Re: Shaklee Soy Spin

[Guest guest]

My comments below:

>There are a number of anti-soy articles being distributed over the Internet

>and through various publications. They are often found under such headlines

>as " Soy Alert, " " The Dark Side of Soy, " " The Dangers of Soy, " and so forth.

>While the themes in these articles are provocative, it is our view that they

>lack substantiation. Even if we give such articles the benefit of the doubt

>as well-intentioned, they are nonetheless example of what one of the 20th

>Century's greatest thinkers, humanitarians, and Nobel Laureates, Dr. Albert

>Schweitzer, warned was mankind's greatest danger-loss of rational

>thinking.[1]

Good move on their part. Quote a famouse scientist, get his name

in there. NOT that Schwietzer knew a darn thing about soy.

>Let's be honest. Were soy the notorious poison that it is claimed to be in

>these articles, it surely would have been banned long ago.we would have

>observed soy consumers suffering highly disproportionate rates of cancer,

>dementia, physical deformities, myriad other diseases, and otherwise

>dropping dead from consuming soy.

Obviously untrue. People were dropping dead in disproportionate rates

from cancer from cigarettes for CENTURIES before anyone believed

it. Also, most of the people who are warning against soy are not

calling it a " notorious poison " -- they are painting the opposition

as quacks and alarmists, which is a great political tool, but not

very scientific.

>One anti-soy article tells us about a flock of commercial birds, some of

>which died as a result of being fed soy, and asks, " If soy does this to

>birds, what is it doing to us? " The connection is erroneous and illogical,

>and it seems the bird keepers knew less than their flock. Birds do not seek

>out soy for food, and sound science knows that animal data does not

>automatically translate to humans. For example, Thalidomide, the drug that

>caused tragic birth defects in humans, did not cause birth defects in test

>animals; and as any dog lover knows, humans enjoy chocolate with no ill

>effects, but it can be lethal to canines.

It could be that the article they read was flawed and illogical, but

that doesn't prove that soy is good for anyone. I don't think anyone

disagrees that animals and people process things differently.

>Another article says, " Preliminary studies (these are not referenced or

>footnoted) indicate that children given soy formula go through puberty much

>earlier than children who were not fed soy products, " and that " .the trend

>toward lower male fertility may be due to environmental estrogens, including

>soy phytoestrogens (again, no references). " The medical literature provides

>no evidence of endocrine effects in humans from infant consumption of modern

>soy-based formulas. Growth is normal, and no changes in timing of puberty

>or in fertility rates have been reported in humans who consumed soy formula

>as infants.[2]

Some of the mainstream nutritionists are now saying that soy should not

be given to kids in any large amounts. But I'm not sure what " normal " is

for kids anyway, since most kids are getting hormone-laced milk

and they are ALL maturing earlier.

>Indeed. A recent study of patients with high cholesterol who were given soy

>protein showed significant reductions in LDL (bad) cholesterol, and that soy

>protein did not increase the risk of hormone-induced cancers.[3] Soybean

>compounds appear to also reduce the incidence of colon, prostate, and breast

>cancer.[4] Of course, if one is being treated for cancer, or has a family

>history of cancer, one should seek the advice of a physician concerning soy

>or any food additions or modifications to diet. It just makes sense.

The data on soy is pretty mixed. Some studies DO seem to show good

results on some things. But they don't mention the issues that

most of US complain about -- phytates, allergic reactions, the

fact it is a new and fairly untested food.

I think it is a good strategy on their point: answer the most fringe claims

and paint the opponents as illogical, then quote the best studies. It's

the kind of strategy I'd expect from a lawyer or politician -- but not

from someone interested in truth or health. I DO get so irritated by

things written by someone trying to sell something. I'd have much

greater respect if they wrote:

" Soy has shown some promise in preventing xyz. Some people also

feel it may be somewhat indigestible and cause allergic reactions.

We have done our own research and recommend ______ " . Or something

like that.

>The Internet is a rich source of unsupported, unreliable data and opinions.

That's what my doctor kept saying to me. Personally I find doctors to be

a rich source of unreliable opinions sometimes too! And ads and company

data is a REALLY rich source of unreliable data. No point in dissing the

Internet specifically ...

>We encourage a skeptical approach to such information, and recommend a look

>at such reputable sites as The American Council for Science and Health

>(www.acsh.org), HealthCentral (www.healthcentral.com), or for the more

>technically adept, The National Library of Medicine

>(www.nlm.nih.gov/hinfo.html), to name a few. And for more on soy issues

>from Shaklee's Health Sciences staff please visit the Reference Library and

>Hot Topics in the Member Center at www.shaklee.net./members.

So here are the people you can trust ... :-)

-- Heidi

(member of unreliable and skeptical group)

[Guest guest]

>The Internet is a rich source of unsupported, unreliable data and opinions.

That's what my doctor kept saying to me. Personally I find doctors to be

a rich source of unreliable opinions sometimes too!

------->hahahaha! good one!

>We encourage a skeptical approach to such information, and recommend a look

>at such reputable sites as The American Council for Science and Health

>(www.acsh.org), HealthCentral (www.healthcentral.com), or for the more

>technically adept, The National Library of Medicine

>(www.nlm.nih.gov/hinfo.html), to name a few. And for more on soy issues

>from Shaklee's Health Sciences staff please visit the Reference Library and

>Hot Topics in the Member Center at www.shaklee.net./members.

So here are the people you can trust ... :-)

--------->LOL! right, they only encourage a " skeptical approach " to the

opposition, that, if the consumer believed it, woud cost them mucho dinero.

never mind encourage a skeptical approach to *their* self-serving

information.

anyway, i just clicked on one of the links shaklee provided as a source of

" reputable information " and came across this:

" The problem, researchers say, is that isoflavones are phytoestrogens, a

weak form of estrogen that could have a drug-like effect in the body. This

may be pronounced in postmenopausal women, and some studies suggest that

high isoflavone levels might increase the risk of cancer, particularly

breast cancer. Research data, however, are far from conclusive, and some

studies show just the opposite--that under some conditions, soy may help

prevent breast cancer. It is this scientific conundrum, where evidence

simultaneously points to benefits and possible risks, that is causing some

researchers to urge caution. "

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html

this pretty much mirror what you said heidi about the data on soy being

mixed. maybe shaklee should read some of *their* " reputable sources " on soy

before deciding it's a healthy part of the diet and mass producing foods

containing soy?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>maybe shaklee should read some of *their* " reputable sources " on soy

>before deciding it's a healthy part of the diet and mass producing foods

>containing soy?

>

>Suze Fisher

Heh heh. Yeah. And someone should mention digestibility ...

I remember in the '70s we were just adding soy powder to

everything, no mention of lectins etc. Now people are cooking

with " bean flour " too --- gads, I work so hard to get my

beans digestible (soaking, boiling, changing water ...). The idea

of just grinding them up and putting them in food does

NOT strike me as a good idea. I have to say the NT is the ONLY

book I've ever read that actually says some foods are more

digestible than others.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Great comments Heidi & Suze, thanks.

I always was a little leery of Shaklee - but didn't know why - maybe it was

the multi-level marketing scheme? Now I can clearly see that their position

on soy makes them just another huge money machine - plowing forward in the

name of " good " health.

-

RE: Shaklee Soy Spin

>

> >maybe shaklee should read some of *their* " reputable sources " on soy

> >before deciding it's a healthy part of the diet and mass producing foods

> >containing soy?

> >

> >Suze Fisher

>

> Heh heh. Yeah. And someone should mention digestibility ...

> I remember in the '70s we were just adding soy powder to

> everything, no mention of lectins etc. Now people are cooking

> with " bean flour " too --- gads, I work so hard to get my

> beans digestible (soaking, boiling, changing water ...). The idea

> of just grinding them up and putting them in food does

> NOT strike me as a good idea. I have to say the NT is the ONLY

> book I've ever read that actually says some foods are more

> digestible than others.

>

> -- Heidi

>

>

-

[Guest guest]

,

For what its worth, I have taken Shaklee supplements for years and no doubt

about it they have helped tremendously. In fact my only real glitch with

Shaklee is that they use soy (non-GMO) in their products. I don't use any

of the soy containing products except for the Vitamin E and B-complex. I

have taken other brand supplements and I never seemed to get quite the

results. IMO, in recent years Shaklee has tended to push sales too hard.

They still have excellent products its just they seem to discount getting

good quality food and push supplements harder. I prefer to look at it the

other way. Find, grow or buy good quality food and then supplement, if

necessary.

danny

Creek Bend Dairy Farm

Harry & Peggy Strite

11917 Snug Harbor Lane

port, MD 21795

301-582-4135

cbdfarm@...

Re: Shaklee Soy Spin

> Great comments Heidi & Suze, thanks.

>

> I always was a little leery of Shaklee - but didn't know why - maybe it

was

> the multi-level marketing scheme? Now I can clearly see that their

position

> on soy makes them just another huge money machine - plowing forward in the

> name of " good " health.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Danny,

That's good feedback - I appreciate it. I also agree with you about eating

the right foods - reduces greatly or eliminates the need for supplements.

I thought that pretty much everyone grows Roundup-Ready soybeans - and

that's GM - right? The point (possibly wrong) is that non-GM soy would be

as rare as non GM canola

-

> ,

> For what its worth, I have taken Shaklee supplements for years and no

doubt

> about it they have helped tremendously. In fact my only real glitch with

> Shaklee is that they use soy (non-GMO) in their products. I don't use any

> of the soy containing products except for the Vitamin E and B-complex. I

> have taken other brand supplements and I never seemed to get quite the

> results. IMO, in recent years Shaklee has tended to push sales too hard.

> They still have excellent products its just they seem to discount getting

> good quality food and push supplements harder. I prefer to look at it the

> other way. Find, grow or buy good quality food and then supplement, if

> necessary.

>

> danny

-

[Guest guest]

,

You are correct that RoundupReady beans are a GMO. While it is hard to find

a non-GMO bean it is not impossible. My only concern would be cross

contamination or cross pollination (if possible). Shaklee issued a

statement several months ago stating that they would us a non-gmo bean in

their soy production. I trust them on that. But it really doesn't make any

difference to me because I don't use the soy products. I find raw eggs to

be just as digestible and much cheaper. I have used their soy protein off

and on over the past 10 years, but I never really could tell a huge

difference one way or another. Of course I was already drinking a lot of

raw milk so maybe I was getting enough protein. I know of several people

who take Shaklee's soy protein on a daily basis and have for years. As far

as I know they have none of the problems Sally Fallon has associated with

soy. Its kinda of weird you hear all these horror stories about people

using soy products and having so many problems but I have never heard one of

these stories associated with Shaklee's. My personal opinion is there are

more problems associated with the sprays and pesticides put on the beans

than with the beans themselves. Shaklee uses organic non-gmo beans, or at

least non sprayed beans and hence fewer problems. Who knows?

hope that helps,

danny

Creek Bend Dairy Farm

Harry & Peggy Strite

11917 Snug Harbor Lane

port, MD 21795

301-582-4135

cbdfarm@...

> Danny,

> That's good feedback - I appreciate it. I also agree with you about

eating

> the right foods - reduces greatly or eliminates the need for supplements.

>

> I thought that pretty much everyone grows Roundup-Ready soybeans - and

> that's GM - right? The point (possibly wrong) is that non-GM soy would be

> as rare as non GM canola

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

>I find raw eggs to

> be just as digestible and much cheaper. I have used their soy protein off

> and on over the past 10 years, but I never really could tell a huge

> difference one way or another. Of course I was already drinking a lot of

> raw milk so maybe I was getting enough protein.

I'm with you - raw eggs & raw milk - " Tastes Great, More Filling "

-

-