Soybeans need to be cooked for a good long time to inactivate the bad stuff..
It takes as little as 10 minutes of cooking. This is a "long time"? It takes that long to cook my pasta!!! And it takes longer than that to cook raw soybeans.
As for the study I want to point out that first of all we are not mice and do not share their chemistry. Secondly there are many studies showing the anti-cancer properties of soy. And if you look at the study you cited you will see that soy flour had no effect on the cancer despite the fact that it would still contain the phytoestrogens. When molasses was added though there was cancer cell proliferation. So maybe it is the molasses promoting the cancer. Molasses contains both sugar and iron, both well known for proliferating cancer cells.
I've never cooked soybeans but everything I've read says that they need to be cooked for a long time. Are you talking about dried beans?
To cook dried beans does take more than 10 minutes. What I was pointing out is that the goitrogens and enzyme inhibitors are destroyed with as little as 10 minutes of cooking. So by the time you cook the soybeans to eat them these compounds will have been long gone.
well to say that "it takes as little as 10 minutes" is misleading since the beans would certainly NOT be edible in 10 minutes.
My problem with soy is in how it is presented to us as "food". Soy is formulated as cheap protein to feed the masses, period. And when I say "cheap" I'm talking about the bean itself, the raw material from which to concoct endless non-meat products. I'm sure that the profit margin on these products is huge.
I don't hear of people enjoying a dish of soybeans and rice, from what I've read, the bean is bitter. It HAS to be processed to make it edible.
And therein lies the problem, IMO. I stay away from processed foods and I think that I can safely say that other CZers try to do the same. I feel very blessed that I can choose:)
Good info in this book about how soy is processed:
Traditional and non-traditional foods By Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, R. Ferrando ~1981 (yeah I know it's old but it's good)
how are soybeans "nontraditional" food? They have been being eaten for literally thousands of years. How much more traditional can you get?
and the idea that they HAVE to be extensively processed is just wrong. Somewhere on this thread I linked the Wikipedia entry to edamame. These are young soybeans still in the pod, boiled, and then served. That's it. No more processing at all. People in Japan have been enjoying that delicacy for centuries.
If you don't like soybeans, that's fine. No problem. Don't eat them.
But don't spread misinformation and false propaganda.
soybeans will make boys grow breasts! Soybeans will give you cancer! Soybeans will drop your sperm count to zero! Soybeans need to be processed by 13 different industrial factories on three different continents before they can be eaten!
None of those things are true. It's all just ridiculous hype and scare mongering
Truth is I don't even really like soybeans that much. But I don't like fear mongering either
"But don't spread misinformation and false propaganda.
soybeans will make boys grow breasts! Soybeans will give you cancer! Soybeans will drop your sperm count to zero! Soybeans need to be processed by 13 different industrial factories on three different continents before they can be eaten!"
ummm are you actually replying to my post? Did I say any of that?
And, BTW, I did NOT have the honor of naming the book I linked....
well you quoted a book called "the processing of nontraditional foods" that apparently addresses the processing of soybeans. So I commented on the title of that book, since it is ridiculous to call soybeans "nontraditional foods"
As for the rest of it, I am paraphrasing (and parodying) all of the other allegations that various people have made on this thread.
I was also addressing the notion that you have raised repeatedly that soybeans have to be "extensively" process in order to become edible. That is simply not true. As the centuries long tradition of eating edamame demonstrates
well fer cryin out loud I'm trying to have a civil discussion here. Can you please attempt to do the same and not saddle me with the responsibility of addressing every concern forum members have expressed?
Soy was never used as a staple food in the past except in times of staple crop shortages\failures... such as rice, etc.
It was almost always used fermented, or, in some cases as mentioned in this thread... cooked thoroughly.
the problem?
It was never to be a staple food... breakfast lunch and dinner... people who have made it such in their diets run into problems.
Another issue is that soy has been introduced rather recently to many people who were never exposed to it before... and as groups of genetically linked people may have problems with dairy, other genetically linked groups... have problems with soy.
Then we have metabolic differences... among other things. And the new eating for your genetic type.
Best to know your ancestry... and your ancestors diets before chowing down on most anything.
If you have Asian ancestry, one will likely tolerate moderate amounts of soy well... if not?
of course I am speaking of non-gmo for sure... gmo soy has been linked conclusively to huge increases in food allergic reactions, etc.
horizontal gene transfer, intestinal flora disruption, and all of that.
this horizontal gene transfer is an environmental stress (on top of pollution, acidification, work, family etc. etc.) that forces an extinction of a species, or, if lucky, an adaptive response that can take generations to occur.
So much is happening so fast right now though, that we are in a sixth extinction event... right now... and humans may be dragged into it.
GMOS and agricultural cides are huge players in this extinction due to the *stress* they cause on any given living species, and should be banned outright as the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has called for... among MANY other human\planetary\animal\environmental advocates.
once upon a time virtually no human beings drink any kind of milk. Then they learned how to domesticate animals and people started drinking animal milk. This was a radical new dietary introduction. Now we consider it perfectly normal
Once upon a time no Europeans ate any kind of potatoes, yams, peppers, strawberries, blueberriesetc. why? Because those are New World foods and they had not discovered the New World yet. Now Europeans and people of European descent thrive on those foods
Cinnamon and oranges both come from the east.
Just because a specific population has not beaten a certain type of food, doesn't mean that it's wrong or toxic for them to be introduced to that food
>>"once upon a time virtually no human beings drink any kind of milk"<<
Yes, only humans who were hunters got that luxury on occasion.
Same *IS* true with any *domesticated* crop including grains, legumes, including SOY etc.
And that is my point... know your dietary ancestry - roots.
In all honesty... the more of a *mutt* (mixed breed) one is, the wider the variety of foods they *should* be able to tolerate.
>>"Once upon a time no Europeans ate any kind of potatoes, yams, peppers, strawberries, blueberriesetc."<<
Yes, about 65% of food variety comes from the *New World*, however, with a few exceptions, most of it was wild varieties initially.
>>"Because those are New World foods and they had not discovered the New World yet. Now Europeans and people of European descent thrive on those foods"<<
Again, my point... and adaptation to the food occurred.
Citrus... same thing... I know many people allergic to citrus to the point that they stop breathing just from the smell alone... they do not have the dietary adaptations, due to their ancestry to tolerate citrus.
>>"just because a specific population has not beaten a certain type of food, doesn't mean that it's wrong or toxic for them to be introduced to that food"<<
true... if you had thought through what I have stated... using foods you are unfamiliar with, or not adapted to, can be done in moderation... as long as there are no noticeable\severe allergic reactions to them.
There is NO food that is ideal for everyone... and there is NO diet that is ideal for everyone... we have all adapted UNIQUELY, to different foods through our INDIVIDUAL ancestry.
If you love and tolerate soy and eat it every day... go for it... I would fall ill doing that... I almost gag just thinking of soy milk... but that is ME and my ancestry.
>>"Once upon a time no Europeans ate any kind of potatoes, yams, peppers, strawberries, blueberriesetc."<<
Yes, about 65% of food variety comes from the *New World*, however, with a few exceptions, most of it was wild varieties initially.
And their genes were modified to make them bigger, better stability, better flavor, more disease tolerance, etc. Do you realize that if genes were not modified that corn would not exist the way it is today? Corn started out as tiny grass seeds. So how would anyone have a tolerance to the constantly changing genetics of crops? The answer is the body adapts. We do not need the "ancestry" for certain foods.
>>"Because those are New World foods and they had not discovered the New World yet. Now Europeans and people of European descent thrive on those foods"<<
Again, my point... and adaptation to the food occurred.
And read my last response again because adaptation does no require long periods of time. The body adapts to new foods very quickly.
Citrus... same thing... I know many people allergic to citrus to the point that they stop breathing just from the smell alone... they do not have the dietary adaptations, due to their ancestry to tolerate citrus.
Again what our ancestors ate has NOTHING to do with what we can or cannot eat today.
There is NO food that is ideal for everyone... and there is NO diet that is ideal for everyone... we have all adapted UNIQUELY, to different foods through our INDIVIDUAL ancestry.
No, we adapt to foods as we eat them. Nothing to do with our ancestors. Let me give you an example. I was allergic to both mother's milk and cow's milk as an infant up to the age of 5. My ancestors had both, yet I till had allergies to these until I OUTGREW these allergies. How did I outgrow my allergies like so many other children do? Because what I was eating had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what my ancestors ate. It had to do with giving my adrenals time to mature since allergies stem from adrenal dysfunction, not what what some distant relative ate or did not eat.
If you love and tolerate soy and eat it every day... go for it... I would fall ill doing that... I almost gag just thinking of soy milk... but that is ME and my ancestry.
Gagging because of thinking of soy milk shows a psychosomatic reaction. This is not a physical reaction to the soy milk. This is a great example of why people need to stop posting all the false propaganda about soy. It leads to people developing psychosomatic reactions to soy because they think it is toxic and therefore the body follows through with how the subconcious mind believes the body should react.
The human genome changes ever so slowly over the eons. What nourished our ancestors and what they tolerated has EVERYTHING to do with what nourishes us and what we tolerate. That is not to say that we do not tolerate food crops which man has developed over the centuries through selective breeding, which could occur in nature after all. In most instances, man of thousands of years ago might have tolerated many such crops quite well. Trans-gendered food crops and crops artifically mutated by man which were highly unlikely to evolve in nature are quite another matter. They are anything but natural and we do not tolerate them any more than we tolerate the vast majority of man-made pharmaeuticals and chemical compounds. Why? Because all of those are things that we have not lived alongside and adapted to for thousands of years. These are truths which should be obvious.
the rate of the genetic change (in all living things on this rock) occurring today is unprecedented in man's history due to chemical toxins, including pollution, etc., and gm modification.
Obviously, disease and illness, along with death is the *price* we will pay for our folly.
The human genome changes ever so slowly over the eons. What nourished our ancestors and what they tolerated has EVERYTHING to do with what nourishes us and what we tolerate. That is not to say that we do not tolerate food crops which man has developed over the centuries through selective breeding, which could occur in nature after all. In most instances, man of thousands of years ago might have tolerated many such crops quite well. Trans-gendered food crops and crops artifically mutated by man which were highly unlikely to evolve in nature are quite another matter. They are anything but natural and we do not tolerate them any more than we tolerate the vast majority of man-made pharmaeuticals and chemical compounds. Why? Because all of those are things that we have not lived alongside and adapted to for thousands of years. These are truths which should be obvious.
So what do you eat? Nearly every plant on the market today has been manipulated by man changing its genetics. Same for most meat sources except for wild fish. So what do you eat that has 100% of the same genetics as it was when your ancestors ate this food 1,000 years ago?
I submit that there is a difference between plants created via selective breeding and cross pollination - as could have occured in nature - and those which man has created via trans species genetic transplanted material, artificial gene manipulation and and other unnaturally created plant and animal forms.
What my ancestors ate a thousand years ago and what was around a thousand years ago may have little resemblance to today, but is has everything to to with what I might be able to adapt to eat today. I probably eat healthier than 90% of the folks around, and I could eat a lot healthier still. I do try to avoid unhealthy foods and GMO items. Such as soy.
Home
The Truth about Soy Foods 
I can't speak for Asian history/diet... Re: sorry, still asking?? 
