Misplaced Pages

Talk:Soy protein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:57, 9 November 2006 edit67.150.244.19 (talk) →Fanstasy information in soy protein article!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:05, 22 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,666 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(87 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
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... ] 06:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=high}}
: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 ]. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements | importance=high }}
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Archives |search=yes}}


== External links == == Importance ==
This once was a core 'vegetarian' topic, but the informed discussion seems to have moved ] out of the center of most vegetarian nutritional discussions (among relevantly-informed persons) - to the periphery, since it is no longer the key ingredient in plantmilks or plant-based meats. I wonder how the 'importance' tag should be set on the WikiProject vegan and vegetarian where 'cultural morphing' is evidence in food choices that are formally vegan but no longer reliant upon the same plant sources as they once seemed to be. ] (]) 13:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:Your question identifies a topic we don't have in the article - market size and commercial comparisons with other sources of plant protein. This is partially covered in where the different plant sources for beverages are compared in the graphs on greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint, and land use where - when taken together - such indices are favorable for soy as a nutritious, relatively inexpensive, widely planted crop, and universally favored source of protein worldwide. From a cursory Google search, indicates that soy production and uses in manufactured foods are growing, and likely to remain a nutritionally important source of plant protein with commercial relevance for many years to come. ] (]) 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
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. ]<sup>(])</sup> 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.
] 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. ] 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: I did a clean up to the Protein Section for a NPOV. ] 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. ] 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:Here too: http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/AnimalvsVegetable.htm. It appears some rewrites are in order. ] 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this interesting too (No not here -- Click down over there. Yes below.<ref>Renner E., 1983 Biological Value - Yahoo! Search Results</ref>
<references/> ] 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. ] 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! ] 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Fanstasy information in soy protein article! ==

''This section has been copied ''in toto'' from my talk page.'' ] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup>
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.''

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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages. --] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup> 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, ] 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 ] 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. --] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup> 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 ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] 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 ] 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." --] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup> 23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

'''The policy:'''
# '''Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources'''.
# '''Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor'''.
# '''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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] 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 and 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 ] and certainly does not ]. Please be careful with your tone. --] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup> 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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. ] 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:05, 22 February 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFood and drink High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconDietary Supplements High‑importance
WikiProject iconSoy 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.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconVeganism and Vegetarianism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

Importance

This once was a core 'vegetarian' topic, but the informed discussion seems to have moved soy protein out of the center of most vegetarian nutritional discussions (among relevantly-informed persons) - to the periphery, since it is no longer the key ingredient in plantmilks or plant-based meats. I wonder how the 'importance' tag should be set on the WikiProject vegan and vegetarian where 'cultural morphing' is evidence in food choices that are formally vegan but no longer reliant upon the same plant sources as they once seemed to be. MaynardClark (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Your question identifies a topic we don't have in the article - market size and commercial comparisons with other sources of plant protein. This is partially covered in the article on plant milks where the different plant sources for beverages are compared in the graphs on greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint, and land use where - when taken together - such indices are favorable for soy as a nutritious, relatively inexpensive, widely planted crop, and universally favored source of protein worldwide. From a cursory Google search, this 2019 market analysis indicates that soy production and uses in manufactured foods are growing, and likely to remain a nutritionally important source of plant protein with commercial relevance for many years to come. Zefr (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Categories: