Eat Your Soy
EmailMonday, 7:29am
I’m on the run through the Las Vegas airport (more about that some other time), so I’ll write quickly.
There’s yet another study–this one on soy protein and cholesterol–saying the last study you heard was wrong. You probably have seen it already. To read about the study click here. If you’re like most of us, you have a right to be annoyed.
What are we supposed to do? Order a steak to undo the effects of that veggie burger?
The problem is that this is part of the give-and-take of modern science. Someone does a study and publishes it in a peer-reviewed journal; someone else does a study to see if the first one was any good.
It’s a necessary process. One of the cardinal rules of science is that a finding is valid only if someone else (presumably with different methods and biases) can replicate it. But when it involves something like our health, and people have been acting on the prevailing wisdom, you can’t blame them if their patience gets stretched.
We newspeople sometimes play an unintentionally exasperating role in this mess. We report a study because it’s genuine news–and if a followup study confims it, we don’t report it because it’s not news. A contradictory study does qualify as news–so you, the reader/viewer, become the ping pong ball, caught in the middle. Most studies do survive scrutiny, though. Fear not–exercise is still good for you, smoking is still bad for you. A few years ago I did a story about this process; perhaps we should repeat it.
A couple of things to remember, in this case: first, if you’ve gone in for soy to help your cholesterol, you haven’t done yourself harm–you just didn’t do yourself as much good as you thought. Second, be patient…very patient. A better study may come along, though it may take a couple of years.
I’ve interviewed doctors who say they spend a lot of time trying to calm down patients who’ve come in with questions about the newest cutting-edge medicine. "The best cures aren’t the newest ones," said one doctor. "The best cures are the proven ones."
– Ned
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I feel that the information given about soy on Good Morning America was slanted. According to the segment, recent studies have shown that soy products, such as veggie burgers, soy milk, and soy supplements have little to no effect on lowering cholesterol. The doctor advised people not to waste their money on these things, unless they “feel” better for using these products. I can’t speak for most people, but I gave up meat and many dairy products during a time in my life in which I had exceedingly high cholesterol levels, and I was only 32 years old. Because I stopped eating meat and reduced my intake of dairy foods (becoming an ovo-lacto vegetarian) my cholesterol levels dropped to low levels, and my HDL (the good cholesterol) went way up. Sure, soy may not lower cholesterol, but the fact that I substitute soy products for animal products is what has contributed to my low cholesterol, and to tell the truth, a much healthier, happier, and more energetic way of life. I’m 38 years young now, and have never looked or felt better! It’s funny to see that the very webpage on the Good Morning America website also has advertisements for Jimmy Dean breakfast sausage and breakfast skillets foods!
Posted by: Lori Keffer | January 23, 2006, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm
I’m afraid I’ve seen too many reports on too many studies which purport that something is great for your health, only later to backtrack from the findings to a greater or lesser degree. Now, whenever I hear the results of any study, I’m always reminded of the scene in Woody Allen’s movie “Sleeper,” where two researchers are discussing current scientific findings:
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or… hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Those were thought to be unhealthy… precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
I’m still waiting for the reults of THAT study to come to light! That’s one diet I’ll gladly follow!
Posted by: chuck | January 23, 2006, 1:43 pm 1:43 pm
The news media failed to report how soy is bad for people with a thyroid condition. I am always searching labels and everything that is packaged today with soy. I was a lot healthier before soy became the major ingredients subsituting coconut oil.
Posted by: Deane | January 23, 2006, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
There was a Gov. Warning I read some years ago concerning the Soy Products..and the reasoning was all about it as an ingredient..being used in everything..that would lead to over-consumption..as for the Veggie Burger(it contains Sodium)..too much for my constant use..but it is a good sandwich..I like my personal recipe for making Veggie Burgers or Fish Burgers(scratch)..I would say a Soy Powder w/Added Multi-Vitamins and Minerals/Amino Acids is very good..made w/bottled water you have a good Low-Cholestral Drink..add fruit or Yogurt at differant intervals and all should suffice(unless your going to the Olympics)..Soy Powder as a Base to create a Fiber Shake is very good also..after such ITEMS in the diet I would then re-consider the Higher Quality of Beef or Fish..fresh vegatables..and physical excersise(if you like BBQ)..nothing beats making it fresh from good ingredients and Home-made..High Sodium and the Processing Plant can “creep” up on you..I think its about that simple.
Posted by: M.S.Mocarski | January 23, 2006, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
I have been eating soy for most of my life.
I know it is super good for you, but if you eat to much, or you drink to much soy milk then it can be bad for you.
Posted by: Anna | January 23, 2006, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm
The “flip flop” reporting wouldn’t be as annoying if reporters did a better job of indicating the difference between full studies and preliminary studies. Just saying something was “a study” or even “peer reviewed” isn’t enough. They should either stop reporting on preliminary studies (because, frankly, they’re a dime a dozen) or at least make a conscientious effort to label them properly.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | January 25, 2006, 9:02 am 9:02 am
The N4A, Inc.
Dan F. Umanoff, M.D. President and CEO
Re: Eat Your Soy
http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/
The article says, “The best cures aren’t the newest ones,” said one doctor. “The best cures are the proven ones.”
Here’s an example completely unknown to the public of a “scientific reversal” where the original study was fraudulent science and highly publicized and the debunking study got no press, thus maintaining the original lie. In 2001 the results of the project MATCH study was published: Longabaugh R. and Wirtz PW: Substantive Review and Critique. In: Project MATCH Hypotheses: Results and Causal Chain Analyses. Edited by Longabaugh R and Wirtz PW. NIH Publication No. 01-4238, Washington D.C.; 2001; 305-325. In announcing the MATCH results, the director of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism stated “All three treatments evaluated in Project MATCH produced excellent overall outcomes.” This statement by the director of the NIAAA thus supported the belief that, “treatment works.” End of story. However, a group of addiction doctors at the University of Miami used these treatment methods on their patients and got bad results. Because of this they decided to take a second statistical look at the original study’s data and reanalyzed it: Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data. BMC Public Health 2005, 5:75
They found the result were incorrect! The reanalysis of the original data actually showed there was essentially NO effect of treatment on recovery. This paper got no press thus maintaining the lie of the original study. In fact, many reviews of existing addiction treatments, some referenced in the second article, all show addiction treatment to be ineffective and that recovery of addicts is not based on treatment effects. Despite all this the addiction community and the treatment industry continue to tout, “treatment works.” What this false claim does is to put the country to sleep believing treatment works and that’s that. If an addict fails in treatment it’s his/her fault and deserves whatever happens to them. The consequences of this fraud is maintenance of the addiction epidemic as well as the punishment of addicts who fail in treatment.
The country needs to know that the addiction field is a fraud both at the theory of causation level and at the treatment level. What this means is that the field of addictions needs to dump their theories and treatments and begin the search for the correct ones. However, this isn’t happening because of the lies perpetrated by the NIH and the addiction field and the public not being informed about them.
“Love is an action not a feeling.
Integrity is an action not a thought.
Anything less is too little.” —
Dan F. Umanoff, M.D.
Author of Hypoic’s Handbook – The Hypoism Paradigm of Addiction.
http://www.hypoism.com
President and founder of The National Association for the Advancement
and Advocacy of Addicts, Inc. (N4A), a not-for-profit 501 (c) (3) organization of addicts for addicts offering free educational and legal services to discriminated against and abused addicts of all varieties, “substances” and “behavioral,” and their families.
http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thenationalassociationfortheadvancementandadvocacyofaddicts/
8779 Misty Creek Dr.
Sarasota, FL 34241
941-929-0893
Posted by: dan umanoff, m.d. | January 28, 2006, 9:34 am 9:34 am
of story. However, a group of addiction doctors at the University of Miami used these treatment methods on their patients and got bad results. Because of this they decided to take a second statistical look at the original study’s data and reanalyzed it: Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data. BMC Public Health 2005, 5:75
They found the result were incorrect! The reanalysis of the original data actually showed there was essentially NO effect of treatment on recovery. This paper got no press thus maintaining the lie of the original study. In fact, many reviews
Posted by: Dating | December 11, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
story. However, a group of addiction doctors at the University of Miami used these treatment methods on their patients and got bad results. Because of this they decided to take a second statistical look at the original study’s
Posted by: Weight Loss Resources | January 23, 2010, 3:25 am 3:25 am
“Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.”
Thank you, I agree!
Posted by: Slimming Pills Reviews UK | March 17, 2010, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm