How dodgy is soy?

[massrock]

Actually fuck it, if I can get by without relying too much on cruelly extracted animal labour then I would rather do so.

 

[zhao]

Also more specifically what I mean is sometimes it is possible to not realise how bad your diet is for you until you change it.

i've made this point, and the previous ones about predominantly vegetarian pre-agricultural diet being the optimum for humans, several times before here, and the response has been mostly antagonistic. people will defend their fucked up patterns to the grave.

 

[nomadthethird]

i've made this point, and the previous ones about predominantly vegetarian pre-agricultural diet being the optimum for humans, several times before here, and the response has been mostly antagonistic. people will defend their fucked up patterns to the grave.

Zhao, most primates eat meat and other stuff. I know it's mean to kill other animals. It'd be nice if it weren't ingrained in culture that it's absolutely necessary. I don't think we should be domesticating animals, at all, period. But that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't be able to kill and eat non-domesticated animals

 

[nomadthethird]

Who eats predominately meat, anyway? Most people are lucky if they can afford to eat 20%-30% meat.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Who eats predominately meat, anyway?

Eskimo/Inuit types, and dudes in Siberia. Meat and fish, anyway. But they are specially adapted for it, of course.

 

[zhao]

Zhao, most primates eat meat and other stuff. I know it's mean to kill other animals. It'd be nice if it weren't ingrained in culture that it's absolutely necessary. I don't think we should be domesticating animals, at all, period. But that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't be able to kill and eat non-domesticated animals

all i ever said is that people eat too much meat for their own health (and that of the planet's). never have i said "should not at all".

and i also said pre-agricultural diet, which lasted much much longer than our lifestyle, was predominantly, and not completely, vegetarian, and is demonstrably better for our bodies compared to modern diet.

 

[nomadthethird]

all i ever said is that people eat too much meat for their own health (and that of the planet's). never have i said "should not at all".

This is undoubtedly true, esp in the U.S.--red meats are high in saturated fat and thus correlate with high rates of heart disease. Sadly, though, the rise in obesity doesn't correlate with an increased consumption of fats or proteins, but with an exponential increase in the consumption of refined carbohydrates. Thirty years ago, people actually used to eat more fat than they do now, and yet the average BMI for a person now is much higher, and too high by a drastic margin as far as healthiness is concerned.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Even 30 years ago, people probably walked more and were more likely to have a job involving at least some degree of physical exertion than they are now.

Nutritionists can wrangle endlessly about the relative importance of fats vs. carbohydrates in making people obese, but if they're not talking about physical activity then they're missing half the story.

Sorry, severely OT, this doesn't have a whole lot to do with soy.

 

[manlikemalcolm]

What do all those Soy plants eat?

 

[zhao]

What do all those Soy plants eat?

that's really cute

 

[manlikemalcolm]

that's really cute

Well I think it makes a point. Everything uses or exploits (eats) something else to gain energy. There is no escape from that.

I think you could make a strong case that soy (along with corn & wheat) has essentially replaced what was formerly a vibrant ecosystem of plants & animals...many of which are now extinct or endangered. So if you are advocating a vegetarian diet as more morally or politically responsible diet (i.e. its better for the earth) I would say it is exactly the opposite.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well I think it makes a point. Everything uses or exploits (eats) something else to gain energy. There is no escape from that.

I think you could make a strong case that soy (along with corn & wheat) has essentially replaced what was formerly a vibrant ecosystem of plants & animals...many of which are now extinct or endangered. So if you are advocating a vegetarian diet as more morally or politically responsible diet (i.e. its better for the earth) I would say it is exactly the opposite.

All the same, on a very basic calories-per-hectare-per-year basis, it's much more efficient to grow grain and vegetables and eat them ourselves than to grow grass or other fodder crops to feed to animals, and then eat the animals. Given that humans have to eat something, it's this argument that vegetarians and vegans often use against meat-eating, from an ecological point of view.

On the other hand, you've got animals like chickens and pigs that can basically live on scraps, and sheep and goats which are good at foraging on very poor pasturage, i.e. land that would be unsuitable for agriculture or horticulture. But the above argument can't easily be dismissed in the case of rich, fertile land that could otherwise be used to grow crops, but is used as pasturage for cattle.

Edit: or for chopping down virgin rainforest for pasturage that's only good for a couple of years because the soil is so poor, before it has to be abandoned.

 

[massrock]

Ninety-eight percent of the U.S. soybean crop is used for livestock feed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean

 

[massrock]

Given that humans have to eat something, it's this argument that vegetarians and vegans often use against meat-eating, from an ecological point of view.

Vegetarians, vegans and other concerned citizens.

I mean there's no reason at all why only strict vegetarians or vegans should recognise the ecological and practical issues.

On the other hand, you've got animals like chickens and pigs that can basically live on scraps, and sheep and goats which are good at foraging on very poor pasturage, i.e. land that would be unsuitable for agriculture or horticulture.

But on the other hand soy is known for its beneficial effects on the nitrogen content of the soil and is routinely used as a rotation crop for this reason.

Soy took on a very important role in the United States after World War I. During the Great Depression, the drought stricken (Dust Bowl) regions of the United States were able to use soy to regenerate their soil because of its nitrogen-fixing properties.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I think you could make a strong case that soy (along with corn & wheat) has essentially replaced what was formerly a vibrant ecosystem of plants & animals...many of which are now extinct or endangered. So if you are advocating a vegetarian diet as more morally or politically responsible diet (i.e. its better for the earth) I would say it is exactly the opposite.

no offense mate but really don't think you know what you're talking about. it's certainly true that monocropping has dire consequences but laying the blame for it at the feet of vegetarians is totally ridiculous. the rise of huge agribusiness concerns (ADM, Cargill, Monsanto, etc.) & the consequent destruction of the small farmer, the aforementioned demand for cheap livestock feed, the general of transition of agriculture onto a massive, corporate scale - none of these have much to do w/vegetarians. in fact many vegans/vegetarians are likely to be deadset against all that stuff. & anyway a great deal of soy eaten by humans isn't consumed by relatively affluent 1st world vegetarians - soy is a cheap (cheaper than meat) source of protein in a lot of places, see TVP.

a much better example would be biofuels. which are also a complicated topic, but much closer to what you're trying to get at.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

& also let's be clear about terms like "vibrant ecosystem". if it's this:

Edit: or for chopping down virgin rainforest for pasturage that's only good for a couple of years because the soil is so poor, before it has to be abandoned.

then alright.

if it's big agribusiness concerns switching over more acreage to soy/wheat/corn, then not so much. the issue certainly isn't biodiversity vs. vegetarian/veganism.

 

[Guilhèm de Peitieus]

I've been vegan/vegetarian in the past, and can only say that sustained veganism, done by the book, gave me serious deficiencies and mental issues; if you're looking for a diet to label 'unnatural', veganism is it. It's essentially an eating disorder. Vegetarianism that includes eggs and/or dairy can be perfectly healthy, though.

I would question the health benefits of any diet based primarily on vegetables. In terms of nutrients available elsewhere to milk, someone mentioned

[

]spinach, broccoli. kale, various seaweeds, all excellent sources of calcium. almonds as well. loads of others.

Something that most people don't consider is that the nutrients in plant foods, particularly vegetables - greens, beans etc. - are outweighed by the array of toxins the plant has produced to prevent itself being eaten. Fruits are generally low in toxins since they are designed to be eaten. Hence unseasoned raw vegetables are disgusting and truly ripe fruit is delicious. Oxalic acid is one of these toxins, present in spinach, broccoli and kale - it binds to calcium (and magnesium, and iron) and prevents its absorption; the ostensible calcium content of these vegetables is not the actual bioavailability. But oxalic acid is only one of a huge number of plant toxins in most vegetables. Goitrogens are particularly nasty, suppressing the thyroid. When I was vegan, influenced by trendy raw food veganism, I thought that since cooking destroys nutrients, it would be better to eat most of my vegetables raw. Result: hypothyroidism. Cooking vegetables thoroughly enough to eliminate these toxins (and break down the fibre) then destroys many of the nutrients they are advertised as containing. Soy is relevant here - the soy consumed historically in Asia was always fermented (as in proper tofu, miso etc.), so as to destroy the estrogenic toxins that are increasingly problematic today. Unfermented soy, as in soy milk, soy oil, soy protein etc. is the problem. Essentially, with non-fruit plant foods, significant processing is crucial, rather than something to be avoided. It's worth noting that almost all rice consumed in Asia is white rather than brown. Processed plants are a source of bulk calories, not nutrients. These come primarily from animal foods.

This article (by an usually erudite and rewarding writer in this field) is particularly incisive on these topics:
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

Richard Wrangham points out in his new book ('Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human') that we can't extrapolate from monkey diets either. Having domesticated animals, bred plants, and cooked our food, we've evolved to find the wild plants they eat almost inedibly bitter/fibrous/astringent/sour.

On dairy, people are right to be suspicious of 'large scale industrialised dairy production'. What the animal is eating is obviously crucial. If other sources of animal protein and fat are available, it's inessential, although its low iron content is more conducive to long term health, particularly for men, than red meat. If people don't 'like' milk, if it isn't genetic, this may simply be due to never having had good milk. Unpasteurised whole milk from animals on pasture is simply one of the most delicious single foods (rarely) available. Infinitely more nutritious than any vegetable, too - especially with the cream, which contains the fat-soluble nutrients A, D, E & K.

It is best to restrict your intake to diary products that are lower in saturated fats, for the purposes of avoiding a cardiologist for as long as possible.

[...]This is undoubtedly true, esp in the U.S.--red meats are high in saturated fat and thus correlate with high rates of heart disease.

The whole saturated fat causes heart disease argument is pretty much discredited now.
e.g. http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html Your sentence gives it away with 'correlated'. Do Americans eat only high saturated fat red meat? Don't we need to examine the diet as a whole? I would argue that saturated fat is by far the healthiest kind of fat to consume.

The opposite of what the FSA would have you believe is in fact true: unsaturated oils - vegetable oils (with the exception of olive oil) and the much-lauded fish oils - are uniquely dangerous.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsuitablefats.shtml

But is there any evidence that people who consume dairy products (and have otherwise reasonably healthy lifestyles) are less healthy than people who don't?

The world's oldest man until his death at 113 few weeks ago Tomoji Tanabe insisted on drinking a glass of milk a day. Quick google gave me this too:

Some data just released by the Medical Research Council (MRC) should create some interesting controversy among medical circles during the next several months. Peter Elwood, director of the Epidemiology Unit at Landough Hospital in Penarth, South Glamorgan, dropped a bombshell. His ongoing life-style study of 5000 men produced some startling and very unpopular findings. He discovered that men who drank the most full-fat milk and ate butter (rather than margarine) had a lower risk of suffering from heart attacks! (New Scientist 1991; 129(1759):17)
...Elwood's study collected data on 5,000 British men between the ages of 45 and 59 for a period of 10 years. Of those that drank at least a pint of whole milk a day, only 1% suffered heart attacks


also, on the soy-heroes the Okinawans:

Japan is reported to have low levels of death from coronary heart disease but Okinawa has the lowest of all. Yet Okinawa’s cholesterol levels are similar to those in Scotland – much higher than the average in Japan. In 1992 a paper examined the relationship of nutritional status to further life expectancy and health in the Japanese elderly based on three population studies.[Shibata H, et al. Nutrition for the Japanese elderly. Nutr Health 1992; 8: 165-75] It found that Japanese who lived to the age of 100 were those who got their protein from meat rather than from rice and pulses. The centenarians also had higher intakes of animal foods such as eggs, milk, meat and fish; significantly, their carbohydrate intake was lower than that of their fellow countrymen who died younger. see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...t_uids=1407826&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum

The Okinawans also historically cooked all their food in lard, not vegetable oil.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Very interesting post GdP, but this bit:

Hence unseasoned raw vegetables are disgusting and truly ripe fruit is delicious.

is just nuts (no pun intended). You've never eaten a nice sweet, crunchy carrot? Or fresh peas straight out of the pod? Or sticks of sweet red pepper? OK, so maybe the latter two are technically 'fruits' as they're to do with seed propagation - but even raw swede and red cabbage can be nice. And unseasoned salad veg like cucumbers and lettuce are surely bland, rather than 'disgusting'.

OK, so none of those things are quite as nice as peach or pineapple, but they're a hell of a long way from being inedible.

 

[massrock]

This doesn't help matters but just for the sake of entertainment it should be noted that according to the EU Council Jam Directive 2001, carrots are considered to be fruit.

A. DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:

1. Fruit:

- fresh, sound fruit, free from deterioration, containing all its essential constituents and sufficiently ripe for use, after cleaning, removal of blemishes, topping and tailing,

- for the purposes of this Directive, tomatoes, the edible parts of rhubarb stalks, carrots, sweet potatoes, cucumbers, pumpkins, melons and water-melons are considered to be fruit,

- "ginger" means the edible root of the ginger plant in a fresh or preserved state. Ginger may be dried or preserved in syrup.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0113:En:HTML

 

[Mr. Tea]

Right, that's it, I'm telling Jeremy Clarkson.