(Are dairy and grains still food groups... I could easily go on)
I don't get it. Are you saying that grain shouldn't be a food group? I think for the purposes of categorizing foods, "starchy staples" is a pretty useful categorization, even if the recommendation to eat 8 servings a day or whatever is misguided.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
[3] https://www.vox.com/2016/5/20/11719796/new-nutrition-label-a...
Social Media consumption is another.
We never frikkin learn.
Not disagreeing, but that's a much nicer way of saying that nobody wanted to mate with the ones having constant diarrhea.
The concern about soy in infant food is well placed, but your broad statement is hyperbolic.
I don't know where you are, but I'm in the US, where 2/3 of adults are overweight, and half of them are obese. Whatever effect soy has on our endocrine systems, it is dwarfed by the effects caused by body fat itself.
As for the effect of soy on adults, for most people there is no problem unless they have excessive soy consumption, and those problems are fixed simply by eating less soy. Soy also has known health benefits, and an honest discussion would weigh the two.
From 2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5646220/
"Neuroendocrine disruption by soya isoflavones in mature neuroendocrine systems is by and large reversible with dietary modification and thus, with the exception of some hypersensitive groups such as hypothyroid and oncology patients, soya likely poses no long term health risk and may even confer modest benefits."
So naturally, every correct answer would be controversial in the present.
The truth eventually wins. It is no soy for my family.
Cow milk; the major infant formula brands, in their main product line, may include soy oil (they use a variety of oils depending on changing supply circumstances) which is not a protein source, and do not include any other soy products.
There are soy protein formulas for infants with galactosemia, who can take neither breast milk nor cow milk based formulas, but that's a fairly special niche.
> any store bought nutrition shake
Very often, cow milk (whey protein isolate and/or milk protein isolate are common), though soy and pea protein are also common.
"Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis"
The medical establishment is mostly government funded. The govermemt is in bed with big ag, ABCDs, and soy producers. I dont trust them on this.
Regardless a newer paper concludes more research needed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32824177/
For instance, the Japanese seem to eat tons of the stuff in various forms all the time but they seem to lead healthy lives.
I don't have any skin in the game, just curious.
In China for example, tofu is one of the cheapest possible protein sources (think in terms of a massive pallet of it sold for five dollars) but people are generally aware that it is poisonous in some weird ways that won't kill you. Males are generally urged not to consume it.
This could be a knowledge of just the upper class, though. An unspoken suggestion to leave the tofu and soy for the poor.
— Mark Twain
Legumes are great for you - keep eating them.
Obviously don't eat some super processed soybean adjacent "food".
The prevalence of cigarette smoking among Japanese men has been consistently high compared with Western males over the past 30 years. However, during the same period, the incidence of and mortality rates for lung cancer have consistently been lower in Japan than in Western countries ('Japanese smoking paradox').
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2019.00142...
No, to the extent there are endocrine issues with soy, it has nothing to do with GMO soy.
> From what I gather, a very high percentage of soy is GMO, far more than is typical for most food items.
94%, about the same as corn @ 92%.
I was responding to the first assertion -- that it's "poison." I don't know enough about this topic to really argue about what it does to the endocrine system.
94%, about the same as corn @ 92%.
94% sounds pretty freaking high to me personally.
Thank you for putting some numbers to that for me.
I have trouble tolerating soy. Someone I trust suggested to me it might not be soy per se that I have an issue with. It might be GMO soy that is an issue for me.
Some years ago, I did look up stats verifying that soy was GMO at a shockingly high percentage. I had no reason to track those sources and haven't revisited it recently.
In my case, this seems like a plausible explanation for my issue. Though I have a genetic disorder and I'm very sensitive to all kinds of details of food chemistry and pay close attention to such for my health. But "It works for me" has never been respected anywhere on the planet as any kind of meaningful observation that anyone wants to hear.
Feel free to ignore it.
Trouble tolerating soy is one of the more common problems with food tolerance.
> Someone I trust suggested to me it might not be soy per se that I have an issue with. It might be GMO soy that is an issue for me.
It's theoretically possible that this could be the case, even though GMO foods are much more extensively tested for general safety than crops developed through means that aren't technically GMO (including ones that produces larger and less predictable genetic changes, like modifying the genetics by mutagenesis), but it's kind of a weird thing to suggest, given how frequently soy is a problem (which has been true longer than GMO soy has been on the market) without some very strong reason to believe it's not just a problem with soy as such.
I get endless flak from the world for me being me. One part of that is that I have a genetic disorder -- which I'm quite open about -- and I'm getting well when the entire world tells me that's simply not possible and openly hates on me for -- as best I can tell -- being a former homemaker who spent years homeless who has the audacity to be so incredibly rude as to figure out how to manage my condition with diet and lifestyle instead of drugs and surgeries, thereby making doctors and scientists look "stupid" I guess and we can't have none of that, so no one takes it seriously that I know anything at all about medical anything -- and yet there is this comment about how fluid circulates in the human body with 121 upvotes for whatever damn reason: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25427090
And the way I get treated on HN on that detail of my life aggravates me to no end because I feel like the evidence that I'm not lying or making shit up can be found in my twelve plus year track record of posting here in that my comments are no longer routinely typo-riddled gibberish like they used to so frequently be because I'm generally in less pain, etc these days, having gotten myself healthier.
And in spite of my significant handicap, I seem to be the only openly female member who has ever made the leaderboard and I've done it twice under two different handles, yet the degree to which I get treated differently from other members and also told it's not due to my gender persists and makes me nuts, which may or may not be a factor in me spending less time here in recent months. I really don't know what exactly is driving that. There are too many confounding variables for me to sort that question myself.
Feel free to chalk this up to "Doreen is a loon imagining she is getting better when everyone knows that's not possible, so let's just say she's crazy because her experiences rudely fall outside the all important Overton Window of what people are allowed to believe. And this is one of those utterly nutty things she says rooted in her delusion." and please move on because other than "anecdote" and "I think I know stuff because my damn body works better than it is supposed to" I don't have a leg to stand on here and I am so sick of this entire thing.
With all the smart self made millionaires and people with PhDs and what not that hang here, you would think someone would be able to think for themselves and conclude "Maybe the lady is not nuts and not making shit up and in actual fact has done what she claims."
But, no, no girls actually allowed in the old boys club filled with the best of the best of the best, sir!
They were supported by the mainstream medical and science establishments. Rosemary Kennedy, JFKs relative got one.
People were giving labotomies to their kids to calm them down, advised by their doctor.
Great article on Howard Dulley one of the kids whose parents gave him a lobotomy advised by a doctor.
https://www.npr.org/2005/11/16/5014080/my-lobotomy-howard-du...
> He objects to going to bed but then sleeps well. He does a good deal of daydreaming and when asked about it he says 'I don't know.'
Doesn't this description fit most kids in the world? It was used to justify the lobotomy of a poor boy.
It hasn't really fully separated itself from that today. Some cynical types describe the extremely high rates of psychotropic drugs used in American schools and retirement homes as "chemical lobotomies". In many cases, the drugs are being used to make someone "manageable" (i.e., quiet and compliant) rather than improving their health or quality of life.
(Of course, a mentally sick person who's truly unmanageable, is in fairness, unlikely to have much health or quality of life. But that's the linchpin of justification both historically for actual lobotomies, and today for the widespread use of these drugs. Much caution in medical treatments to make it more convenient to "manage" people is warranted.)
I wonder what things from present time future humans will look back on and marvel at how insane they were.
Shock therapy for one.
I'm curious if there were doctors and scientists who dissented from the cigarette consensus prior to the 60s? And how were they treated in such an environment?
There's a good record in "Research on Smoking and Lung Cancer: A Landmark in the History of Chronic Disease" (The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 1989) [0]:
> By the 1930s, some evidence had been obtained that the incidence of lung cancer among males was increasing. The evidence came from three sources: official mortality statistics, pathologists' reports of autopsy findings, and the observations of physicians who specialized in the treatment of lung disease.
> Speculation about these factors continued, but there was also much criticism of the view that the reported increase in lung cancer was credible. . . . Factors which were listed as likely to be responsible for an artificial increase were better diagnosis of the disease and increased longevity of the population.
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2589239/pdf/yjb...
The tech industry is way ahead of any hint of regulations with regards to things like privacy, security or safety. New generations of people are brought unwillingly onto social media by parents. Some problems are hard to reel in by design.
Now imagine if that was the case here; That the big business and the scientific community had a natural alignment in promoting and protecting a practice with huge commercial interests...
>In 1930s Germany, scientific research for the first time revealed a connection between lung cancer and smoking, so the use of cigarettes and smoking was strongly discouraged by a heavy government sponsored anti-smoking campaign
>After the Second World War, the German research was effectively silenced due to perceived associations with Nazism
That's really interesting. I dug a little more into it[0]. Apparently the underlying reasoning was that the Nazis associated smoking with "degenerates" and damage to "bodily purity." So when the research hit the US, people must have associated anti-smoking with those Nazi ideas. I wonder if tobacco companies latched onto this momentum to keep their public image healthy?
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_...
Basically Fox news uses "Communism" as a synonym for "things I don't like"
so nearly 3 generations.
Maybe lung cancer was 1950s, but health in general? Much, much earlier than that.
Come visit a developing country and you’ll find that wearing a seatbelt or drinking clean water is still not widely accepted. They have bigger problem right now.