Talk:Soy protein

I created this page forever ago (it seems) and nobody wants to add to it? I guess I can either take that as a compliment or I need to realize no one cares... Uriah923 06:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it means a little bit of both, and that's not an offense at all. Usually an ignored article means it is not properly aware of other related material and is redundant and/or not linked to from other related articles. That doesn't seem to be the case here. From what I can see it seems good enough and arcane enough that it hasn't attracted attention. If you want to really research it and flesh it out with 10 or so references, you could aim for meeting the featured article criteria. - Taxman ^Talk 13:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

I've removed a link to a diet webpage. Although it is on topic, the site needs to be of higher quality (well-referenced, non-commercial, add info not in the article, etc.) to be included here. uriah923^(talk) 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nutrition (also known as >>> Protein)

The content under Nutrition seems a tad defensive. It leaves one with the sense that a Vegan or person with similar political views was eager to prove that soy protein was "just as good as meat" as a protein surce. A better approach would be to list the results of the PER study, list the results of the PDCAAS study, and then in a separate paragrahph caution readers about directly drawing conclusions about human health from mouse/rat PER studies. Anonymous 22:30, 21 Oct 2006 (UTC)

"I agree." The Protein section (also was called the nutrition section) is loaded with POV sentences.

Soy is not a complete protein source. The scientific biological value of egg is 100. Soy is lower at 74. 63.17.63.214 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is in the article>>> The PDCAAS is superior to both the PER and the BV. This sentence is absolutely FALSE. Messenger2010 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: I did a clean up to the Protein Section for a NPOV. Messenger2010 05:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Biological Value of Soy

I've come across a verifiable source that lists Soy at 72.8 and egg at 93.7. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Amino Acid Content of Foods and Biological Data on Proteins. Nutritional Study #24. Rome (1970). This is interesting. Yankees76 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here too: http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/AnimalvsVegetable.htm. It appears some rewrites are in order. Yankees76 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this interesting too (No not here -- Click down over there. Yes below.

AndyCanada 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't find it at all odd that the Apa Fitness article has been extensively quoted by you over the last few weeks, and yet you seem to be unaware that egg is 93.7 and not 100? Curious. Yankees76 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is another study in 2000 by Harper that uses whey as the sticking point of 100 instead of egg. These are all relative. Since most use egg at 100 and it is easier for the reader to understand 100 I think it is better to stick with 100 using egg. In the future, maybe 10 years from now if someone is reading this it may changed to whey at 100 if it becomes more universally used and known. 100 will always be the sticking point whether it be egg or whey! AndyCanada 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fanstasy information in soy protein article!

This section has been copied in toto from my talk page. Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} Hello Ginkgo100,

Some additional studies since then have indicated that the digestibility and biological value of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value and quality to animal proteins.[5]

This sentence above is false.

First of all, what are the additional studies. The reference is not a study. It is a book. The book explains about digestibility not Biologicla Value.

Second, the biological value of soy is lower at 74 than the other animal protein in the table. According to BV it is not comparible. Please remove this entire weasel sentence per Wikipedia guidlines. I undertand you were trying to help.

Now that I explains, I want to to mediate and remove this info that the anon IP put it. Thanks. AndyCanada 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, my point is that a content dispute is not equivalent to vandalism. This has become a pet peeve because I see this accusation thrown about very, very often (with many editors all across Wikipedia) with content disputes.

Second, although I have not read the book referenced, I have no reason to believe it states anything other than what the editor says it states. Of course a book can cite studies; in fact, as a secondary source, a book summarizing studies is often a preferable source to the primary research, at least for Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the BV soy is 74 which is lower on the table in the soy protein article. So how is it comparible? The sentence states biological value which the book does not state. The book focused on nutrition and digestibility.

Some additional studies have indicated that digestibility of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value to animal protein. If the sentence was cleaned up it would read like this which does not add much to the protein section.

The anon IP is trying to confuse "biological value" with digestibility to obscure the facts. The phrase biologicial value does not belong in that sentence that is actully contradicting the facts about BV in many studies. Please overview. Thanks, AndyCanada 22:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Without seeing the reference itself, I can't comment on whether it's correct or not. In general I assume good faith that when an editor cites a reference, they faithfully represent what the reference says. It often happens in science that studies contradict each other. It usually just means that further, better designed studies are needed. I recommend leaving the sentence. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I've left it as well. I removed it a number of times, and asked the user on their talk page to post a reference. The reference was given after the request. I also assumed good faith since it's obvious that the anon IP is at least attempting to cite their claims. Also, since it's well known that soy protein fortified with the sulfur containing amino acid methionine greatly increases it's biological value (Nutri. Biochem. 7:481-487, 1996), I felt that that the sentence which says - or at least said before AndyCanada edited a few minutes ago (and I suspect that he has not read the reference in question to make these allegations, but that's another issue) - that the BV was comparable to animal sources could be verified. Just adding my 2 cents. Yankees76 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

The book referenced is about nutritional value not BV. >>> Nutritional Value of Food Protein Products", I.E. Liener; Table 7.7 page 219. In Smith and Circle, editors; "Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology." Published by The AVI Publishing Co. 1972. Westport,Connecticut. <<< Your reference cannot back up your sentence. Please double check or remove. I have already rewritten the sentence.

Please remove your fantansy information. There is no debate to what the BV of soy is. The anon IP has alleged the BV of soy is 96 which is a LIE. Should I add that info back into the article too? Original infromation is not allowed on Wikipedia. I will not let you and Yankees76 gang up on me. I would like to seek abritration on the fantasy information. Please direct me to where I can go for abritration. Thanks. AndyCanada 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not "my" information. Personally speaking, I seriously couldn't care less about BV, soy protein, and all the rest. I am involved in this as a neutral third party to a content dispute, having been brought in via... well, I don't even remember anymore how I got involved.

I see no reason, however, to say this information is false, at least not any more reason to say your information is false. By the very fact that we're having this discussion, clearly there is debate about the BV of soy protein. If it's debated, then according to WP:NPOV we must describe the controversy without taking sides.

By the way, I would remind you of the old aphorism, "You can't judge a book by its cover." Certainly you can't judge whether there is information about soy's BV by a source titled "Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology." --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Please comply with Wikipedia's policy. Do not attempt to add sentences that violate this policy. Your recent edit on soy protein violates this policy.

Next time you can use the sand box if you wish. Double check your references in order to ensure they validate your contributions. AndyCanada 23:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, many of the sources you have provided are less reliable than the one you keep removing. For example, sites such as Life Extension and Turn Up the Heat are commercial sites hawking a product, and therefore less than reliable. I've given you the benefit in the doubt in citing them and would appreciate the same courtesy to the anon IP at the very least. Speaking of courtesy, your comment to me above is not particularly WP:CIVIL and certainly does not assume good faith. Please be careful with your tone. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Sentence has been ammended. It was fantasy information instigated by an anon IP who has been blocked for vandalizing this article. Case Closed. AndyCanada 04:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's only closed because I took the time to find the proper citation and ensure the claim matched the source - rather than wasting Wikipedia resources by edit warring - and even then once I locate that particular text, and I will, I'll be ensuring we didn't inadvertantly leave out another editors information. Yankees76 05:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice:

The soybean article is locked up because of edit warring by Yankees76. His tone and language is very aggressive. The user seems to be looking for a brawl. A look at the history will demonstrate Yankees76's uncivil behavior. He has made some controversial edits that have since been changed because they were false information. Assume good faith but be cautious with Yankees76. 67.150.244.19 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)