• 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.

Announcement

Collapse

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?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Lady Eboshi, your determination to not let facts to get in the way is, well, determined.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by Lady Eboshi View Post





      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..
      Considering that you've not ever had a glance inside my toolbox, I think you should be less free with your generalizations.
      "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

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

      Comment


      • #83
        Ad-hominem pile-ons are as boring as the mud outside my door and they get interesting threads like this one locked, so just knock it off.

        I re-read the whole thread just for giggles, and what jumped out at me is DW's knee-jerk dismissal as "agenda" ridden of anyone and everyone who came out anti-soy for horses, not just me. So what I'd like to hear from DW is this:

        What is YOUR agenda in PUSHING soy, if that's your point of view?

        Comment


        • #84
          So much foaming at the mouth, so little time.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by Lady Eboshi View Post
            What is YOUR agenda in PUSHING soy, if that's your point of view?
            Pushing soy is not my point of view, as I have written at least half a dozen times on this one thread. I don't have any particular opinion on soy as a nutrient other than that it is a good source of protein and essential amino acids. If it works for a particular animal, great. If not, find something else.

            I do find the most hard-core 'anti soy' "database" (for lack of a better word) somewhat lacking in hard evidence. Which is my interest in the whole matter. Bad information leads to bad decision-making, and a lot of people are needlessly (IMO) making up their minds about soy based on a lot of hysteria and not as much in the way of good, dispassionate information.

            But this does not, in my view, make me necessarily "pro soy". I am "pro science". Or, if you will, "anti non-science". If the shoe fits and all--a lot of anti soy information is non-scientific and overdramatized. Some of it is not. My aim is at the "bad science" part.

            As I believe I have stated at least 10,000 times.
            Click here before you buy.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by deltawave View Post
              Pushing soy is not my point of view, as I have written at least half a dozen times on this one thread. I don't have any particular opinion on soy as a nutrient other than that it is a good source of protein and essential amino acids.

              I do find the most hard-core 'anti soy' "database" (for lack of a better word) somewhat lacking in hard evidence. Which is my interest in the whole matter. Bad information leads to bad decision-making, and a lot of people are needlessly (IMO) making up their minds about soy based on a lot of hysteria and not as much in the way of good, dispassionate information.

              But this does not, in my view, make me necessarily "pro soy". I am "pro science". Or, if you will, "anti non-science". If the shoe fits and all--a lot of anti soy information is non-scientific and overdramatized. Some of it is not. My aim is at the "bad science" part.

              As I believe I have stated at least 10,000 times.
              So, are you saying there is more "science" in FAVOR of soy?

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by deltawave View Post
                Pushing soy is not my point of view, as I have written at least half a dozen times on this one thread.
                Delta, stop expecting SwampYankee, oops, I mean Lady Eboshi to read enough to not assume you are saying something fight worthy. Geez.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Oh for God's sake.

                  SW/LE, is it a favorite hobby of yours to fictionalize what other people write? (That was a rhetorical question, btw.)

                  I've got to stop reading this thread. What started out as "mildly entertaining" has turned into "very irritating".

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    It is a PLANT. It is not an alien life form or a pharmaceutical. What are you trying to get me to say?

                    I'm not the one who has problems with science. I have problems with BAD science, un-science, non-science, and pseudoscience. Whether it's soybeans or homeopathy or copper bracelets, the twisting of information to frighten people or sell things to them ticks me off. That's all.

                    I like evidence, but don't require it when confronted with an empty stomach. I eat stuff. Aim for the good kind, sometimes fall short. I feed my animals with the best knowledge bases I have available. I don't know what else to tell you.
                    Click here before you buy.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      I think she's trying to get you to say she's right
                      It's a small world -- unless you gotta walk home.

                      Comment


                      • #91
                        I am, absolutely, trying to tell you you're right actually. We both have exactly the SAME problem with "bad science," and discussed similar subjects at length in our thread about joint supplements just the other day. We were both in complete agreement that there is no compelling hard data in favor of their use. Many also chimed in that there is no motivation for anyone to actually acquire such data, either, since the stuff sells fine without it and most people just don't care.

                        Which comes to the heart of the matter. Every day there are "news" stories telling the layman that "Studies Say." People lacking a pretty rigorous scientific education tend not to look into the provenance of those "studies," but pretty much uncritically buy into whatever the spin on those supposed "statistics" say. They don't realize that numbers can be highly subjective depending on how the study is designed and interpreted, and for what agenda.

                        Now, statistics on the scale we crunch them today are actually a very recent tool in terms of human history--barely 40 years old. Like many new technologies, until we learn the truths of its limitations, we tend to be overly impressed by it at first. You repeatedly say "Show me data!!" and that's a very valid position.
                        But what if data does not exist, or that which does exist is biased?

                        You immediately dismiss any data presented by what you call "agenda" or "activist" groups as "pseudoscientifc" and biased, but what about all the bad science that's been carefully cooked by industry groups, for years, for no more altruistic purpose than pushing their products?

                        You and I both acknowledge that some data is ungettable; for instance, it would not be ethical to lock up 5000 humans for 10 years in a feedlot and feed them various restricted diets to prove a scientific point. This leaves us with "observational" data which many times have so many confounding factors they're not worth the match to light them on fire. Hence the constantly conflicting messages the public receives about nearly every aspect of so-called "health," which have the effect of undermining faith in the entire system. Lead-time bias on cancer treatments, anyone?
                        Numbers get cooked and spun every single day, everywhere!

                        Before we worshipped at the alter of Statistics, we had timeworn things called Common Sense and Collective Experience. It may well be there are no "data" about horses' toleration of various soy products because, like the joint supplements, there is no financial "agenda" for anyone to gather such data. That leaves us with a collection of anecdotes of which this thread is an exemplar. Some think it's a great feed. Some said it gave their horse problems. We are left with probably biased "science" on BOTH sides, and have to make up our own minds.

                        Personally, I think questioning the long-term safety of a relatively new crop in the food chain, well-known to be cultivated with very heavy quantities of herbicides and pesticides, is probably a good idea. The fact that GMO is such a new technology that right now we really have no idea of its eventual repercussions also makes blanket endorsement of this product questionable. It is also a fact that we have many new problems arising in both humans and animals that are thought to be directly related to endocrine disruptors is also of concern.

                        We are left with the fact that it's almost impossible to prove a negative, but that doesn't de facto leave us with a positive.

                        I believe we ALL want the same thing--to know for sure.

                        Comment


                        • #92
                          Originally posted by Lady Eboshi View Post

                          Personally, I think questioning the long-term safety of a relatively new crop in the food chain, well-known to be cultivated with very heavy quantities of herbicides and pesticides, is probably a good idea.
                          3000 years of cultivation is new?

                          Comment


                          • #93
                            You immediately dismiss any data presented by what you call "agenda" or "activist" groups as "pseudoscientifc" and biased
                            Incorrect. I have read a great deal of stuff by the WPF and came to that conclusion honestly, with a lot of time spent reading and digesting. There is nothing "immediate" about my dismissal of their tripe. It is pseudoscientific and enormously biased. And that is an opinion based on a great deal of time spent, nothing immediate about it.

                            http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...isticdent.html

                            ^^A summary. Not the primary source of my information.

                            (Parenthetically, I do find endlessly amusing their "homey" advice to "never eat anything your grandma wouldn't recognize as food". If "grandma" spent some time in India, Indonesia, China or Japan, for starters, she'd have some adjusting of her "eye" to do! Soy products are ubiquitous in other cultures, as are many other things we 'Mericans would find quite unrecognizable. And yet, shockingly, other cultures with other dietary habits manage to live, and often quite well, without the "meat and potatoes" paradigm. I also acknowledge that the aforementioned advice applies mostly to processed things that come in boxes. However, there are odd foods in every corner of the world, not all of them bad for us and not everything that comes in a box is poison, either.)
                            Last edited by deltawave; Mar. 21, 2013, 04:30 PM.
                            Click here before you buy.

                            Comment


                            • #94
                              Just wait until someone finds out horse feed contains MSG
                              http://weanieeventer.blogspot.com/

                              Comment


                              • #95
                                Originally posted by eqsiu View Post
                                3000 years of cultivation is new?
                                That's a bit misleading. It's been cultivated and used a very specific way in Asian diets....only fermented before being consumed. Prior to that it was considered fertilizer and inedible.

                                The way it's used in Western society is quite different and it's a very recent addition to our diets generally in the modern heavily processed forms. We've processed soy using presses, solvents, etc... into all sorts of products that are added to all sorts of foods like bread for example....chocolate, baby formula (as discussed earlier), all sorts of vegan products, oils used for dressings, "milks," etc...and only very recently... (as noted by Lady Eboshi and a very good point) added to the diets of livestock. As Ghazzu noted, it has to be treated first as it's not edible by horses in it's raw form....nor to people...and that's why the Asian's fermented it and why it has to be heavily processed with chemicals such as hexane before it can be eaten...and there are still issues with it after this point which is kind of the point of the discussion.

                                The real reason it's used so extensively is because it's cheap and plentiful and well marketed..not really because it is such a wonder food. Do a little research on the history of soy.

                                Neutral article:

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

                                Not neutral but has some interesting information in it.

                                http://www.optimumchoices.com/Soy.htm

                                Comment


                                • #96
                                  Originally posted by enjoytheride View Post
                                  Your education and scientific research mean nothing against my ability to google.
                                  Dangit, if only google had existed when I was in college, I could have saved so much money and time by just dropping out then!
                                  Life doesn't have perfect footing.

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

                                  Comment


                                  • #97
                                    Originally posted by Daydream Believer View Post

                                    Neutral article:

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

                                    Not neutral but has some interesting information in it.

                                    http://www.optimumchoices.com/Soy.htm
                                    With all due respect, anyone can write whatever they want and put it on Wikipedia or make a website. These aren't credible sources of information. Pubmed is a free website that anyone can access (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), to find real peer-reviewed information.
                                    As Peter, Paul, and Mary say, a dragon lives forever.

                                    Comment


                                    • #98
                                      Originally posted by Daydream Believer View Post
                                      As Ghazzu noted, it has to be treated first as it's not edible by horses in it's raw form....nor to people...and that's why the Asian's fermented it and why it has to be heavily processed with chemicals such as hexane before it can be eaten...
                                      Not quite.
                                      It has to be heated to be edible.
                                      Hexane is used to extract the oils, leaving soybean meal and soy oil as two separate products.
                                      "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

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

                                      Comment


                                      • #99
                                        SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!
                                        Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                                        Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                                        -Rudyard Kipling

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by CrowneDragon View Post
                                          With all due respect, anyone can write whatever they want and put it on Wikipedia or make a website. These aren't credible sources of information. Pubmed is a free website that anyone can access (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), to find real peer-reviewed information.
                                          Did you actually READ that article before you posted? I somehow doubt it. Here are some REAL studies for you. Read to your heart's content..maybe this is up to your high standards.

                                          Oh...sorry this is Weston Price's site but it's the only place I could find with a nice summary. I'm sure you can find oodles of studies funded by the soy industry on their sites showing how wonderful soy is to counter this amazing collection of studies showing negative effects.

                                          http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-aler...effects-of-soy

                                          http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-aler...of-isoflavones
                                          http://www.westonaprice.org/images/p...references.pdf

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X