Re: Tofu linked to mental deficiency (???)

[Guest guest]

See my post:

/message/9645

which is a much more recent study than the Hawaiian one (in fact the

Hawaiian study is quite old - 1965)

From my post:

" ..........Furthermore, published data and new research presented at this

meeting suggest that the consumption of even 10 g (typical of Asian intake)

of isoflavone-rich soy protein per day may be associated with health

benefits. If this modest amount of soy protein were to be incorporated in

the American diet, it would represent only approximately 15% of total U. S.

protein intake. "

BTW I have no stake in any soy companies etc. And if more info comes out

that soy is bad or if any of the famous and respected scientists issues a

warning (such as Walford or Ornish for example), I would have problem

dispensing with it.

on 1/30/2004 5:29 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi Katrina:

>

> I see that that www.soyaonlineservice.co.nz link does contain some

> pretty serious references when I scroll down the page a bit.

> We don't know

> if there are net risks/benefits from consuming it.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

It just is not correct to say that " the Hawaiian study is quite old -

1965 " .

The study was STARTED in 1965, and after studying people for a full

*** 35 years *** the findings were published in April 2000.

So the dating issue argues strongly in favor of that study, not

against it. Not many health studies have been going on for as long

as that. And more time generally translates into more reliable data.

Rodney.

> See my post:

> /message/9645

>

> which is a much more recent study than the Hawaiian one (in fact the

> Hawaiian study is quite old - 1965)

[Guest guest]

You are right but not quite. PP 177 of " Beyond " says the study followed 17,000 men for 30 years, not 35. These men were old farts when the study ended: 71 to 93 years old, not exactly immune to getting demented from who knows what.

I suggest we continue any such debates off list. We're boring everybody.

on 2/1/2004 7:17 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> It just is not correct to say that " the Hawaiian study is quite old -

> 1965 " .

>

> The study was STARTED in 1965, and after studying people for a full

> *** 35 years *** the findings were published in April 2000.

>

> So the dating issue argues strongly in favor of that study, not

> against it. Not many health studies have been going on for as long

> as that. And more time generally translates into more reliable data.

>

> Rodney.