Talk:Soy protein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dietary Supplements (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Soy protein is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Development of article[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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. 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[edit]

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: 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.[1]

  1. ^ Renner E., 1983 Biological Value - Yahoo! Search ResultsYahooooo!

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![edit]

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)


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)

So what do you have to say about this now? The "book referenced is about nutritional value and not BV"? Seems we have a scan of the book and lo and behold it's about BV! Looks like WP:AGF continues to do the trick - the reference does back up the sentence. Still want to go for arbitration now? Yankees76 05:34, 12 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)

Article protected[edit]

I have locked the article due to the ongoing edit war. Apparently there's a controversial section involving some data, which is continually being removed and reinstated. There's some sort of sourcing at the bottom of the article, so I want to know what this jazz is all about. Summarize it in a small paragraph, please. I hope that this editorial dispute is resolved in as little time as possible. On that note, remember to assume good faith, remain civil, and keep discussion relevant to the current issue. MESSEDROCKER 15:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective there is an anon user who has added to the article the information using 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. as a reference/source of the info being removed/added. There is a second editor, who under various user names, believes the source does not corroborate the info provided and is blanking the info. As noted above I did reword much of it originally based on verifiable primary sources to be NPOV however up to this point I've been unable to locate the secondary info provided by the book/source given to determine if either position in the debate is correct - even though there is some information that I beleive may be factually correct and some that I beleive is factually incorrect among the info as a whole. Up to this point, myself and another editor have assumed good faith that the editor who has cited the reference has faithfully represented what the reference says. Yankees76 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So there's three people involved here: you, the anonymous contributor, and a sockpuppeteer. MESSEDROCKER 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Gingko100 as well. Though she made many of the same points as myself regarding assuming good faith etc. I've contacted the anon IP on his/her talk page, but have not gotten any responses to help clarify the situation. The sockpuppeteers points are listed above copied/pasted from Gingko100's talk page. Yankees76 17:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor argues that the controversial table that has been constantly added/removed is false; see User talk:Messedrocker#Biological value of soy protein. Response? MESSEDROCKER 19:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is I can't find another source, primary or secondary that shows what the BV of whole soybean, defatted flour, Full-fat soy flour, or soybean milk is - so I can't disprove it. The BV of soy protein is 74, but that doesn't cover the rest of the items listed. The BV of beef covers only the cow meat, not the whole cow, it's the same with soy protein vs. the whole bean. There simply aren't detailed BV lists out there to just look this stuff up on, so I have to go with the source provided. Having the book in question available would be able to solve this easily. Yankees76 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So if the only situation is that soy protein's BV is 74 and there are lots of sources to back that up, but not so many for other things, then we only cover the soy protein part until we can get sources for everything else. How does that sound? MESSEDROCKER 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. A user with the IP reinserted it last -twice. I've actually been looking for this textbook for my own curiosity. As a side note, by denying this information, despite it being sourced, we're not really assuming good faith here are we? I can point to a number of references in this article already (see #11 in particular - another book not easily available, and this reference does not even list page numbers, or even a publisher) which fit into this same category. Just pointing this out. Yankees76 20:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pinning down information and sources[edit]

Here is the table, with some parts added by me. Please fill things out, and don't forget to fill out the source column for each thing you note. MESSEDROCKER 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kudos. Nice idea. I've spent quite of bit of time on this and to be honest there are conflicting numbers spread throughout the internet. What I've done though is post some verifiable sources that corroborate some of the info originally given by the anon IP. I'm afraid that many of the items (immature bean etc.) will be difficult to locate. Yankees76 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
In case of contradicting information, and after ruling out unreliable sources, then you should note in the article that different sources say different things. MESSEDROCKER 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Yankees76 06:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, we only use one: the latest data available. MESSEDROCKER 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Messedrocker. There are more recent studies available on BV. That is, we should use the latest data available that is accurate. 03:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Source of protein Biological Value Range Digestibility Range Sources
Immature bean Avg. 65 Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972)
Whole bean 95-97 (avg. 96) 90-91 (avg. 91) Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972)
Defatted soy flour 61-92 (avg. 81) 88-94 (avg. 92) Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972)
Full-fat soy flour (a) 64 (a) N/A (b) 75-92 (a) Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972) (b) Synder HE, Kwon TW. Soybean Utilization. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1987
Soybean milk 83-95 (avg. 91) 80-97 (avg. 89) Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972)
Soybean curd (aka Tofu) 64 95-97 (avg. 96) Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972)
Isolated soy protein 60-81 (avg. 71) 81-89 (avg. 85) Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972)
Textured soy flour
Eggs (a) N/A (b) 100 (a) 97 (b) N/A (a), National Research Council. Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th ed. National Academy Press, 1989. (b) Jolliet, P.. "Enteral nutrition in intensive care patients: a practical approach." Intensive Care Medicine (1998).
Cow milk (a) 90 (b) 88 (c) N/A (d) 84.5 (a) N/A (b) N/A (c) 91 (a) (McGilvery, Biochemistry, 1970) (b) Jolliet, P.. "Enteral nutrition in intensive care patients: a practical approach." Intensive Care Medicine (1998). (c) Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972) (d)
White flour 41 97 Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972)
Beef 74.3
Cheese 84 Jolliet, P.. "Enteral nutrition in intensive care patients: a practical approach." Intensive Care Medicine (1998).
Rice 83 Jolliet, P.. "Enteral nutrition in intensive care patients: a practical approach." Intensive Care Medicine (1998).
Corn (a) 30 (b) 60 (a) Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology (copyright 1972) (b)
Fish 76
Whole wheat 64

Here is a link to Table 7.7 from Smith and Circle on the biological value of soy proteins: Smith and Circle excerpt —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thank you very much! MESSEDROCKER 15:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
My concern is that what you linked to is over 30 years old. Essentially, we should consider them acceptable until we get more recent data. MESSEDROCKER 16:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
BV isn't new technology though, and some consider it to be somewhat dated. I can't think any new revelations occuring in the last 40 years that would cause a dramatic change in the BV of some items. Yankees76 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Amusing. The table is also confusing. It is quite funny too. The studies the anon 24 has provided dates back over 50 years. Interesting. Oh by the way. Not only are the studies outdated the book is as well. Even more interesting is the updated book may have the updated BV. Hmmm. Updated 1997 Edition!!! We should go with the latest 1997 edition available not outdated studies and outdated books! Comments Please. 03:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How exactly is the table confusing? (Note that in the same edit I post this comment I have also changed the table around a bit.) MESSEDROCKER 03:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the table is confusing biological value with digestibility. They should not be in the same table. There are two quite different things. BV is completely different than digestibility. The (a), (b), and (c) is confusing too. Let's find an accurate recent study and stick with it. Limit to no more than one or two studies. Or decide on just one study. BV is not a wide range as the table shows. Also the digestibility is already mentioned in the article. How is it notable to have a table of the digestibility? It is not notable or significant. Also the digestibility is a percentage (%) not a number to compare to Biological Value of Protein. Also, above in the table claims the book copyrighted 1972 but the studies in the book date back to the 1940s? Don't forget there is a newer 1997 edition of the book. 03:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The table is only for talk-page development purposes; we're not putting that in the article. The whole point of the (a) (b) (c) business is to point out conflicting figures in different sources (the letter of each value is supposed to match up with the letter of the source). Anyways, once we sort through everything, we will only be using the most recent values. If that happens to be from the 50s, then we'll have to use that until we get more recent values. Frankly I don't see you adding information from the 1997 edition. MESSEDROCKER 03:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A more recent study can be found here. Also on your talk page there are many links to other studies and websites too. 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Turn Up the Heat? Are you kidding me? What kind of Mickey Mouse source is that? No offense, but while we're posting references from textbooks, journals etc., you're posting references from a website called "Turn Up the Heat"? One that lists whey at 100-159? 159? Let's try to find something a little more credible shall we? Yankees76 04:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Real BV Table[edit]

Protein Biological Values (BV) of Protein[1]

  • Whey Protein 104
  • Whole Egg 100
  • Egg White (Albumin) 88
  • Fish 83
  • Beef 80
  • Casein 80
  • Chicken 79
  • Soy Protein Concentrate 74
  • Wheat Gluten 54
  • Beans 49
  1. ^ Protein Quality Evaluation, Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Consulation; Reference Manual for Whey Proteins, 2nd Ed. US Dairy Export Council.
Think we can get something a bit better than a link to a bunch of search engine results? Your list also seems to be missing many of the items above. Yankees76 04:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tone down the hostility. I have provided a good start. Are you trying to find up to date sources? I would like to see you find a bit better references that are not over 50 years old in your outdated table as compared to the real BV table. I am just attempting to improve the article, nothing else. 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A good start is listed above collaborated on by messedrocker and myself. This list is just copy and pasted from a website, we all know how to type BV into google and use the CTRL C and CTRL V - let's try to get serious shall we? Yankees76 05:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; as you may have learned in school, be careful where you do research. Granted the stuff Yankee and I have been citing is a bit old, but they're from scientific journals and the like who are not trying to sell a product. As Scotland Yard says, to solve major crimes you must follow the money. Who financially benefits the most from claiming that whey protein has an impossibly high BV? MESSEDROCKER 05:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the table made by Yankees76 the BV of soybean is 96. Let's get serious. This is bogus information that is obviously flawed. Also, Yankees76 has not provided a BV for whey along with the study. There are more recent studies but they are not posted online for people to read. This reference here may help. Protein Quality Evaluation, Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Consulation; Reference Manual for Whey Proteins, 2nd Ed. US Dairy Export Council. Also what study does anyone consider recent. Once we find a recent study the 50 year old studies are good bye and see you later. 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Integrating the researched data into the article and concluding the mediation[edit]

Seeing as we've came up with a reliable source for each of the points listed, I would like to see that the confirmed data gets entered into the article and that the article can get unprotected. Who agrees? (Note that in cases of conflicting sources, the most recent one is used.) MESSEDROCKER 06:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be settled quickly and effeciently so as not to further disrupt Wikipedia. Yankees76 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed? If this is a joke, nice joke. The table is a strawman's arguement. The studies date back to the 1940s. On the other hand it is quite amusing. I think I would like to see this joke of a table in the article. A good laugh! -- 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not seeing you taking that book from 1997 that you love so much and filling it in thusly. Biological value is measuring the amount of nitrogen in food vs. the amount that gets excreted. I can't imagine that technology changing much. MESSEDROCKER 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the exact table wouldn't be hurled into the article -- the table is only being used for development. When it comes to the article, a listing of the food and their BV will be used. MESSEDROCKER 23:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with both of the last two posts. Yankees76 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are already more recent studies on BV in the 1970s and 1980's. So the BV from the 1940s should be removed right away. Also, how is it notable to have a table on digestibility. There is already info in the article about digestibility percentage that anyone can expand. But a table about digestibility is not notable. So please remove it from the table. Also remove all the references about studies in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s because as you explained when there is conflicting dats we must go with the more recent data. There are studies in the table from the 1970s and the 1980s about BV. Also, please explain how is a table notable in this article. Yankees76 actually removed a table from the article before that he called it clean up in his edit summary then a new table all of a sudden popped up in the article. Strange? Its obvious what is going on here. I will let Messedrocker handle the situation. We both know who the troll is here. Yankees76 wants to use studies back in the 1940s when more recent studies exist. 00:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The table that was posted before was unsourced and contained errors - so I removed it. Again, we're not really seeing you input anything here are we? In fact I beleive you've spent more time critcizing everyone else's additions as being outdated (which they're not - and you've failed to adequately explain why they are) or finding some other lame reason why they're invalid, than actually doing some research that goes beyond feeble attempts at quoting Yahoo search engine results (probably the single funniest thing I've seen here in over a year of editing Wikipedia) and corporate websites with no credibility. The table above is a collaboration, complete with valid, unbiased sources - something far more credible than anything you've added to this dicussion. Playtime's over - the big kids are going to finish this off and fix the table and the article because squabbles and petty arguing is only disrupting Wikipedia. If you want to be taken seriously, start taking the task at hand seriously. Yankees76 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the table to remove as many references to older data as possible. As much as the data is unlikely to change, it's better to use more recent data in any situation. The only strange thing, though, is that one source lists corn as having a BV of 30. Another source lists it as 60. Until we can confirm it once and for all, I move that we refrain from including it in the article. MESSEDROCKER 01:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What was your cutoff date? I would say anything pre-World War II is out for sure (and should be removed from the articles' current references as there are some from the 20's, unless they're cited specifically for history).
On a side note, it's interesting to note that the Renner "study" quoted above, isn't actually a study, it's just a textbook quoted by whey protein manufacturers to support the claim that whey "gram for gram the purest, highest biologically active protein found in science". It was published in EAST Germany in 1983 by an "economical publishing house" or Volkswirtschaftlicher Verlag. The informationon pages 90–130 of this book discuss among other things, the protein effeciency ratio, and BV. See what's funny is while I don't have the book, my friends over at Max Muscle out in LA (thanks Dave!) do, and they used it to create a BV chart compiled from pages 90-130 in that book, along with information from the Protein Quality-Report of Joint FAO’/WHO Expert Consultation, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 51, 1991. They sent me this: [1], taken from this article written by Dorian Yates. [2]. According to Renner the BV of soy isolate is at 74, and beef is at 80. And whey is in it's proper place at 100, not 104. Again this is yet another instance of deception by our unbalanced anonymous friend, who clearly had not read the source he was quoting! According to Wikipedia guidelines it is inappropriate to cite a source that the editor hasn't actually read. In that situation both the reference should be removed from the article until or unless the editor who added the citation locates the appropriate passage in the book itself (which can be accessed through interlibrary loan from any public library). What was the point of this? Basically it proves the Renner book from 1983 is not a verifiable source. To quote our marketer-in-the-making - case closed. Yankees76 04:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

From-- Soybeans: Chemistry, Technology, Utilization by KeShun Liu.. 1997... 1)No where in this book is Biological Value mentioned even once!

2)On page 69 Table 2.10 PDCAAS Protein Product PDCAAS Source FAO/WHO (1990)

Peanut meal 0.52 Pea protein concentrate 0.73 Beef 0.92 Isolated soy protein(ISP) 0.92 Soy protein concentrate(SPC)0.99 Egg white 1.00 In Wikipedia text a correction needs to be made for SPC from 0.95 to 0.99 and ISP from 0.91 to 0.92 "Based on the new method (PDCAAS), soy protein in a purified form is equivalent in quality to animal proteins(Table 2.10) Similar results were also reported by Zarkada etal(1993) J. Agr Food Chem 41:616-623.

3)Add Defatted soy flour to Digestibility list with 84-90, toasted soybeans 65.3, full-fat soy flour 75-92(Watatanbe 1971)

4)Page 445 "Soybeans are higher in protein than other legumes; However, it is the amino acid pattern of soy protein that is most notable. The limiting amino acids in soybeans, as is the case for all legumes, are the sulfur-containing amino acids, methionine and cysteine. In the case of soy, however, the level of these two amino acids is sufficiently high so that soy protein is able to meet human protein needs BY ITSELF when consumed at the recommended level of protein intake." Reference Young 1991. J. Am Diet Ass. 91:828-835.

More links and references[edit]

An anonymous contributor suggested on my talk page that I use the following links to improve this article:

Not knowing much about the subject, I haven't followed his advice yet, but I'm reproducing the links here in case someone else feels like getting started. --Heron 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous contributor is same IP used by banned user AndyCanada (talk · contribs), also known as Messenger2010 (talk · contribs), and was quite active in the discussion and consensus that was used to created the section he/she describes on your talk page as a "total mess". The user has been blocked under various sockpuppet names - so any information given from this source or IPs starting with 63.17 should be scrutinized thoroughly. And quite frankly from my own interactions with the user, I find his/her edits with regards to protein and biological value to be very POV (very pro-whey and anti-soy and casein) and quite often inaccurate, irrelevant and disruptive. Just quickly looking through the links, the Renner book was self-published in East Germany and as such been discredited as a verifiable source (also, I highly doubt the user has actually read the book or is able to obtain a copy since the lengthy discussion above was concluded). And, according to Wikipedia guidelines it is inappropriate to cite a source that the editor hasn't actually read. Yankees76 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Health benefits only due to replacement of bad stuff?[edit]

One possible conclusion is soy protein is good for you, but only because it replaces worse stuff like animal fats. Anyone else agree with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What Does this Mean ?[edit]

'The participant in question had testosterone levels 200% higher than all of the other subjects,...'

If we insert some omitted words in order to make the sentence make sense, and read it as 'The participant in question had testosterone levels 200% higher than THAT OF all of the other subjects,...'. Then the sentence, as written, means that the testosterone level of one participant was three times that of others'. However, it might be that the author intends to say that the high level was only twice that of the others. Given the careless structure of this sentence, one loses confidence in the ability of the author to express himself accurately. Would the author please therefore say which meaning is intended. Andrew Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the fact that soy protein makes men grow titties? Also the claim that soy is high in a molecule that blocks the action of other proteins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

USDA "recognition" of Percy Julian[edit]

I removed the following inappropriate WP:OR sentence added to the "History" section by anonymous editor (aka / / / / / / / / / / / /

However, it took the USDA until June 13,2008 to recognize Dr. Julian ; "Giants of the past": Percy Lavon Julian, a forgotten pioneer in soy; and this is what, in part, it said: "He is most noted for his synthesis of cortisone from soybean sterols used to treat inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis which laid the foundation for the steroid drug industry's production of corticosteroids and birth control pills."[][]

The "USDA" did not "recognize" Dr. Julian on June 13, 2008.
The "USDA" did not say "He is most noted for his synthesis of cortisone from soybean sterols used to treat inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis which laid the foundation for the steroid drug industry's production of corticosteroids and birth control pills."

I also removed the preceding four sentences—that are about soybean oil and Percy Lavon Julian and not about the history of soy protein—which were cut-and-pasted from the soybean article to the "History" section of this article by same anonymous editor:

Within soybean oil or the lipid portion of the seed is contained the phytosterols: stigmasterol(17-21%),sitosterol(53-56%) and campesterol (20-23%) accounting for 2.5% of the lipid fraction. Beginning in 1940, natural products chemist Dr. Percy Lavon Julian at the Glidden Co. produced female sex hormones in kilogram quantities from stigmasterol and sitosterol. The soy stigmasterol was easily converted into commercial quantities of the female hormone, progesterone, and the first pound of progesterone he made, valued at $63,500 was shipped to the buyer in an armored car! Julian was known as "Soybean Chemist Extraordinaire" and as "The Soybean Chemist."

The anonymous editor has reintroduced over and over and over again the same disruptive WP:OR, WP:COPYVIO, and off-topic edits without any edit summaries and without any talk page discussion to the: Percy Lavon Julian, combined oral contraceptive pill, and soybean articles over the past week, which has led to semi-protection (Protected Soybean: persistent disruption (expires 17:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC))) of the soybean article today. Lynn4 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant Source Link used to substantiate an unsubstantiated claim.[edit]

"A study on the impact of dietary calcium and oxalate ratios on kidney stone risk has found that textured soy protein is very high in oxalates. There are 638 milligrams of oxalate per 85-gram serving.[44] Oxalates play a role in Autism and chronic disorders such as vulvodynia, chronic fatigue, and fibromyalgia."


I may be missing something here but the edit above makes the claim that "Textured Soy protein" is high in oxalates. It uses the source above to validate this claim, but upon checking the source I found that there is no mention of soy at all. Therefore I am confused on how they came to that conclusion. The second part where the edit claims Oxalate plays a role in chronic disorders was unsourced all together.

So I am going to remove the false information. I think it's important that this article be as objective and well sourced as possible since many people who want to convert to a soy diet will be reading this page in hope of an objective perspective.

Published peer-reviewed scientific paper used to study muscle hypertrophy and soy protein correlation[edit]

Hi all I added a study from "Hartman et al. (2007)" where an experiment where powdered soy was compared to a whole food protein (in that case fat-free milk). Fifty six untrained participants were compared for use of fat-free milk, soy protein drink (which was made to contain the same amount of calories and macronutrients as the milk; it was also an isonitrogenous matched beverage to the milk), and a carbohydrate drink (a control which had the same calories as both test variables). The subjects muscle hypertrophy and strength were measured the baseline was before any training was done and collection period was three days after the training commenced. The subject would train five days a week for twelve weeks and the drinks were consumed immediately after a resistance exercise. A second consumption of the beverage was done an hour following the initial consumption. The results show that the group that consumed the whole food had a higher lean body mass (LBM) with significant increase in body weight and decreased body fat when compared to the other two groups. The statistical results of the study showed that type II muscle fiber had increased when a whole food product like milk was used and strength therefore performance increased. User:Zefr claim that this source is not reliable however it is a peer reviewed study (Hartman J, Tang J, Wilkinson S, Tarnopolsky M, Lawrence R, Fullerton A, Phillips S: Consumption of fat-free fluid milk after resistance exercise promotes greater lean mass accretion than does consumption of soy or carbohydrate in young, novice, male weightlifters. Am J Clin Nutr 2007,86(2):373–381.) from the American Journal of Clinical nutrition. He further states that one study is not enough; yet "Wilkinson S, Tarnopolsky M, MacDonald M, MacDonald J, Armstrong D, Phillips S. (2007) Consumption of fluid skim milk promotes greater muscle protein accretion after resistance exercise than does consumption of an isonitrogenous and isoenergetic soy-protein beverage. Am J Clin Nutr, 85(4):1031–1040. EbscoHost. 2007." replicated the experiment using skim milk in place of fat free milk and obtained the same results. The findings were that each time the whole food protein source had lead to a higher LBM than the soy protein supplement. Is this not pertinant infomration to add to the article? --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Those sources are not OK - we use reviews in the biomedical literature or statements by major health authorities. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The two studies proposed above by Sanjev Rajaram were preliminary research projects falling within the definition of WP:PRIMARY inadequate for sourcing in the encyclopedia. The studies were conducted with small subject numbers and simple experimental designs insufficient for reaching a consensus, evidence-based conclusion. --Zefr (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me I was not aware of those policies. I shall review them. Thank you for the information. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)