TDG: The Billion-Dollar Myth: Soy

[macrosan]

Peer-review is overrated anyway: it's only as good as one's peers.

Exactly so. Peer review will almost always maintain the status quo of the scientific community, which is in many senses the most conservative of all intellectual communities. It astonishes me that they do, from time to time, permit heresy ... er, I mean groundbreaking new discovery

I have always argued that common sense and practical experience have an important part to play in judgement of science. Old wives' tales are showing an increasing tendency to become scientifically supported, as in St John's Wort and Chicken Soup And when my mother says of genetic engineering of food "No good will come of it" then I'm inclined to attach credence to her instinct and experience.

[Pan]

I, too, am suspicious of genetically-engineered food and consider it in some ways an uncontrolled experiment, but I wouldn't write a story claiming that it will trash the environment and kill people, unless I had evidence. The most I could - and would - say is that I fear that bad unintended consequences could well result from the genetic engineering.

[Jinmyo]

haide, welcome.

Yes, soya milk can be a great breakfast.

There is a huge difference between soy products purchased at supermarket chains or "health food" stores and those found in Chinatowns.

[macrosan]

I, too, am suspicious of genetically-engineered food and consider it in some ways an uncontrolled experiment, but I wouldn't write a story claiming that it will trash the environment and kill people, unless I had evidence. The most I could - and would - say is that I fear that bad unintended consequences could well result from the genetic engineering.

You're right from an intellectual standpoint, Pan, but that calm, rational approach just doesn't attract much attention. You are right, you are right ..... but I'm tolerant of a few more liberties being taken with absoulute honesty. Mea culpa

[Pan]

You're right from an intellectual standpoint, Pan, but that calm, rational approach just doesn't attract much attention. You are right, you are right ..... but I'm tolerant of a few more liberties being taken with absoulute honesty.  Mea culpa 

[gsquared]

My problem with Ms. Planck's article is that she is so single-mindedly bent on clobbering soy and soy products. It is not difficult to set up a straw man and then proceed to destroy it using studies carefully (or negligently?) culled from the plethora available to support the predisposition. I have no problem with the publication of the piece - at best it is a good example of "tabloid" journalism and at least it stimulated an interesting discussion. But take it seriously? Not on your nelly.

I am not a nutritionist, nor a biochemist, but a few quick googles (maybe I google better than you, Fat man ) quickly produced the following.

Soy is rich in the anti-nutrient phytic acid. Phytic acid binds with iron and zinc, which are essential for the health of the brain and nervous system. That means the body can’t use the iron and zinc it has -- or copper, calcium, and magnesium. Too many phytates retard growth in children.

In fact, phytic acid is present in a wide variety of plant foods such as wheat bran, whole grains, and legumes. Phytates have been associated with reduced iron absorbtion, but mainly when taken as a supplement. There are studies that indicate that phytic acid may inhibit colonic cancer, as well as contribute to lowering of cholesterol. So - no clear cut case that the phytic acid in soy is a clear cut villain.

Soy also contains substances called trypsin inhibitors. They make it difficult to digest proteins.

Sure - trypsin inhibitors are also present in potatoes, beans, sweet corn and some cereals.

It’s like red wine: a glass or two a day may be good for you; a bottle or two every day rots your liver.

I know this is an aside, but still......

At this point I had sufficient to support my initial impression that the baby lies outside, with the bath water......

[mamster]

Peer review will almost always maintain the status quo of the scientific community, which is in many senses the most conservative of all intellectual communities.

This argument is usually made, first, by people who don't really understand how the peer review process and, second, by people who have a naive view of science as something done by unsung geniuses in their garages.

I'd ask you to give a fairly recent example of a scientist who had to go outside peer-reviewed journals because of their conservatism but whose views later became orthodoxy, but I guess the lack of such an event wouldn't prove my point any more than yours.

Perhaps the field I work in (biology) is less conservative than the scientific areas you're familiar with, macrosan, but it's honestly hard for me to imagine a field less conservative than biology. Revolutions in the field seem to happen every few months, spurred by papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps these revolutions aren't revolutionary enough for the average observer, but if you let me, I could go on and on listing radical new ideas by biologists that passed peer review even though the reviewers thought the conclusion was wrong, just because the experimental work was impeccable and the journal felt the discussion would be valuable. Some of those ideas have become orthodoxy; some haven't.

Peer review is one of the reasons science works. I don't think science reporting should be peer-reviewed, only primary work, but the reason we have peer review for journals is the same reason we have editors at newspapers: because people are not always the best judges of their own work, and editors need some familiarity with the subject matter in order to make informed judgments about how to edit. Reputable scientists (oops, there's that word again) often find peer review annoying--wouldn't you?--but would balk at publishing a paper without it, not just because it's a seal of approval but because it improves their work.

Most people who experience science only through the press would, I think, be very surprised (and also bored) after spending some time with working scientists. Of course, I'm speaking only for the university setting, and perhaps things are very different in the corporate world.

[docsconz]

I believe that when a person embellishes and exaggerates to make a point that person begins to lose credibility and  the truly valid points begin to pale and are taken less seriously. I believe that the majority of Ms. Plancks points have some degree of validity, however, I have learned that I can't necessarily take what she says at face value.

What scientific journals do to try to assure relevance and accuracy is to peer-review articles prior to publication. I am not advocating that for eGullet, but as with anything published anywhere (even a scientific journal), one should approach what one reads with a healthy dose of scepticism, even when written by the "experts".

Doc, if you want to get from point B (second paragraph) to point A (first paragraph), don't you have to make the argument that peer-reviewed scientific journals are not supporting what Planck says? I'm not saying we chased down references on everything she said -- we simply don't have the staffing for that, and so we rely on our authors to do their homework -- but she's not making this stuff up. She's getting it from scientific sources. Those sources may very well be wrong, but they are most likely peer-reviewed. At least, when I did some checking, I was able to find tons of references to scientific journals. Peer-review is overrated anyway: it's only as good as one's peers.

I agree that scientific peer review is not a reaonable objective for eGullet. I stated that I wan't advocating it. My main point was that everything should be taken with a grain of salt (except by hypertensives with renal issues ).

That being said, there is often a big difference between what a peer-reviewed study published in a respected and reputable scientific journal (not all are) concludes and what is extrapolated from it by others. Most scientific studies today explore very narrow parameters and draw very specific conclusions based on those specific parameters. Anything beyond that is pure speculation from a scientific point of view since the variables generally change. Speculation is fun, but it may or may not be valid. We see this all the time with nutritional health information. That is one reason why there are so many competing claims about what may or may not be good or bad for one's health. This is an extremely complex question, that at this point can only be addressed in generalities. It is conceivable that soy products in general may have adverse effects on one population and have beneficial effects on another depending on the other variables. It is also conceivable and likely that there is variation within a population and that what may be bad for most is good for some. Occassionally, however, there is overwhelming weight as to the general effects of a particular substance on a population - cigarettes, for example that while not necessarily having the same effect on every individual, has such a high probability of an effect that it makes sense to adhere to the general advice regarding it.

My approach is anything in moderation.

[macrosan]

Peer review will almost always maintain the status quo of the scientific community, which is in many senses the most conservative of all intellectual communities.

This argument is usually made, first, by people who don't really understand how the peer review process and, second, by people who have a naive view of science as something done by unsung geniuses in their garages.

Well you got me on the first count, Matthew Guilty as charged. But not the second. My criticism about scientists derives from my perception that they exalt themselves above ordinary lay folk, and that they often refuse to accept the criticism of people who "don't understand the science". I;'m also not a great fan of the principle that discovery is of itself a "fine and honorable thing". I read of scientists who lay claim to the right to discover, without being willing to enter into the philosophical and moral argument about the possible threats that their discovery might present to society.

Sure I know this is a blanket position. Sure I know there are countless scientists who do not behave as above. Some of my best friends are scientists. But those are the people I don't have to worry about, whereas the ones working for Mr Tobacco and Mr Soy and Mr GM almost certainly should be worried about.

[trillium]

I have a serious question to ask: Does anybody here, besides Trillum, think that I should have rejected Nina Planck's article? Or do most believe that, on balance, despite what I do consider to be some flaws in the way the argument is presented, it was something that deserved to be published? Did everybody catch the part in the bio at the end about how HarperCollins is publishing a book-length version of much the same thesis that Nina Planck has been presenting (and will continue to present) in the pieces we're publishing in The Daily Gullet? Also, is anybody under the impression that it represents the viewpoint of anybody but its author?

Hang on a minute. I never, ever said you should have rejected Ms. Planck's article. That's leaping to a conclusion I never reached. I think it was in need some serious editing from someone with a basic understanding of biology. I think if you publish an article that is giving people nutritional advice it's only ethical to make sure that it's clear it is an opinion. I think it makes for better reading if those opinions are also given in a clearer context. Reading referenced work can make for boring reading, but surely there is a middle ground. I never felt it reflected the viewpoint of anyone but the author, I do think that the article as published diminishes credibility on the author's part for sure, and more along the same lines will certainly diminish the credibility of this site. I'll admit a certain sensitivity to what I see as irresponsible reporting of "scientific fact". As a basic science researcher, I hate to see something reported as established gospel truth when it's just a single finding in a long line of studies, and then when later studies come out refuting it, the lay person feels betrayed and makes an assumption that all scientists are lying bastards. Science thrives on argument, it's what improves our understanding. An article doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are of course, the egotistical glory seekers who believe they should have the final say, but for the most part, we're actually a pretty careful bunch when it comes to claiming something is "true". I'm talking about people doing research in an academic setting. I have no experience with research in an industrial setting.

The HarperCollins thing just made me really wonder, but then diet psuedoscience books get published all the time and by authors with impressive initials after they're names. It may surprise some people to realize that just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they know how to do properly controlled research, but it's the truth. As for the MSG site you listed, I'm fairly certain you could go to PubMed and pull up just as many, if not more, citations that list an opposing view. It goes back to what I said about context and an awareness of the body of literature that surrounds a given finding. Calling glutamate a known neurotoxin is a little like saying that water kills you, except that Joe Blow tends to know a lot more about dehydration and drowning then they do about neuroscience.

regards,

trillium

[smallworld]

I enjoyed the article and hope to see more articles that take a similarly skeptical view of health fads.

But I agree with a lot of the criticism, epsecially related to MSG- an author better have some really convincing stats if she wants to make provocative statements like 'MSG is a brain poison'.

But my real beef is not with MSG but with the following statement:

The Japanese and Chinese eat 10 grams of soy per day -- about two teaspoons.

I'd love to know where this stat comes from. And I'd also like to see it broken down into regions. China has a huge population and a great deal of variation in regional diets, so it makes sense that lots of Chinese don't eat soy products regularly. If you mix millions of people who eat little or no tofu with millions more who eat lots, then sure- you'll find that Chinese and Japanese eat only 10g of soy products per day.

But since most studies that show the benefits of soy products in an Asian diet focus on Japan, why not show us the numbers for Japan only?

Actually, to anyone living here, stats aren't necessary- it's obvious that the Japanese eat way more than 10g of soy per day.

In some supermarkets the tofu section is bigger than the meat section- and that's just where the tofu, natto (fermented soybeans), atsu-age (fried blocks of tofu) and abura-age (fried sheets of tofu) are sold. There's much more.

In the produce section you'll find edamame (fresh green soybeans), mame-moyashi and toumyou (two kinds of soy bean sprouts).

In the dried foods section there's dried soybeans- regular, green and black, as well as soy bean flour. Sheets of yuba (dried soymilk skin) and koori-dofu (freeze-dried tofu) too.

Canned soybeans in the canned food section, soy milk in the beverage section.

An entire miso section with dozens of varieties.

There are many more soy products, too many to list, but I hope this supermarket tour gives some idea of the importance of soy in Japan. And if there are so many soy products being sold, it's easy to imagine that poeple here eat more than 10g per day.

[Fat Guy]

Latest pro-soy material:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030620/dcf030_1.html

[engberson]

Oh man, Ms. Planck is gonna be pissed at this latest maneuver by the "soy lobby."

Those bastards ...

ps -- I don't want to wake a basically dead topic, but I came late, and I want to express that which so many seemed to dance around. I don't think you should have published the piece. For reasons previously discussed (and some not), I don't think it would fly with your basic high school journalism teacher. First semester. A teacher wouldn't even grade it; he or she would reiterate some elementary principles and ask the student to resubmit it.

That said, I look forward to the next submission from Mr. Blair, uh, shoot, I mean, Ms. Planck.

[macrosan]

Latest pro-soy material:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030620/dcf030_1.html

Who is Sally Squires, and how is she scientifically qualified to make those assertions ?

Who are "Foods for the Future", the organization cited as the source of her information ?

[Katherine]

Other good sources of friendly bacteria and the nutrients that help them survive in the body, in addition to soy products, include buttermilk, cheese, kefir -- similar to yogurt, but a fermented milk product resembling a milkshake -- and yogurt.

She's confusing "supporting beneficial bacterial growth" (which soy products may or may not do, she has given no evidence to that effect) with providing bacteria, which fermented dairy products do.

Tofu and soy milk are not fermented and do not contain live cultures.

Edited June 22, 2003 by Katherine (log)

[Fat Guy]

I don't think you should have published the piece. For reasons previously discussed (and some not), I don't think it would fly with your basic high school journalism teacher. First semester. A teacher wouldn't even grade it; he or she would reiterate some elementary principles and ask the student to resubmit it.

You've said exactly nothing here. I think you need to resubmit your post.

[smallworld]

An article from this Sunday's Japan Times about soy products in Japan:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getart...l20030622a1.htm

[engberson]

You've said exactly nothing here. I think you need to resubmit your post.

Note from hypothetical editor:

1. Identify sources. Use footnotes.

2. Document your assertions.

3. Avoid cliches.

4. If, when pressed for a source -- any single goddamn source -- you point to a crackpot "doctor" who doesn't practice medicine or pursue research but travels the country doing seminars, all about a diet book he's trying to sell, well, reconsider your hypothesis.

5. Document your assertions, no foolin'. Anything, throw me a bone, here. This reads like a piece on UFOs. Or something from the American Spectator.

6. Maybe #4 is too subjective. But really, reconsider your hypothesis. I'm not kidding.

7. Don't wake dead topics. Get in when it's current or just keep your fool mouth shut.

--

Sorry, Fat Guy, but this piece was a bummer. "Morris doesn't like it, and I don't like it either." But thanks for making fun of me; that was all right. And if you have to publish garbage to get an inspired discussion going, I wholeheartedly approve. Oh, oh! And you know what? This experience has made me an msg booster. I like it, and I cook with it, but now I'll go out of my way to defend it. Pretty neat, huh?

[engberson]

I should have added a smiley, like Fat Guy did, but I don't know how to work those yet.

[SobaAddict70]

I should have added a smiley, like Fat Guy did, but I don't know how to work those yet.

I thought El Gordo was being his usual facetious self, but what the hell do I know.

Soba

[slkinsey]

Doesn't eGullet have a well-paid staff of fat editors and fat fact-checkers for this kind of thing?

[Fat Guy]

1. Identify sources. Use footnotes.

2. Document your assertions.

3. Avoid cliches.

4. If, when pressed for a source -- any single goddamn source -- you point to a crackpot "doctor" who doesn't practice medicine or pursue research but travels the country doing seminars, all about a diet book he's trying to sell, well, reconsider your hypothesis.

5. Document your assertions, no foolin'. Anything, throw me a bone, here. This reads like a piece on UFOs. Or something from the American Spectator.

6. Maybe #4 is too subjective. But really, reconsider your hypothesis. I'm not kidding.

7. Don't wake dead topics. Get in when it's current or just keep your fool mouth shut.

Seven variations of the same point about sources; I thought we addressed this already. We're not an academic journal. We don't use footnotes. The most relevant standard is what one would apply to a submission from a newspaper columnist. Did the New York Times reject Bob Herbert's editorial today because it depends on Citizens for Tax Justice (as cited by another journalist) as its only source?

[slkinsey]

The most relevant standard is what one would apply to a submission from a newspaper columnist. Did the New York Times reject Bob Herbert's editorial today because it depends on Citizens for Tax Justice (as cited by another journalist) as its only source?

This makes sense to me. Most TDG submissions strike me as being much closer to editorial writing than they do to regular news reporting. I don't know anything about the newspaper business, but my guess is that the NYT doesn't really care what sources Bob Herbert uses when he writes his editorials. Editorials are opinion pieces trying to make a point. There is no presumption that the writing will be free of bias or solidly supported (although the presumption must be that there is some support, as Mike Barnacle was fired from the Globe for inventing some things in his columns). I assume the Times feels that Bob Herbert will be called to task by his colleagues/adversaries and the reading public if he relies on questionable sources to support his editorials.

This is why these pieces are confined to the editorial pages, and why Bob Herbert's columns aren't included among the regular news reporting.

[MatthewB]

Gosh, I can't believe everything I read? Unless there are footnotes & stuff?

Thanks for bursting my bubble.

[fresco]

A TDG piece without the opinion would be about as appealing as a beer without the alcohol.