genome that allows the transgenic plant to survive being sprayed by this non-selective, glyphosate-based herbicide. Roundup kills conventional soybeans. RR soybeans allow a farmer to reduce tillage or even to sow the seed directly into an unplowed field, known as 'No Plow' tillage, greatly reducing the soil erosion.
Currently, 81% of all soybeans cultivated for the commercial market are genetically s that depend on them. Concern is also for the high amounts of residual toxin since the herbicide is sprayed on the soy crop repeatedly during growth.
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is among the of soybeans and soy products. ADM along with DOW, DuPont and Monsanto to industry and possible financial conflicts of interest. The former USDA Secretary of Agriculture, Daniel Robert Glickman, also
Response to above (that is not signed) Is Glyphosate really that bad for us? I think that it may be a generalization to just say that herbicides are all toxins to humans, also as far as crop treatment goes I would imagine that as soy beans are nearing the end of there maturation, weed growth is pretty heavily suppressed by the fairly dense foliage cover, also does anyone know how the plasmid from agrobacterium works? If it breaks down round up in the plant then the plants products will be safe to eat even if a little glyphosate is dangerous wont they? and anything not taken up by the plant will be taken off as the beans are shelled, and no glyphosate will make it through the cow that eats the majority of the soy. Opcnup 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
A)
The external links should be clear like this:
"External links"
Favorable
(put favorable links here)
Critical
(put critical links here)
B)
Please find a valid reference for the setences I wrote below and add to the validity of the article.
Soy contains phytoestrogens that mimic estrogen.
Many consumers shop at health food stores and consume high levels of hormone like plant estrogenics that could increase the risk of breast cancer and other types of cancers. (citation needed)
Thank You. -- 63.17.125.218 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I am an organic consumer who ate large amounts of soy for many years. Now I have had both of my breasts removed. Soy is a very serious issue to me.
The increase in soy consumption has been popularized by natural food companies and the soy industry's aggrassive marketing campaign in various magazines, tv ads, and in the health food markets. However, it would be beneficial to have more research into the safety of consuming an increased diet in plant estrogenics due to the fact that soy acts more like a drug (hormone replacement estrogenic drugs) than a food.
Thanks, 63.17.97.20 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I know it is highly relevant to explain about the health food stores and soy for the critism section. 63.17.97.20 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps expanding the information about this important subjuct would be necessary.
In updating the reference in the "Vitamins and minerals" section, the following page was not found: http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3778S There is not a "Journal of Environmental Nutrition" and there are 34 results when searching on nutrition.org for "soy colon cancer" in 2004 - does anyone have the correct citation? I have removed the reference for now. Original text:
-- apers0n 08:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The article wrongly states soy is a complete protein source along with other POV sentences. >>> Soybeans are a source of complete protein. <<<
This sentence along with other sentences are misinformation propagated by the soy industry.
Here is yet another POV sentence below that is in the article right now. Yes, there is obfuscation here.
>>> However, rapeseed/canola may actually even have a better amino acid profile than soy protein. <<<
" 63.17.51.115 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)"
Hello Greenman,
Whole eggs (BV 100) and Whey Isolate (BV 104) are complete proteins.
Soy is lacking in high levels essential branched chained amino acids.
That is why soy has a lower BV of 74. Saying soy is a complete protein is very misleading and inaccurate.
The BV is more accurate and most importantly relevant.
Biological Value of protein is a scientific term.
The PDCAAS and PER are not accurate especially when compared to the BV method.
The facts speak for themselves. Reference 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 -- Messenger2010 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Great Greenman,
I agree with Greenman (even though Yankee76 completely disagrees with Greenman at every level.)
When Greenman wrote.....
So there is really no such line, in science, as 'complete/incomplete', it's more of a marketing term, or a simplistic description of 'very good', which is inherently POV. .....I completely agree.
I would really appreciate you, Greenman, adding your information to the article to fix the POV (non-scientific info which POV).
Complete protein is just a marketing term as noted by Greenman. It is not science saying soy is a complete protein. We are dealing with an encyclopedia. Those references by Yankees76 are about POV.
Greenman's great sentence and insight is on the ball despite Yankee76s objections! 63.17.78.66 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Soy is a complete protein according to this data: http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20gH.html . -- 150.203.41.19 05:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This sentence below is in the article. It must be verified or anyone can go right ahead and erase at anytime. Hopefully a reference can be found soon or it must be removed.
Consumption of soy may also reduce the risk of colon cancer. ('I really doubt it.')
The policy:
Best Regards, 63.17.71.251 04:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
After reading through the article, I noticed a few odd things.
However, the phrase complete protein can be a bit misleading since proteins vary in their protein values. Whole eggs have a biological value of 100 versus a 74 for soy. Soy protein is similar to that of other legume seeds, but has the highest yield per square meter of growing area, and is the least expensive source of dietary protein.
BV is likely the better formula used when calculating protein for muscle growth and synthesis in humans. The scientific method for measuring protein is the biological value methodology which is an accurate indicator of biological activity for protein quality and utilization in humans.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
The following three sentences contains a large amount of densely-packed information - I had to read them several times before I could take it all in.
'The genus Glycine Willd. is divided into two subgenera (species), Glycine and Soja. The subgenus Soja(Moench) includes the cultivated soybean, G. max (L.) Merrill, and the wild soybean, G. soja Sieb.& Zucc. Both species are annual. The soybean grows only under cultivation while G. soja grows wild in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Russia.'
In particular the use of the word 'soybean' at the start of the third sentence threw me off since several subspecies of bean have previously been identified. I suspect that this sentence is intended to mean 'The cultivated soybean grows only under cultivation...' which seems to be otiose. The otiosity could be disguised by saying 'G. max (L.) Merrill grows only under cultivation...' but what is the point of saying this, since G. max (L.) Merrill has already been identified as the cultivated variety ? Would the author please make it clear what meaning the third sentence is intended to convey, and whether it is worth saying ? Andrew Smith
Suggestions? (from someone who isn't a sockpuppet please).
Yankees76 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Could someone elaborate on the following - how was it an unintended consequence of moving away from the p. hydrogenated oil. Is the new oil not as good a cooking oil?
The following sentences need to be clarified -
'The major unsaturated fatty acids in soybean oil triglycerides are 7% linolenic acid (C18:3); 51% linoleic acid (C-18:2); and 23% oleic acid(C-18:1). It also contains the saturated fatty acids 4% stearic acid and 10% palmitic acid.'
'it' in the second sentence has an unclear referent, and it is therefore not clear whether stearic acid and palmitic acid are esterified or are present as free acid. By using 'it' rather than 'they', the author appears to be saying that 'it' refers to 'soybean oil', rather than 'triglycerides', and therefore that these acids are not esterified. Is this the meaning that the author intends to convey ? I suspect not. Andrew Smith
I have been looking over the Wikipedia "Soy-Scandal," and as to the last comment relating to whether it is linked to reducing risks of Colon Cancer, and have found an article suggesting so. In no way do I know whether this source is even reliable,as I am not a scientist. However, I would urge someone to kindly examine the source and content, and see whether it would be a good citation or not. Please do examine this: [7], and I would be delighted if you would be kind enough to also leave a reply/link on my talk page. Thanks! User_talk:Bhaveer
A minor point: This appears under the Cancer section: "...much higher rates of cancer related to dejection (italics mine) system and thyroid...". I suppose the writer meant "digestion"... Peytonbland ( talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is no unambiguous definition of "complete protein" that is agreed to by the scientific community. I think all references to claims of soy being "complete" or "incomplete" should be removed as it is a very subjective term which differs from one scientist to another. Instead of claiming that it is complete or incomplete, it's much better to simply state how much of each essential amino acid soy contains. The above link by 150.203.41.19 to http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20gH.html clearly states how much methionine and cystine one cup (256 g) of raw green soybeans contains, namely, 402 mg of methionine and 302 mg of cystine. So just put easily measurable facts into the article, rather than subjective ideas of "completeness". Humanoid 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I suggest should be put into the article:
A cup of raw green soybeans of 256g, has the following amount of amino acids:
Total protein | 33.2 g |
Tryptophan | 402 mg |
Threonine | 1321 mg |
... | ... |
Because of these values, most people call the soybean a complete protein.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15].
You can fill in the rest of the values in the table. So instead of saying X, I'm saying that many people say X, include the references you gave above, and provided the raw numbers so that people can see for themselves why claiming X makes a lot of sense.
Humanoid 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327 Soybeans can make you gay?] (NOTE: NOT A JOKE, AT LEAST NOT BY ME, MAYBE BY THE GUY THAT WROTE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE)
I have updated the page to reflect this article and references. Mcas 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an error in the text. An uncited claim in the text states that
Soy was not actually used as a food item until they discovered fermentation techniques around 2000 years ago.
There are are number of finds that clearly indicate that soybean was grown, harvested, and used for nutrition long before the date indicated in the article text. Excavations of a Mumun Period village dating to 800-550 B.C. by the Foundation for the Preservation of Cultural Properties English website here Korean website here found plenty of evidence. Carbonized legumes, about 1,800 grains, were unearthed and found to be associated with the floor of a pit-house at the Won-dong III site (Kim et al. 2003:275-283). Among the grains several hundred were identified as Glycine max. Crawford and Lee also found soybeans and other legumes in the same circumstances dating to the same time period at a number of archaeological sites in Korea (Crawford and Lee 2003:89).
There is other evidence from China too. I propose that we change the above sentence to reflect the reality of mainstream archaeological / palaethnobotanical research. What do you think? Mumun 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: Hello? (echo) (echo)...Uh, I added section on crop history. -- Mumun 無文 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been looking into the claim of soy's protein benefits, and discovered a great deal of research that phytic acid, present in soy, blocks the uptake of minerals by the human digestive system. I think this should be definitely added to the article, but I'm not sure it still has scientific veracity, or if this claim has been disproved. I've even met a few dietics majors who agree with this claim. What do the experts think? Matthew 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I recall there being a large (if not massive) increase in soybean growing recently. There should be mention of the danger of monocrops, plant disease being one of them (eg. the Irish Potato Famine). The results from some soy-specific disease would likely be less severe than thatfamine, but would likely devastate farms specializing in soybeans. I suppose these concerns would be similar to the ones of nearly ANY agribusiness/modern agriculture, considering the widespread status of monocultures... Any thoughts? Kennard2 10:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
with all the media fuss about steroids , and 60% of proceed foods containing soy , containing estrogen (phyto estrogen but it connect to the receptor and does the job , so it's just estrogen for me)
why for an example a report about trace amounts of estrogen in water makes so much noise while the fact that it is contained in soy which most people eat , and none cares?
the only thing I have in mind is the mouth shutting done by pseudo intellectual vegans who prefer men not being men and big corporations who want profits and invest in aggressive """research""" and marketing
also leave the disease prevention aside , quality of life is more important , I think (I'm not a yoga junkie who spends 5 hours a day in pubmed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.215.52 ( talk) 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
I can see that there are a number of editors who regularly contribute to the article and I would like to commend their contributions. It is clear that soy and soy research is a world unto itself! However, many of the major sections such as Uses, Nutrition, The role of soyfoods, etc are in need of their own articles. The time has come to create these sub-articles so that we can address this gigantic, unwieldy, and almost unreadable article. It would be wonderful if the frequent contributors to these and many other sections could start things off. In cases where sub-articles already exist -- why are we repeating information at such length and detail? We then need to address how to effectively summarise the former main article sections into a more conventional, sleek, and educational article. Please leave comments here. -- Mumun 無文 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I trimmed some sections and attempted to remove superfluous and excessive material that is not related to soy and/or did not seem to meet the criteria of WP:Relevance. Some material that I removed is repeated in other articles. Mumun 無文 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, the article contains two references to the personal home page of Ian Goddard, who is clearly a total fringe crank: [16]. I don't give much scientific merit to an article sharing a site with a discussion of "Extraterrestrial microbes in the rain?" among other Art Bell fare. What's the policy on removing crap references? [unsigned]
In the "Chemical composition of the seed" section, it mentions a whey part of soy, I think? But whey is a milk product... not soy. At least that's what the whey article says. Here's the quote: "Since soluble soy carbohydrates are found mainly in the whey and are broken down during fermentation, soy concentrate, soy protein isolates, tofu, soy sauce, and sprouted soybeans are without flatus activity." Am I reading this wrong or something? -- Billyjoekini 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
i'm not finding any reference to "the whole soy story" by kaayla daniel. here's the website: http://www.wholesoystory.com/ it includes quite a bit of info from all angles, probably enough to satisfy the nay-sayers who want research and proof. it was certainly enough for me. ya want protein, eat eggs 76.217.125.14 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be enough going on with soy protein values, edamane, colon cancer, etc. Soybean meal merged with soybean is like merging rope with marijuana because one can make rope from marijuana (hemp) or poultry by-product with chicken by-product (already done by deletionist adms) when there is very little in common. Noles1984 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I came to this page looking for information about soy's effects on hormones, especially testosterone, as it has been widely reported ( http://www.google.com/search?q=soy+testosterone) that soy reduces testosterone levels. I can only assume the phytoestrogen section deals with this - I can only assume because, as a lay person, I can barely understand any of it! It is far too technical and jargon-based for a section within an encyclopedia entry on a foodstuff. Please could someone more expert than myself simplify the section, and if necessary (which I'm not sure it is), move the technical information to a separate article. In my opinion, external links to scientific journal articles etc. at the bottom of the page instead would be the best solution, though I concede there are many scientific articles that are inaccessible to a lay person too, so there may be a place on Wikipedia for the technical information... but this isn't it. -- Pipedreambomb 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree this article is too long and disorganized. However in its entire lenth there is no mention of the Trypsin Inhibiting factor that is in soy beans. How bad is it? I've heard it called everything from a poison to an anti-nutrient. How is it removed, destroyed, bread out of the modern crop etc. I thought this was the one of the reasons it is processed into tofu instead of eaten plain. This was always one of the biggest issues with soy and it is completely absent from this page. This artical need a complete rework from the top down. Get rid of the stuff that belongs with fearies, leprecons and magic crystals and make sure the stuff that is real is covered. --AC 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
in the section on infant formula there is a section on early maturation of girls. what in hell does this have to do with soybeans? 125.239.96.95 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone else please do the remaining conversions to JPG, of all the instances where now only ? and ?? show? I put back the one I did before, but now there are several bad-font characters in this English wikipedia article that need fixing, and I feel its time to ask for assistance from someone who can actually see and understand the contents of information in that font and language to do the conversion to a JPG, so that the order doesn't get messed up, and the beauty of it all can be properly appreciated. Thankyou very much. Zaphraud 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like these characters are actually present in the edit window as well, so I don't think it's a font rendering problem, and they've been there for a while. LotR 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs to discuss more info on the possible negative aspects of soy. I understand that it's an ongoing controversy, but both sides should really be presented equally. Also, these are some things I've heard about soy that aren't even mentioned in the article. Soybeans throughout history have mainly been planted to replenish nutrients into the soil as opposed to being a food source. And there has to be a source for soy being a "popular" food item in Asia as I don't think that's true. Has there been a survey of how much soy people eat in a certain Asian country? If not, then I don't see how it can be called popular and linked to how healthy Asian people are. There are many other factors. One more thing. There should be some info on the soy industry, how they promote their product and where. I believe they are lobbying to get soy into public school cafeterias and I think that's important info to be out there. If this is true, it should be mentioned: raw soybeans were eaten by monks to lower their libido. KannD86 ( talk) 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
For most people edamame is the green soybean that's sold in grocery stores, which you eat after lightly salting and microwaving. Someone who's looking for information about edamame shouldn't be required to go through a treatise on the soybean. [unsigned]
Diabolical example of a POV fork on a high importance article. Even now the article is not even 55kb. We NEVER need to worry before 60kb and articles up to 120kb are fine usually when the topic is a major one like this. Not only that, but the controversy section was not linked in properly. This was the edit [17]. No comment on talk at all. Just the removal of all negative info and forking it to another page which was then not linked in correctly. Lobojo ( talk) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The total amount of production in the Chart: Top Soybean Producers in 2005 is a figure that is LESS than the total of the individual producing nations. I would have searched further, but I cannot access the source of the claim due to restrictions on membership. Norcalal 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
From 1992 to 2003, sales have experienced a 15% compound annual growth rate, increasing from $300 million to $3.9 billion over 11 years
From Wikipedia:
A company may double its sales (an increase of 100%) over a period of four years (from year zero to year four). Applying the formula above, the CAGR is approximately 18.9% (not 25% per year):
eg.
From Edamame:
Am I wrong? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.103.172.9 (
talk) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In looking at this page, I couldn't help but notice that there seems to be a lot of soy industry bias on it, especially as relates to the possible health benefits of soy consumption, versus the proven health risks of soy consumption. A lot of the article seems to be composed of explaining away suspected health risks, without actually discussing the suspected heath risks themselves or the evidence for them.
One of the most glaring examples of this is the section that suggests the soy reduces testosterone levels in men, and so may be protective against prostate cancer. This seems to me a very misleading statement, since lowering testosterone would possibly reduce prostate cancer risk in men with high testosterone, it could also cause feminization and problems with libido and fertility in other men. So to make such a broad heath claim, when no one knows what an appropriate dose is or who may benefit, seems extremely reckless. This was the most glaring example I noticed, although there were many other such areas which seemed to be more "soy is health food" propaganda than objective fact. The fact that there is nothing about the risk of nutrient deficiencies, thyroid problems, precocious puberty, and other very serious health problems in infants fed soy formula is especially disturbing.
I added a couple quick notes, but I don't have the time right now to look up the citations, so I'm hoping that someone else may step in. As a previous poster mentioned, the book The Whole Soy Story is a valuable resources as to the risks of soy consumption, especially in its modern, processed form. While the book is an obvious polemic and is not the most well-written book I've ever read, it does cite some impeccable research that show that, at the least, the popular image of soy as a health food should be very carefully considered.
I hope someone will add some of that research to this page, to balance out the soy industry representative(s) who is obviously one of the main contributers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.40.38 ( talk) 05:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
its really bad for you The data in {{ nutritionalvalue}} on the page seems quite differ from the one which is displayed at original USDA link below the table. Perhaps, someone changed these values randomly. Could you check it once again? Gruzd ( talk) 10:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
The current health risk section currently don't show a number of recent studies associating soy with disorders of the thyroid an alzheimers risk with soy milk:
http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soyandbrain.html
Not sure how to comment but the nutrial values in that side chart look like the data for soymilk not soybeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.46.69 ( talk) 08:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the article Soy Controversy that is linked to from several pages... now it just redirects to this main soybean article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.67.203 ( talk) 22:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't make sense to me that this article redirects here. 220.233.118.133 ( talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Today I deleted the FALSE satement that the soybeans saved the pilgrims from starvation. The soybean was first introducted into the British colonies of North America by Samuel Bowen, NOT by the pilgrims. (See: Hymowitz, T.; Harlan, J.R. 1983. "Introduction of the soybean to North America by Samuel Bowen in 1765." Economic Botany 37(4):371-79. Dec.) I suspect this information was put into this Wikipedia page by a practical joker or by the "anti-soy faction" that does this sort of thing to confuse people. Our Soyinfo Center has been the leading source of information on the history of soybeans and soyfoods since 1976. We have a database of 80,000+ records on the subject. Prof. Hymowitz first alerted me to this false statement on this Wikipedia page.
The following two statements are in the article:
'Soybean oils, both liquid and partially hydrogenated, are exported abroad, sold as "vegetable oil," or end up in a wide variety of processed foods.'
'In the 2002–2003 growing season, 30.6 million tons of soybean oil were produced worldwide, constituting about half of worldwide edible vegetable oil production..."
My understanding is that these statements are true. That means Hydrogenated Soybean Oil is a very important subject. Shouldn't it have its own article? Miranda Meagan Keefe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
I deleted the following paragraph from the end of the "Infant formula" section:
However, more recent clinical guidelines from the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] state: "although isolated soy protein-based formulas may be used to provide nutrition for normal growth and development, there are few indications for their use in place of cow milk-based formula. These indications include (a) for infants with galactosemia and hereditary lactase deficiency (rare) and (b) in situations in which a vegetarian diet is preferred." <ref>{{cite journal |last=Bhatia |first=Jatinder |title=Use of Soy Protein-based Formulas in Infant Feeding PMID 18450914 |journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] |volume=121 |issue=5 |pages=1062–1068 |year=2008 |doi=10.1542/peds.2008-0564 |pmid=18450914}}</ref>
Since this paragraph starts with "however", appears to contradict (or qualify) what comes before it. However, what comes before it is about there being no problem with soy-based infant formulas, and this paragraph does not contradict that at all; it says nothing about the suitability of soy-based infant formulas. All it does is state the non-medical opinion of its authors that the reasons in favour of soy-based formulas are insignifican; i.e. that veganism is only a marginal concern.
The wording ("more recent clinical guidelines") seems taylored to make it appear that the latest medical opinion is against soy-based formulas. There is no reason to accept an irrelevant, POV and misleading paragraph such as this one.
David Olivier ( talk) 17:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Soybean/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Please check up and correct (if incorrect) the protein content (%) in Soyabean.
dont merge oil and meat.... It's awkward..... |
Last edited at 12:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I think these alternative names belong in the lead. Anon believes they belong in the Classification section. I don't see this is part of the classification. Apparently they do, but they've used no edit summaries. Requesting a 3PO. NJGW ( talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I created an expanded section on phytic acid from the out of place stub dangling at the end of the reference section. The original stub claimed that phytic acid is all bad, but the reference it cited didn't actually say that. So I moved it under health benefits section as the article on phytic acid claims there are more pros than cons. I also expanded out the references from phytic acid to link to the best individual articles. UncleDouggie ( talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I eliminated this section because most of text and references were redundant with other sections in the article. I moved the one substantial reference questioning the health benefits to the end of the isoflavones section beside the claims that it was questioning. UncleDouggie ( talk) 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I question if this claim is correct:
Soybeans and processed soy foods do not contain the highest "total phytoestrogen" content of foods. A study in which data were presented on an as-is (wet) basis per 100 g and per serving found that food groups from highest to lowest levels of total phytoestrogens per 100 g are nuts and oilseeds, soy products, cereals and breads, legumes, meat products, various processed foods that may contain soy, vegetables, and fruits.
As the article states, soybean is an oilseed, which is listed as the highest phytoestrogen content! Perhaps the listing of "soy products" refers to soy flour? The referenced article costs money. Does someone have the article or another source to backup or refute this claim? UncleDouggie ( talk) 09:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)