|
Two Faced About Soy?
"The Two Faces of Soy: Does it Harm or Help?" segment on the Dr. Oz Show.
Date: 10/6/2010 1:45:10 AM ( 15 y ) ... viewed 2582 times I hardly ever watch TV. Maybe once a year I will look a some of an extraordinary event like a special event in the Olympics. I have never watched the Dr. Oz show before this afternoon. The only reason I did was because Dr. Kaayla Daniel, the author of "The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America's Favorite Health Food", made an appearance.
I cut out a precious hour of my day to see this and even had alerted a few friends to watch it as well saying it was "guaranteed to be informative". I trusted Dr. Kaayla Daniel's knowledge on this subject. I didn't know what part Dr.Oz would play and I wasn't familiar with the other guest who was pro-soy although he modified his pro-soy position by saying avoid the "Franken-food" soy but nevertheless endorsed eating "whole soy products like tofu". (I wonder what he means by using the term "whole foods" when he says eat tofu.) I think I must have had expectations of hearing more of Kaayla Daniel and less of Dr. Oz because I felt disappointment upon the end of that segment and realizing that Dr Oz had the last word and naturally it was his own dietary dictocratic declaration.
Kaayla had two very brief opportunities to say something in reply to what Dr. Oz posed. I have concluded that the segment was much too brief and really deserved to have more time. However, I would prefer that extended time be hosted on another show like possibly Oprah. I found the message of Dr. Oz noticeably contradictory to some of the referenced information that he referred to. His own message definitely wasn't impartial. He did not fulfill the role of a neutral host and I realize now that I had an unconscious expectation that he would be playing that role. It eventually became clear that he had a pre-determined position and I believe that the way he arranged that segment was ultra strategic on his part.
He acknowledged that soy is the number two crop in the country, a multi-billion agricultural product! In the best interest of his TV show I imagine that he can not afford to piss-off the soy industry. So he endorsed "the whole soy" as well as tofu. His site recommends regular consumption of it and contrasts against animal products that he essentially denigrates as "high in saturated fat":
"Dr. Oz's Recommendation -
Until the jury sets the record straight and says with confidence that dietary soy is indeed without risk, soy should be eaten in moderation as part of a healthy plant-based diet that also includes lots of fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and whole grains.
Soy protein is a still a great substitute for animal protein and dairy, which is high in saturated fat."
Are we going to trust the declarations of one who presents himself as an authority (doctor) who on one hand admits there are questions regarding health risks with soy and then says it should be eaten (albeit in moderation). Can this possibly be two-faced position about soy?
Is he misinformed? Soy protein is absolutely not a substitute for animal protein and dairy! How can it possibly be when soy does not have a history as a traditional food that was relied upon as a main protein source. The traditional history of soy as food for humans is largely one as a fermented food! These fermented products were used sparingly and more as flavoring, kind of like a condiment. Condiments may compliment the real foods but they do not replace real foods. There are plenty of other foods that were historically relied upon as "protein" sources throughout the Orient and therefor soy should not even be considered as a real protein food for humans or even as a recommended option but at the very best as a condiment and only if it is fermented. Dr. Kaayla Daniel goes into all the whys of this and her two very brief replies on the Dr. Oz show did not do her expertise (in this field) reasonable justice. In fact the show appears to me as a kind of "set-up" for possibly dismissing the long- standing, wise traditional-based perspective that un-fermented soy products are generally not good for food.
Remember the statement Dr. Oz made: "Until the jury sets the record straight and says with confidence that dietary soy is indeed without risk"? Fat chance of that happening - because where in the world can we find a "jury" that could be both capable of determining the truth about dietary soy and then declaring it to be "without risk"?!? That would be like saying pasteurized and homogenized dairy products [from confinement dairy operations that are feeding grain (and worse) to the animals] could possibly be determined to be without risk. We now know the difference between "the two milks" and that the one intended for pasteurization is the one that absolutely must be pasteurized precisely because of the tremendous risks that the product has!
Read more about the truth of soy from Dr. Kaayla Daniel:
http://blog.wholesoystory.com/
I searched for comments at Dr. Oz's site and found nothing there! If I could I would ask him four questions:
1.) How much soy does he eat?
2.) What forms of soy does he eat?
3.) How long has he been eating soy?
4.) Does he have any digestive issues?
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/two-faces-soy-does-it-harm-or-help?hs317=billb...
#################################
September 15, 2012 -
Just found this article in my current search re: cross-contamination of GMO soy into organic soy fields.
http://www.theholykale.com/2012/03/soy-to-eat-or-not-to-eat/
###########################################################
Chef Jem's Last Word: if a soy product is not one of the traditionally fermented food items then, IMO, it is all "Franken-food"!
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
