Re: Soy article talks back to critics Sally Fallon and G. Enig

December 28, 2001

I have read this article, and it really provides widely conflicting views on

the benefits or danger of soy. He is right on on some issues, and on other

issues he completely tows the party line without apparently reseaching the

issue completely.

For example, as far as what this guy has written about heart disease, he

totes the party line here which is based on politically motivated studies

done by government agencies such as the American Heart Association. He says

for example:

------------------

What do the soy pooh pooh-ers say to this? They say that lowered cholesterol

levels, even those lowered by diet, are dangerous. " Studies in which

cholesterol levels were lowered through either diet or drugs, " claim Fallon

and Enig, " have consistently resulted in a greater number of deaths in the

treatment groups than in controls. " To document this remark, which is

entirely unsupported in the scientific literature, the authors provide a

footnote to an article written by themselves.

Elsewhere they write: " The truth is that cholesterol is your best friend.

When cholesterol levels in the blood are high, it's because the body needs

cholesterol. There is no greater risk of heart disease at cholesterol levels

of 300 than at 180. "

That's quite a point of view, ignoring as it does nearly everything that has

been learned about heart disease and cholesterol in the past 30 years by

medical science. -----------------------

This guy has apparently not read much of what Enig and Fallon have written

on this topic, where they clearly show that much of the research used to

promote the lipid theory actually proves just the opposite in regards to

cholesterol and heart disease. Read the article here:

http://www.coconut-info.com/diet_and_disease.htm for example. He states

that the " The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial ...is

considered the broadest and most expensive research project in medical

history " and took 10 years and cost 150 million dollars, ... and proved that

even small changes in our blood cholesterol levels produce dramatic changes

in heart disease rates. " But Enig and Fallon state:

-------------

All subjects in the trial were put on a low-cholesterol, low-saturated fat

diet. One group received a cholesterol lowering drug, the other a placebo.

Average cholesterol reduction for the drug group was 8.6% which had,

according to researchers, a 17% reduction in rate of heart disease.

This led to the oft repeated statement: " For each 1% reduction in

cholesterol, we can expect a 2% reduction in CHD events. " But when

independent researchers tallied the LRC data, they found no difference in

CHD between the two groups. An unequivocal but rarely published finding of

the LRC was an increase in deaths from cancer, intestinal disease, stroke,

violence, and suicide in the group taking the cholesterol-lowering drug.

-----------------

I do have to give some credit to Robbins for at least agreeing with Enig and

Fallon on some points, like the " possible " dangers of isoflavones and

phytoestrogens in infant formulas. But when he makes such statements as

" These theoretical risks are quite disturbing, but they appear at this point

to be merely theoretical, because we have yet to see any substantive

evidence of this harm in people " he is obvoiusly uninformed with a lot of

the research listed at http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/ This website is

run by a couple and a New Zealander scientist. They state:

---------------

The Infant Formula Council argument began by announcing that studies on

infants fed soy formulas 'have not indicated any evidence of harmful effect'

.. This statement is nonsense because there have been no studies that have

specifically investigated the potential harmful effects that phytoestrogens

might have on infants.

This statement is also incorrect. Although there have been no direct

investigations of the potential harmful effects of phytoestrogens on

infants, other studies provide strong evidence that phytoestrogens in soy

formulas do harm infants.

Firstly, the consumption of soy-based formulas was associated with an

increased occurrence of premature thelarche in Puerto Rico. In 1982

Pediatric endocrinologists in Puerto Rico reported on an increase in the

incidence of breast development in girls younger than eight years of age. Of

the 552 diagnosed cases reported between 1978 and 1982, a representative

group of 130 were studied in an attempt to identify possible factors that

might have contributed to what was considered an epidemic of premature

thelarche.

Approximately 68 percent of the cases (85 out of 130) studied experienced

the onset of thelarche before they were 18 months old. In these most overt

cases, the investigators found a positive statistical association between

premature thelarche and the consumption of soy formulas (22 cases), various

meat products (10 cases) and a maternal history of ovarian cysts (16 cases).

Despite the probability that phytoestrogens in soy formulas were culpable in

the Puerto Rico outbreak and the fact that mounting evidence that the early

onset of puberty is increasing in the US (at the same time as soy formula

sales reach record levels), there have been no studies to further

investigate the link between soy formulas and premature thelarche.

-----------------

The negative affects of soy on the thyroid is also covered in detail here:

http://thyroid.about.com/cs/soysdownsides/ at thyroid.about.com, one of most

popular health-based websites on the Internet right now run by Shomon.

And in spite of Robbin's criticism of those attackig soy, he goes on to make

the following astounding statements which seem to contradict almost

everything else he wrote and totally agrees with people like Enig and

Fallon:

-------------------

There are legitimate questions about soy. One of the most recent, and most

disturbing, stems from the fact that two-thirds of the U.S. soybean crop

today is genetically engineered. These are beans that have been genetically

altered to enable the growing plants to withstand being sprayed with

weedkillers, particularly Monsanto's Roundup. Because so much Roundup is

used on these crops, the residue levels in the harvested crops greatly

exceed what until very recently was the allowable legal limit. For the

technology to be commercially viable, the FDA had to triple the residues of

Roundup's active ingredients that can remain on the crop. Many scientists

have protested that permitting increased residues to enable a company's

success reflects an attitude in which corporate interests are given higher

priority than public safety, but the increased levels have remained in

force.

Does eating genetically engineered soybeans pose potential health risks to

people? In 2001, the Los Angeles Times published an exposé revealing that

Monsanto's own research had raised many questions about the safety of their

Roundup Ready soybeans. Remarkably, the FDA did not call for more testing

before allowing these soybeans to flood the marketplace. Since half the

soybeans grown in the United States are now Monsanto's Roundup Ready

variety, and because soy is contained in such a wide array of processed

foods, tens of millions of people are unknowingly eating these experimental

foods daily.

While soyfoods have much to offer, they have certainly been at times heavily

over-promoted. As a result, some people have gathered the impression that as

long as they eat enough soy, they don't have to worry about the rest of

their diet and lifestyle. This is a dangerous and mistaken belief. Just as

taking vitamins can't atone for a poor diet, taking soy can't make up for a

diet that's otherwise high in calories, saturated fat, and junk food. Nor

can it compensate for a lack of exercise, or other destructive lifestyle

habits.

The hype has also made us forget something important. We are eating soy

products today at levels never before seen in history. Advances in food

technology have made it possible to isolate soy proteins, isoflavones, and

other substances found in the bean, and add them to all kinds of foods where

they've never been before. The number of processed and manufactured foods

that contain soy ingredients today is astounding. It can be hard to find

foods that don't contain soy flour, soy oil, lecithin (extracted from soy

oil and used as an emulsifier in high-fat products), soy protein isolates

and concentrates, textured vegetable protein (TVP), hydrolyzed vegetable

protein (usually made from soy) or unidentified vegetable oils. Most of what

is labeled " vegetable oil " in the U.S. is actually soy oil, as are most

margarines. Soy oil is the most widely used oil in the U.S., accounting for

more than 75 percent of our total vegetable fats and oils intake. And most

of our soy products are now genetically engineered.

This has never before been done in human history. It is an experiment, and

should be undertaken, if at all, with great humility, watchfulness, and

caution. Instead, under the influence of an almost mystical belief in soy's

virtues, we've tended to fall prey to an illusion that has haunted American

culture in all kinds of ways - the illusion that if a little is good, then

surely more must be better.

-----------------

In my opinion, he has not read enough of the evidence that is out there on

the negative effects on American health since soy-based vegetable oils have

entered the market and replaced healthier oils, like the tropical oils that

dominated the bakery industry prior to the negative campaign against

saturated fats. Healthy oils like coconut oil which has been a part of

healthy diets for thousands of years was substituted for the new soy-based

refined oils. It is hard and confusing to read articles like this which cite

supposedly scientific research and studies. But science has its limitations

as far as what it can study in a laboratory. One must look at the

epidemiological studies (population studies) to get a true picture of

nutrition. As owner of the coconut-info.com website which highlights the

research by Enig, Fallon, and others about the truth regarding fats and

oils, I get criticism and email almost on a daily basis saying that I am

promoting a product (coconut oil) that causes heart disease. My reply,

rather than trying to argue from the evidence of science, is a simple

question I ask them which none can answer: If it is true that saturated fats

cause heart disease, why is it that the US leads the world in cardiovascular

deaths, where it is the #1 cause of death, and where few people consume a

high fat let alone a saturated fat diet anymore since convential nutritional

wisdom tells everyone to stay away from saturated fats and eat a low-fat

diet? In contrast, countries like where I live in the Philippines, and where

people get more than 50% of their caloric intake from saturated fats, death

from cardiovascular disease is not even in the top five causes of death? I

don't need double blind scientific studies to prove to me that saturated

fats are bad: I have enough common sense and experience to know better. And

eventually science will come around and support the truth. Here is one good

Sign In

Re: Soy article talks back to critics Sally Fallon and G. Enig

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity