article on the soy controversy

August 6, 2009

It's a very long article but here is a clip.

http://www.womentowomen.com/healthynutrition/soycontroversy.aspx

Faulty science and the campaign against soy

One of the most important lessons in science and statistics for us to understand

is that just because two factors seem related, does not mean one caused the

other. Another is that we have to carefully examine how someone reaches their

conclusions, because faulty reasoning leads to incorrect answers. So let's look

at the reasoning of the people who consider soy unhealthy and see how it stacks

up.

Many of the most strident anti-soy groups list page after page of resources in

support of their claims. To the untrained eye, it might appear as though there

is scientific substantiation against soy. But more often than not, they are

misrepresenting the research findings. For example, I found that the WAPF listed

articles or reports (not necessarily scientific studies) by year, out of

context, without listing any other articles that came out that year, making it

seem as though that one study was " the truth " for that year.

Also, many of the studies on soy showing ambiguous results have been conducted

on non-human subjects — usually rats or other rodents. In much the same way dogs

can't tolerate chocolate, rodents and humans can't always digest the same foods

or substances in the same ways. There are enough similarities that we can learn

a lot by experiments in rats, but enough differences that it's important to know

up front when rats, not humans, are the test subjects. Sometimes studies in

animals give us the only information we have, but we need to be cautious about

drawing conclusions from studies based on animal models. From there, the next

step is to design a study to see whether the findings apply to humans as well.

The WAPF doesn't say that the studies were actually done on rats when they

discuss the findings — perhaps because doing so might make their claims seem

less believable, without the same results being seen in people.

Here's another kind of " sleight of hand " explanation the WAPF gives on their

website. A study published in 1997 in the journal Pediatrics suggested that

girls in the US are entering puberty at an earlier age than in the past, and

here's what the WAPF concluded:

(WAPF) Our Comment: The widespread use of soy-based formula, beginning in the

1970's, is a likely explanation for the increase in early maturation in girls.

The study indeed came from Pediatrics, published in 1997 — but nowhere in the

article's content or summary do the researchers ever link their findings to soy

products. Here is how the authors themselves worded their conclusion:

Conclusions. These data suggest that girls seen in a sample of pediatric

practices from across the United States are developing pubertal characteristics

at younger ages than currently used norms. Practitioners may need to revise

their criteria for referral of girls with precocious puberty, with attention to

racial differences.

The fact that more African-American girls were maturing earlier than in the past

was one of the researchers' points, in the context that precocious puberty

creates social and psychological concerns. But because African-Americans in

general have been shown to be more lactose-intolerant, the WAPF leapt to the

conclusion that soy must be the culprit without looking at the facts. In

statistics, this is called a fallacy, and I could not find any literature to

date that supports this idea. In fact, nearly all infant formulas, both cow milk

and soy-based, contain corn syrup or sucrose, providing calories that might

contribute to obesity — which in girls can lead to early puberty. Unfortunately,

this kind of " magical " guesswork can be found all over the internet when it

comes to soy — and without good science, many are resorting unnecessarily to

scare tactics.

The best thing we all can do is adopt a considered approach to the shouting

match about soy. For whatever personal, political or economic reasons, there are

people out to make misleading, confusing, and downright scary statements about

soy — but a wild guess is just not the same thing as a sound conclusion. We can

counterbalance the loud, alarmist, but scientifically thin voices against soy

with a mass of positive research data that speaks volumes about soy's safety —

not to mention the fact that thousands, if not millions, of people consume soy

all the time with no ill effects!

So let's take the science at face value. While we know that science doesn't

always get it right, there is a wealth of research that shows that when eaten in

small amounts every day, soy can be an extremely healthy, low-fat,

body-beneficial food that gives you lots of protein without a lot of harmful

side effects. In other words, the good far outweighs the remote possibility of

bad.

But just so you can enjoy soy without worry, there are things you may want to

know about how best to include soy in your diet, considering both health

benefits and concerns.

August 6, 2009

Thanks for your posts Anouk. It just goes to show what a lot of biased 'information' is given out.

Jo

-

flower child

Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:38 PM

article on the soy controversy

August 7, 2009

Thanks for posting. another good source of soy info was the " mayo clinic " . they

basically said that all studies on soy and diseases are either inconclusive or

have contradictory results. it seems the only reccomendation the mayo clinic

gave was to avoid soy formula for babies. of course, i wouldnt feed my babies

ANY formula other than breast milk-which is what a child should have.

, " flower child " <zurumato wrote:

>

> It's a very long article but here is a clip.

>

> http://www.womentowomen.com/healthynutrition/soycontroversy.aspx

>

> Faulty science and the campaign against soy

>

> One of the most important lessons in science and statistics for us to

understand is that just because two factors seem related, does not mean one

caused the other. Another is that we have to carefully examine how someone

reaches their conclusions, because faulty reasoning leads to incorrect answers.

So let's look at the reasoning of the people who consider soy unhealthy and see

how it stacks up.

>

> Many of the most strident anti-soy groups list page after page of resources in