• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.



Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

What is everybody's issue with soy?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Original Poster

    Roasting it improves digestibility. You can also feed just the hulls, which are high on fiber (as much as 30%) and around 10% protein, so fit right in with what most horses need as complement.

    Ah yes, I apologize to all number 6's for forgetting about them!


    • #62
      Originally posted by deltawave View Post
      Very happy to respect your point of view if you'll share what it is WRT the specific question I asked about WPF. My "point of view" is "show me the data". If you say you respect my point of view, then a lot of what you're posting gets a big au contraire, unless the data is presented. Reference the so-called "cholesterol hypothesis myth", for one. Got data? I have. But that's the human side. On to horse food.

      I do think the idea that "fixed formula" feeds are clearly superior is worth subjecting to scrutiny. I have NO DOG IN THE FIGHT. I think both ideas have merit. But there is a lot of "spin" with this topic.

      Naturally it sounds ideal to say "wouldn't you rather know exactly what's in that bag of grain?" as opposed to "'they' simply put in whatever happens to be available this week". Another way of looking at it is "if the nutritional profile is unchanged, and minus allergies wherein the conscientious owner would have to avoid certain ingredients, is it better or not better to have a very consistent level of nutrients rather than insisting on OATS (for example) when that might mean oats from Farmer A with quality X in this bag and oats from Farmer B with quality Y in the next bag? Yes, they're oats, but if the oats are 8% protein (using that as a simple example) this batch and 12% the next batch, how is that "better" if one's desire is to manage the diet precisely?

      I'm not saying I endorse this level of micromanagement of nutrients, BTW. But a lot of people do.

      A polypeptide from corn and the same polypeptide from barley are indistinguishable by the animal at the cellular level. The same goes for a starch, a sugar, a lectin, an amino acid, or a mineral. So long as the amounts and ratios of nutrients are correct, and so long as there is no allergy, as unappealing and "unnatural" as it sounds, a mish-mash of this and that is perfectly fine to nourish us. Single ingredients sound "natural" and "wholesome", but that is not the only criterion by which to judge a food product. I'm leaving out the 5000 chemicals and additives. That's a separate topic.

      If you take the emotion out of it (and this completely ruins many a sales pitch) and just look at it from a dispassionate, scientific viewpoint, "grain by products" (again assuming they are not contaminated and the animal is not allergic) are just as potentially nutritious as "whole oats" or what have you. But one very definitely has a "wholesome" air about it and the other does not.

      Slick marketing can go both ways. The agenda groups understand this and have their own spin doctors madly going at it. Clearly the budgets of the "big companies" are larger, but insidious "marketing" in the guise of books written by "experts" and disguised as scholarly works, puff pieces in magazines, and fake press releases cost almost nothing and have a lot of impact.
      Okey-dokey. You want to have a pi$$ing contest with me, here goes:

      Where did I ever say I have swallowed whole the WPF's entire message uncritically? Those are words you've put in my mouth. I didn't even bring them up--they were cited by another poster as having some interesting alternative information about soy. You mis-stated their advocacy message and I corrected it based on my reading of their mission. 'Nuff said. I'm not even a member!

      With regards to feed bags and what's in them. Once again, talk to people INSIDE THAT WORLD. It was a company rep who TOLD me various industry practices, you think I made that up?

      By the same token, it is DOCTORS, MD's like yourself whom I know socially, who have told me unequivocally the following:

      Don't use any pill that hasn't been on the market at least 25 years, because they rush them on the market with insufficient data because true studies take too long and cut into profits. It's cheaper to pull it later if there are problems and they settle out of court on the lawsuits. Quote/Unquote. Want more?

      Properly constructed and interpreted studies HAVE shown that some statins MAY provide secondary prevention only in SOME men who've already had a heart attack. Nothing more. The mechanism is under debate and may have much more to do with the side effect of reducing general inflammation than "lowering cholesterol." Again, in men (only) who have NEVER had a heart attack there has never been any benefit shown, and not for lack of trying. That is, NO statin drug has been EVER conclusively proven to prevent ANY first heart attacks. However, none of that prevents scripts being written to hundreds of thousands of people, both men AND women, on the basis of nothing more than their age and an arbitrary "number" that gets ratcheted down yearly by a committee. More often than not, a drug that can have debilitating side-effects is being prescribed not even for a DISEASE, but for a STATISTIC. Lo and behold, wonder if 20 years from now we'll find out the inordinate rates of Alzheimer's are being caused by this stuff, and the equally unnatural low-fat, high-grain diet that's causing people to "need" it to begin with!

      I heard today that 1 in 80 kids is now autistic. My bet is that has a wee bit to do with feeding developing brains skim milk and megatons of sugar. Sugar, hiding in plain sight, is probably also the No. 1 carcinogen in our diets today. Or at least, that's what the researchers at Sloane-Kettering who are working on insulin and insulin-like growth hormone think. Time will tell.

      For three generations, DW, you MD's have had the kind of intellectual power over the population formerly reserved for priests and the Oracle of Delphi. But when you talk to people INSIDE YOUR WORLD, off the record with a few drinks in them, you really find out stuff. There's beaucoup "faith-based chemistry" out there, yes siree!

      So stop trying so hard to slaughter the messenger. The very fact that you're taking me on this way, over and over and over, shows that you feel threatened by alternative theories the way religious folk do whose faith is a little shakier than they'd like!


      • #63
        Couple of points, in no particular order--

        --soy *must* be heated/treated before it is consumable.

        --alfalfa and other legumes also contain phytoestrogens.

        I have no religious fervor wrt soy in either direction.
        I find it a useful feedstuff in horses that aren't hypersensitive to any of its components.

        It does have a pretty good amino acid profile.
        "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

        ...just settin' on the Group W bench.


        • #64
          Lady E, you're taking it WAY too personally. My questions are about facts, data, evidence. Nothing personal. No threats on either side. Wowza! The messenger was being asked a couple of questions to clarify a point or two. The message is my target. Let me say it again, for clarity. I loathe pseudoscience and its insidious way of producing misinformed people who are only trying to help themselves. That's it, simple. Don't care one way or the other about soy, vegans, beef, or any of that really. I agree people should think for themselves, but we all have to guard against dogmatic thinking. Myself included.

          It's hard to slaughter a messenger who has no clear message, by the way. But you haven't been here long, so I will happily wait and see just what it is you stand for and I invite the dialogue. Someone with 10 years of education in whatever field it is you indicated (nutrition? PhD?) no doubt can teach me a lot. Please don't shoot THIS messenger who isn't even aiming at you.

          (The mountains of data about statins are there for the reading. Death rates from heart disease, declining sharply and steadily rather than climbing as they had been for decades. Because of statins. Alzheimer's concerns: unfounded. (there are even studies, crummy ones, indicating statins may HELP--too soon to say) It is the nature of studies and the way Big Pharma works to have to insist that only THIS drug or THAT drug has been shown to prevent or reduce . . . it's coporate- and legal-speak and nothing more. Statins are considered, both in terms of risk AND benefit, a "class effect" and nobody who has the whole picture believes any of that nonsense about only men benefitting or only this subpopulation or that one. Follow your own advice--read the studies critically with the big picture in mind, not the pharmaceutical company)

          Believe it or not, not everyone who is an "MD" swallows a party line or acts thoughtlessly based on which drug rep brought them a sandwich in 1999. Why so much hatred, when you clearly have "MD" friends whose opinions you listen to? You don't even know me, nor how I prescribe statins, but you're willing to condemn me with the whole lot of "MDs that you don't personally know". Your prerogative. You're not the first. And IME, talking to people with a few drinks in them doesn't typically yield their finest intellectual output. It does, however, often yield melodrama, axes in need of grinding, and self-important puffery. However, this is an anecdotal observation.

          The very fact that you're taking me on this way, over and over and over, shows that you feel threatened by alternative theories the way religious folk do whose faith is a little shakier than they'd like!
          You've not seen some of my posts on religion. And you're new here, so how could you know that I've never met an argument I could pass up, or that this topic is (pseudoscience, not soybeans) is my personal favorite? It isn't you.
          Click here before you buy.


          • #65
            Actually, I don't think she is new. Pretty sure she got outed on the dressage board as the alter of a frequent, pot stirring poster.

            Alas, I don't care enough to go back and find the thread where it was revealed who she is.
            *OMGiH I Loff my Mare* and *My Saddlebred Can Do Anything Your Horse Can Do*


            • #66
              Oh, interesting. But not as interesting as oiling my saddle. But I'm going to make a guess . . . is the word "swamp" part of the answer?
              Click here before you buy.


              • #67


                • #68
                  It was the boozing doctors that gave it away.
                  Click here before you buy.


                  • #69
                    Yeah, you boozing doctor, take that! ROFL! I really want to see this infamous ranter take you on about cardiac science, that might well make my week! To heck with soy, which I don't care much about anyway, other than the fact that the spreading area of soy fields is causing massive deforestation.

                    Oh and just to fix the biology part -- Nature doesn't "design" anything and there is no optimal state or "pinnacle of evolution" in any species. There are simply those who pass on their genes and those who don't and sometimes, oh I have to say it, individuals just get lucky. Genetic and allelic frequency are on a continuum, not hard points. And horses living in "nature" don't live to be 35 years old and certainly do not all have a 4.5 body score.

                    Biologist, out.
                    Life doesn't have perfect footing.

                    Bloggily entertain yourself with our adventures (and disasters):
                    We Are Flying Solo


                    • #70
                      I love it when you talk dirty.
                      Click here before you buy.


                      • #71
                        Anyone else find it interesting that a lot of the people who don't have an issue with soy are the scientists and medical professionals?

                        Me neither.
                        As Peter, Paul, and Mary say, a dragon lives forever.


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by CrowneDragon View Post
                          Anyone else find it interesting that a lot of the people who don't have an issue with soy are the scientists and medical professionals?

                          Me neither.

                          Silly, that's because we've been indoctrinated.
                          Click here before you buy.


                          • #73
                            Apparently? Is that supposed to mean that we have gotten our Certificate of Completion from government boot camp of talking points or something? I sure am glad I get all that kickback money so I don't have to eat PB&J every day - oh wait - *hides jam jar*

                            Oh wait, no, it was a realization that we've had years of training and experience in study design, data interpretation, asking questions, statistical analyses, objective reasoning, biological systems, physiology, and chemistry so we might be able to help provide some dispassionate information from our respective fields to clarify questions like this.

                            Yeah, yeah, I'm sure it was the second one. Of course all that training was done by ninjas in a location we don't know because we were driven there with a bag over our head and then electrocuted if we gave a wrong answer....the truth has finally come out.
                            Life doesn't have perfect footing.

                            Bloggily entertain yourself with our adventures (and disasters):
                            We Are Flying Solo


                            • #74
                              I knew I was going to enjoy this thread. Somehow, I just knew...
                              It's a small world -- unless you gotta walk home.


                              • #75
                                Don't forget the black helicopters.

                                Learning backwards is REALLY difficult. All those tedious years of basic biology, physiology, etc. etc. etc. leading to more advanced study leading to more and more study and building the house on a foundation really does work. It sure is expensive and a long haul, though!

                                Trying to "reverse engineer" a comprehensive understanding of biology and physiology is TOUGH. Not impossible, but REALLY HARD. One can't just buy a book and start reading and get it, IMO. Especially if the book is a sensational puff piece put out to reveal "secrets nobody will tell you!" But that's a different topic.

                                It would be like a hobby woodcarver suddenly trying to build a custom house. The guy who started out sweeping up sawdust and a gofer, then an apprentice, then a journeyman, then a sub, then a GC, then a master builder is going to have an easier time AND build a better home.

                                Or like a casual weekend rider with a day job trying to learn dressage.
                                Click here before you buy.


                                • #76
                                  Borrrr---innnnngggg . . .

                                  Originally posted by deltawave View Post
                                  Silly, that's because we've been indoctrinated.
                                  <Sigh>, these threads always end the same. Anything you don't agree with is summarily dismissed as "pseudoscience." Since we mentioned religion, I realize this is your Crusade and I'm not going to change that. Party on . . . nothing to do with me, DW.

                                  As for the ones who have ended up name-calling, well, that's the last pathetic refuge of someone who cannot refute the actual argument. Just boring, and reflects on you more than me.

                                  The only thing that made me wade in here is when you completely misrepresented the message of a worthwhile and thought-provoking organization with an interesting take on post-modern nutrition.

                                  There is a great deal of common medical practice today that, when you lift up rocks, doesn't have a whole lot of scientific evidence backing it--surely not of the caliber you demand of others. As for my "agenda," I really don't have one at all. What makes me see red, though, are statements of theory and hypothesis marketed as absolute fact, and unwarranted arrogance to the point of apparent belief in the infallibility of your system. Gee, we had another system or two like that, once . . . They're off their pedestals a bit these days, too. The days have passed when you can count on our major corporate and governmental institutions to protect us from ANYTHING.

                                  Back to the OP's topic at hand:

                                  It comes down to what's in your tool box. MD's and vets have a chemical tool box, so their natural inclination is to solve most problems with chemistry. A chiropractor will want to manipulate, an acupuncturist to adjust the energy, a nutritionist will want to jimmy up what's in the feed bag that could be causing you problems. Any and all of these may be the proper approach to a given problem. Being a BO, I like to solve horses' problems with management my first choice over drugs or any of the other modalities whenever that is possible. As in my posts above, I also believe we create a lot of our own poblems by overcomplicating things. We cease to see the forest, busy analyzing rings in trees.

                                  It's up for the horse owner or human in a predicament to decide how s/he wants to approach it--or even to determine if a "problem" exists at all. One need not assume ignorance and accept received wisdom, certainly not people such as here on COTH. One answer does not fit all.

                                  Feed your horse soy products if they work for him and for you.
                                  If you're having a problem, try feeding something else.
                                  No skin off my bum either way.


                                  • #77
                                    So it's only okay for certain people to have a crusade, and not others. Interesting...
                                    It's a small world -- unless you gotta walk home.


                                    • #78
                                      Your education and scientific research mean nothing against my ability to google.


                                      • #79
                                        Maybe I should get myself an alter and come here and say the same stuff, but pretend I'm a homeopathic herbal massage therapist.

                                        I'm sorry Swampy has gone away. I have often wondered how her young mare that had hurt her foot was doing?
                                        Click here before you buy.


                                        • #80
                                          I didn't check, but if no one's used the word 'hogwash' then this thread is incomplete.