<People have changed for the worse within my lifetime(I'm 51). When I was a kid, obesity was rare, even in adults, it was not the norm.>
Looks like we just keep on adapting . . .
I think that we can all see that this is true. People have changed for the worse within my lifetime(I'm 51). When I was a kid, obesity was rare, even in adults, it was not the norm. There was no adhd add, people getting diagnosed with this and that form of rare and common cancer right and left, etc etc etc.
But much of the story is being left out. For example when we were kids we had fun by going out and climbing trees, running, frisbee, etc. We were active. Now a days kids spend most of their time indoors playing video games, or they are on computer or getting the majority of their exercise by texting their friends 300 times a day. And conditions like ADHD to me are simply syndromes being made up to push more drugs. Just like how obesity had its definition changed to a disease so drugs could be legally prescribed for the condition and unapproved claims for supplements can be suppressed since you cannot make claims for disease cures.
..in that I am veering off topic with that one, although if you were familiar with Price's work you would know that consuming dead, devitalized processed foods leads to many health problems, not just dental caries.
Easy to claim but much harder to prove. It is like all the people claiming that lack of oxygen causes cancer because Warburg said so. Problem is that lack of oxygen DOES NOT cause cancer and Warburg never claimed that. Yet this misquote keeps getting spread all because someone read it on the internet and it supports their agenda. So just because Price claims this or that does not mean it should be accepted as fact. For example a steak is dead yet it is not going to automatically cause disease.
And he showed that these foods caused changes for the worse within one generation...
Again let's see some real research we can review, not unsupported claims.
Of course his scope did not include processed soy because it did not exist at that time(at the scope or in the form it does today)..
And again processing does not automatically make something dangerous. Even broccoli as well as many other foods have to be processed in some way to render them safe. In the case of broccoli and its relatives they must be processed by cooking to inactivate their goitrogenic activity.
so yeah. I'm veering way o/t.
Now that I have your attention though, how about addressing this question. You have repeatedly referred to the "anti-soy" propagandists"? Who?
Let's see there is Mercola, and DQ to name a few. And there was some guy who used to argue that soy was dangerous all the time on my forum and would post faulty studies or from prpaganda sites to back his view.
And did you notice that I found lots of pro-soy propaganda under the guise of medical studies? Funded by monsanto, among others?
What makes you think they were funded by Monsanto? Do you have proof of this or is this just an assumption?
Hardly breaking news here on CZ... most of us are familiar with big pharma/food/agri/chemical business funding health "research".
I have seen this excuse used so many times here on CZ when some study contradicts false information people on CZ believe. Not every study is funded by big pharma, etc. If this were the case then how come I have been able to find so many pro-supplement studies?
The proof that many soy studies are funded by agricultural, food & pharmaceutical concerns is right up the page. My "addendum" post is the most accurate as far as # of soy studies bankrolled by monsanto and the like. Here's a link, in case you missed it:
Obvious that you do not understand genetics.
Obviously my answer was correct since the best you could come up with as a response is an insult. Learn how the body really works and you will see what I was talking about. The body is very adaptable to a wide variety of foods and to new foods. Genetic variables are very rare such as true Celiac disease. Allergies though are not hereditary. Again learn how the body really works.
In other words... we *can* change our genes... and we can reduce and eliminate any familial genetic disease *predispositions*.
Many disease that are considered hereditary such as cancer and diabetes are not hereditary in the first place.
And many of these studies are done in test tube, which do not correlate to the body. For example viruses can infect cells causing them to go cancerous but because their genetic expression has changed these cells are considered foreign and are often destroyed by the body's immune system.
Soy was never used as a staple food in the past except in times of staple crop shortages\failures... such as rice, etc.
Again not true. Soy has been a staple of the Asian diet for thousands of years.
It was never to be a staple food... breakfast lunch and dinner... people who have made it such in their diets run into problems.
Proof of this claim?
Another issue is that soy has been introduced rather recently to many people who were never exposed to it before... and as groups of genetically linked people may have problems with dairy, other genetically linked groups... have problems with soy.
We are being introduced to new foods all the time, yet we do not develop problems from them. When proteins and carbohydrates are broken down for absorption they are really not different from the proteins and carbohydrates broken down from foods we are used to.
of course I am speacking of non-gmo for sure... gmo soy has been linked conclusively to huge increases in food alergic reactions, etc.
Soy is an allergen regardless if GMO are not. But so are many of the common foods that many of us have eaten most of our lives such as eggs, dairy, nuts, etc.
Let's see some real evidence that soy is any more dangerous than the many other foods we commonly eat. And I am not talking about posting claims from propaganda sites.
well to say that "it takes as little as 10 minutes" is misleading since the beans would certainly NOT be edible in 10 minutes.
You are missing the point. I am not talking about how long it takes to make the beans soft enough to eat. What was being pointed out is that the compounds in soy being claimed to be toxic are destroyed in as little as 10 minutes. And since soy products are generally cooked before eating these compounds are not an issue.
My problem with soy is in how it is presented to us as "food". Soy is formulated as cheap protein to feed the masses, period.
What is wring with cheap. Do you think hamburger, which is cheaper than Kobe beef is somehow an inferior protein source?
I don't hear of people enjoying a dish of soybeans and rice, from what I've read, the bean is bitter. It HAS to be processed to make it edible.
The bean has a beany flavor, which is something the industry has been working on. By the way do you eat chocolate at all which is processed to make the cocoa edible and flavorful. How about tapioca, which is toxic in its natural form. So are you advocating that people avoid chocolate and tapioca?
Did you read any of the book I linked?
Yes, which is I why I just responded to the processing claim that was brought up and was discussed in the book. So what about it. Soy is a traditional food in Asian countries. By the way are you aware that many of our so called traditional foods are not really traditional? They were bought here from other countries as well.
Traditional and non-traditional foods By Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, R. Ferrando ~1981 (yeah I know it's old but it's good)
processing of soy info starts on page 101, "industrial processing of non-traditional foods".
So they are processing the soy to make different products, so what. They process the soy to make oil, four, milk, etc. A lot of foods are processed to make different products. Corn for example is processed to make hominy, flour, starch, oil......... Does this make corn automatically dangerous? Of course not.
By the way what is your diet specifically. Let's see how many toxins or other dangers I can find in your diet.
A question. From what I've read on your stance on soy, is all soy "good" in your opinion? Across the board? Because my understanding of your viewpoint is that there is no difference between highly-processed soy and traditionally prepared soy. No difference on how it has been consumed in the past by Asians and the way it is consumed now in the US. A clarification would be appreciated as I see that this is the main point of contention between you and many here, including myself.
SOY molasses, not blackstrap molasses. I can't find a reference to iron in soy molasses, perhaps it's there, I can't find it though.
And I assume that since you state that "we are not mice and do not share their chemistry", then you discount the thousands upon thousands of medical studies that have been performed on mice.
Turns out that we might not share the mouses "chemistry", but we do share a great deal of their genetic sequence. Medical researchers seem to think that that's important:
"Among the animals used in research, teaching, and testing, mice comprise a majority of all experimental mammals. The remarkable genetic similarity of mice to humans, combined with great convenience, perhaps accounts for mice so often being the experimental model of choice in research. Mice also are used to test new procedures and drugs for safety, as required by an array of federal regulations. Another primary use of mice is for the production of biological reagents, such as monoclonal antibodies and vaccines."
The first head-to-head comparison of draft human and mouse genome sequences can be summarized in one word—fourteen. Fourteen genes on mouse chromosome 16 are notfound in humans. All the others—more than 700 mouse genes—have counterparts in the human genome, most of which are grouped together and in the same order as in the mouse genome. In short, the human and mouse genomes are remarkably similar not only in the structure of their chromosomes but also at the level of DNA sequence. Scientists have reported similarities between the two species for decades but never with the detail that is possible by lining up two genome sequences. The new findings, by researchers at Celera Genomics in Rockville, Maryland, provide the strongest evidence yet that the mouse is a useful model for understanding human health and disease. Almost any gene in humans is going to be present in mice and vice versa, the team concludes. "The study confirms what we mouse geneticists have all hoped would be true," says Neal G. Copeland of the Mouse Cancer Genetics Program at the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland. "And that is important because we're using the mouse as a model organism to study functions of genes in the human genome."
The first head-to-head comparison of draft human and mouse genome sequences can be summarized in one word—fourteen. Fourteen genes on mouse chromosome 16 are notfound in humans. All the others—more than 700 mouse genes—have counterparts in the human genome, most of which are grouped together and in the same order as in the mouse genome.
In short, the human and mouse genomes are remarkably similar not only in the structure of their chromosomes but also at the level of DNA sequence. Scientists have reported similarities between the two species for decades but never with the detail that is possible by lining up two genome sequences.
The new findings, by researchers at Celera Genomics in Rockville, Maryland, provide the strongest evidence yet that the mouse is a useful model for understanding human health and disease. Almost any gene in humans is going to be present in mice and vice versa, the team concludes.
"The study confirms what we mouse geneticists have all hoped would be true," says Neal G. Copeland of the Mouse Cancer Genetics Program at the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland. "And that is important because we're using the mouse as a model organism to study functions of genes in the human genome."
The Handiest Mammal
Besides being genetically similar to humans, mice are small and inexpensive to maintain. Their short life span and rapid reproductive rate make it possible to study disease processes in many individuals throughout their life cycle."