Re: the magic bean

Another great example of the misinformation being spread around the net about soy.  This article is so biased and so full of mistakes and contradicting claims.  Let's look at some examples.

They claim that soy is not a complete protein, but other sites say differently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein

"Some foods contain all the essential amino acids on their own in a sufficient amount to qualify as a "complete protein". Complete protein foods that also obtain the highest possible PDCAAS score of 1.0 are certain dairy products, egg whites, and soy protein isolate. Other foods, such as amaranth, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, buckwheat, hempseed, meat, poultry, soybeans, quinoa, seafood, and spirulina also are complete protein foods, but may not obtain a PDCAAS score of 1.0.[1][5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean

"Soy protein products can be good substitutes for animal products because, unlike some other beans, soy offers a 'complete' protein profile. ... Soy protein products can replace animal-based foods—which also have complete proteins but tend to contain more fat, especially saturated fat—without requiring major adjustments elsewhere in the diet.[5]"

"The gold standard for measuring protein quality, since 1990, is the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) and by this criterion soy protein is the nutritional equivalent of meat, eggs, and casein for human growth and health. Soybean protein isolate has a biological value of 74, whole soybeans 96, soybean milk 91, and eggs 97.[8]"

The site claims that raw milk is not only a complete protein but also contains vitamin D in its "perfect form".   Milk contains INACTIVE vitamin D₂.  So how is this its perfect form?  Vitamin D₂ has to be converted in to vitamin D₃ by the liver then in to active D₃ by the kidneys for it to be used by the body.

The site claims that soybeans are not like other beans where they can just be cooked and eaten.  Why not?  Cooking destroys the goitergens and trypsin inhibitors.

Then they claim that it was not really used as a food source originally.  Instead the author claims that it was either plowed under or fed to animals.  How can the author make this claim when soybeans have been used as a food source for humans for over 5,000 years?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean

"The origins of the soybean plant are obscure, but many botanists believe it to have derived from Glycine ussuriensis, a legume native to central China.[15] The soybean has been used in China for 5,000 years as a food and a component of drugs. According to the ancient Chinese, in 2853 BC the legendary Emperor Shennong of China proclaimed that five plants were sacred: soybeans, rice, wheat, barley, and millet.[16] Cultivation of soybeans was long confined chiefly to China, but gradually spread to other countries.[17]
The earliest preserved soybeans were found in archaeological sites in Korea.[18][19] Radiocarbon dating of soybean samples recovered through flotation during excavations at the Early Mumun period Okbang site in Korea indicates that soybean was cultivated as a food crop in ca. 1000–900 BC.[20]
From about the first century AD to the Age of Discovery (15-16th century), soybeans were introduced into several countries such as India, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, Taiwan and Nepal. This spread was due to the establishment of sea and land trade routes. The best current evidence on the Japanese Archipelago suggests that soybean cultivation occurred in the early Yayoi period. The earliest Japanese textual reference to the soybean is in the classic Kojiki (Records of Ancient Matters) which was completed in 712 AD.
Many people have claimed that soybeans in Asia were historically only used after a fermentation process, which lowers the high phytoestrogens content found in the raw plant. However, terms similar to "soy milk" have been in use since 82 AD,[21] and there is evidence of tofu consumption that dates to 220.[22]"

Next the author falsely claims that the enzyme inhibitors are not destroyed by cooking.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean

"For human consumption, soybeans must be cooked with "wet" heat in order to destroy the trypsin inhibitors (serine protease inhibitors). It is not advisable to eat raw soybeans."

Being that these same enzyme inhibitors are found in other seeds, including grains, I wonder what the author eats?  And why is it that we are not all dead by now from all the enzyme inhibitors we have ingested through seeds all of our lives?

The author's claims about phytic acid are also false.  I have addressed phytic acid and the myths behind it recently so I am not going over it again.  But since the author is claiming that the phytic acid is sequestering zinc allowing iron overload I will address this.  Phytic acid has a higher affinity for iron and heavy metals than it does for zinc.  The phytic acid therefore is one of Nature's way of preventing iron overload.  This is why plant irons are harder to absorb than animal (heme) iron.  So the author has this backward.

In fact the iron binding properties make phytic acid an antioxidant for foods:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119344796/abstract?CRETRY=1&SR...


Next the author complains about hemagglutinin in soy, without mentioning the facts that it is found in other sources such as beans and the fact that it is destroyed by cooking and fermentation.  The author also ignores the fact that the blood thinner nattokinase is found in fermented soy products.

The author also claims as high aluminum content.  Again this is misleading.  I did address this in my soy myths posting on this forum.  Aluminum is a problem in some soy products if they use concentrated alkaline substances with aluminum equipment.  But because the replacement of machined aluminum is very expensive this is not a common practice.  I also find it interesting that the author does not mention the relatively high aluminum content of raw milk, which he seems to like.

It should also be noted that the phytic acid the author mentioned has a high binding capacity for aluminum.  Therefore any aluminum in the soy would be bound up as aluminum phytate rendering it harmless to the body.

The article is too long to address the rest of the myths in it.  But as we can see the author appears to be making up facts as scare tactics.  Especially later in the article when he discusses the phytoestrogens in the soy.  This one is particularly funny as phytoestrogens and the closely related isoflavones are found in every plant we eat.  Even things considered healthy like flax seeds are loaded with phytoestrogens,in fact having much higher levels than soy.
You can search the term "phytoestrogen" in this forum to see my write up on phytoestrogens and the myths behind them.

I would love to see the author's diet and supplements.  I will bet you that it is loaded with enzyme inhibitors, goitergens, phytic acid, aluminum sources, and phytoestrogens or similarly acting bioflavonids.  That is unless he is an Eskimo living off of whale and seal blubber.