Comment by Preemo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Preemo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm amazed so many people are fine with the other ingredient being soy; I could go on for hours as to why that's among the worst things to be substituted with.

-95% of soy in the US is GMO, lacking any genetic variance and little make-up of microorganisms (good bacteria.)

-It's also a horrible source of fats, and more in particular the omega-6 to 3 ratio is incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level. There's also next to zero amino acids. (Think cancer risk, immune diseases, hormone disruption.)

-It's basically a carbohydrate. Considering a significant number of most of these soy-containing foods are carbs to begin with, it's just another contributor to our diabetes/obesity, cancer and most importantly, MENTAL HEALTH health epidemics. (Mental health pertaining too the poorly balanced diets, poor fats and lack of good gut microflora.)

It's alright to look at these foods as an once-in-a-while treat, but when you consider that nearly every processed food item is 'enhanced' with soy to make it cheaper and still some-what satiating is a concerning thought to just have these every so often. Rice's from Uncle Ben's, Kraft peanut butter, margerines and nearly all processed meats and cheeses contain significant amounts of soy("Vegetable Oils."

This is the current state of food created by the lobbyist-run FDA and various companies like Monsanto controlling the market for their own greed under the excuse of 'feeding the growing population.'

Smacks of conspirology and pseudo-science. Who cares if it's GMO? All food we eat is GMO. Non-GMO animals and plants hate to be eaten (well, most of them, some use being eaten as distribution strategy, but even those aren't targeting humans), and take measures to avoid it. That's why thousands of years ago humans started the project of genetically modifying them to make them more eatable. And we were spectacularly successful.

Not sure what genetic variance of the soy I'd eat would make for me - the genetic material would be destroyed anyway once I eat it.

Also not sure what it has to do with micro-organisms.

Phrases like "incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level" again sound like pseudo-science - what it actually means? Which function? How hostile?

Soy certainly contains amino-acids - e.g. see here: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516...

The total content of the following amino acids were quantified in the soybean samples using NIRS: Glutamic Acid (Glu), Aspartic Acid (Asp), Alanine (Ala), Arginine (Arg), Phenylalanine (Phe), Glycine (Gly), Histidine (His), Isoleucine (Ile), Leucine (Leu), Lysine (Lys), Methionine (Met), Methionine and Cystine, Proline (Pro), Serine (Ser), Tyrosine (Tyr), Threonine (Thr) and Valine (Val).

Etc, etc. - in short, I'm not sure what you're talking about here except for evil Monsanto capitalists being out to kill us all.

Thanks for your reply, please read my latest reply.

Who cares if it's GMO? All food we eat is GMO.

Sorry to break it to you, dude, but some people do care. And if all "food we eat is GMO", why are some labelled non-GMO and other, GMO?

> And if all "food we eat is GMO", why are some labelled non-GMO and other, GMO?

Because enough people believe - without compelling evidence - that foods which have had their genomes modified using modern methodologies are somehow more hazardous than foods which have had their genomes modified through millennia of selective breeding.

But what they're really saying, though, is we don't know enough about the GMO foods to introduce them into our diets. That using us as guinea pigs is not a good idea.

As if you "know enough" about other things you eat or drink. When was the last time a craft beer got FDA approval after 20 years of careful safety testing? When people stopped drinking sugary soda because that is poison fir you? When you had your steak dinner rigorously scientifically tested?

But no, you choose one thing that you can attach scary label to, and declare that because you didn't apply levels of scrutiny to it that you never ever had applied to your food, it is unsafe despite now decades of usage without any evidence of any trouble.

Because of stupid antiscientific panic some people foment.

- How the hell does soy not having a lot of protein in it cause cancer, immune diseases, or hormone disruption?

- How does having a bad diet (let alone a "lack of good gut microflora") lead to mental illness? What mental illnesses?

I've heard a lot of food items described as a "once-in-a-while treat" but never tofu

What would your preferred chicken substitute be?

None of the bullets you list seems like a credible reason to not use soy. GMOs are perfectly healthy, as are carbohydrates. Lacking fat isn't a big deal either.

I suppose you might suggest there are healthier alternatives, but chief among those alternatives would be to not eat at a fast food joint.

I agree with you about GMO, however a better substitute for soy would be more chicken. Also, lacking fat is a big deal when it is substituted for carbs, and you are on a low carb high fat diet.

What are you implying about the GMO nature of soy? Does that make it worse than non-GMO soy? Also, what do you mean "lacking any genetic variance"?

Tough crowd! I'm not going to get too detailed here, I'll let you do your own research:

-Hormone disruption from the lack of useable amino acids and 'bad cholesterol' from which your body cannot properly create/maintain cellular function (immune system, endocrine system, gene expression.) Alternatively, with healthy fats and saturated fats from unprocessed red meat, including the good balance of proper amino acids, for instance, your body can create the required hormones more efficiently and in proper form. Your endocrine system (HPTA axis) is incredibly important (and sensitive to disruption) to so many aspects in your body and controls the basic cellular function in any mammalian being. Huge contributor to neurodevelopment, mood and subsequently mental health.

-Hormone disruption from pesticides commonly used in todays farming (especially mega-farms specific to producing for these restaurant chains/grocers.) I encourage you to do your research on these specifically.

-Microflora, more specifically good gut health, is incredibly important in mood regulation and neurodevelopment. Your gut is commonly referred to in the medical world as the second brain -- over 90% of serotonin alone is produced and stored in your guts.

Good day.

1. Yes, bad things happen when you don't have enough of all the amino acids. That's malnutrition. That would only matter if you ate soy and only soy.

2. Not all pesticides, just some, but yes that's true. But that's not specific to soy, it's specific to all crops. And crops are washed, you generally don't get significant doses of pesticides in your food.

3. The whole microflora mental health connection science is in it's infancy. The entire thing reads like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon: some microfloura produce neurotransmitters, which can affect the gut, which can cause an immune response, which can cause inflammation, which is associated with certain psychiatric conditions. I'm not saying there's nothing there, but we're years away from having a more complete understanding. Of course, I have no idea what this one has to do with soy.

You carry all good and valid points.

The larger point-of-view I'm coming from is the fact that more and more of our foods (and food options) are becoming processed in irresponsible ways contributing to a more widespread malnutrition issue not far in the future. The population is overworked and sleep habits are becoming increasingly worse, both contribute to a reduction in neuroplasticity, for example; ultimately having a significant impact to the populations health.

All things considered it's very possible our medical science innovation falls behind the rate of increase of many diseases. This, in the future, may be directly attributed to irresponsible food industry practices happening right now. Throw that on-top of a huge unemployment wave that may happen in the future from automation, and you have significant increases in socioeconomic costs to any given country.

Thanks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com