In The News: Opening Up A Can Of... Worms

Did any of you watch 20/20's investigative report on the children of Appalachia two weeks ago?

If not, you can watch it here. Truly eye-opening -- and heartbreaking.

I finally caught up with it last night (thank you, DVR!).

One segment focused on the dental health of children and adolescents in that area; more specifically, the problem of "Mountain Dew mouth."

As a result of extreme soda consumption (Mountain Dew is given to children in sippy cups and considered an ailment for depression), children as young as two years of age are developing cavities.

Some elementary school students have such damaged teeth that the simple act of brushing is painful -- too painful to be accomplished.

In an attempt to help, dentist Edwin Smith spent $150,000 of his savings to turn an 18 wheel truck into a mobile dental clinic.

This segment has set off a firestorm among the nutrition community. All sorts of questions are being asked -- and hotly debated.

Is it accurate to blame soda -- and a specific brand at that -- for cavities?

Or does the lack of dental hygiene awareness and access to dental care set the stage for problems regardless of the types of food eaten?

After all, starchy foods like bread, rice, and crackers are just as likely to increase cavity risk. And many people drink soda and don't get cavities.

What is most interesting is Pepsi's response to this. Make that responses -- three of them!

Here is the first one.

Notice the drastic change in tone in their second statement.

And, finally, here is the short third statement that followed.

As if that wasn't enough, Diane Sawyer gave further updates on Good Morning America last week. The big announcement? PepsiCo. decided to pay for a second mobile clinic.

What role -- if any -- should Pepsi play in this? Is their donation of a second mobile clinic a form of aid or just a publicity stunt for good PR?

What about local and federal government? Should they be involved?

Then we get to the hottest button issue of all. How does this problem begin to get addressed? Education? Policy? Some sort of hybrid?

I'm even more disturbed by the fact that, as a result of mountaintop mining for coal, tap water in much of the Appalachian region is contaminated and undrinkable.

Please weigh in with any opinion(s) you may have.

You Ask, I Answer: Stevia

What's your take on Stevia versus other no-calorie sweeteners (Splenda, etc)?

I generally use Splenda, but started to use stevia since it is supposed to be more 'natural' and 'unprocessed."

-- Jean (last name withheld)
New York, NY

I would rank Stevia as the most controversial no-calorie sweetener.

Although it is plant-derived (thereby less artificial than Splenda, aspartame, or saccharin) and has been used in some countries (like Japan) for almost two decades, the United States was never open to it, citing concerns over rather shoddy animal studies showing apparent mutagenic properties of some components of the sweetener.

It was banned in 1991, and when that ban was lifted three years later, the Food & Drug Administration refused to grant it GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status as a food additive, thereby only making it legal if sold as a supplement. Confused yet?

I -- and many others -- suspect this had more to do with political motives than actual health concerns.

Consider the fact that patented (hint: profitable) artificial sweeteners faced fewer legal roadblocks.

Adding to that, once two multi-national bigshot corporations like Coca Cola and Cargill jointly developed -- and patented -- a Stevia-based sweetener (Truvia), the FDA had no problem granting them a green light.

Although I don't use it myself, I don't have a problem with someone sweetening their morning coffee with a teaspoon or two of Stevia.

What I want to point out about all these zero-calorie sweeteners, though, is that people are misguided if they think using them in place of sugar is an efficient weight-loss and overall health strategy.

No one becomes overweight or obese as a result of the tablespoon of sugar they add to their morning coffee every day (two packets of sugar only contribute 32 calories.)

It is the sodas, cookies, candies, muffins, and chocolate bars that are loaded with empty calories (in the form of sugar) that are more problematic. Although sodas are available in zero-calorie varieties, such is not the case with baked goods and other sweets.

And, so, we once again come back to the concept of general eating patterns -- and total calories -- being at the core of health and weight goals.

Using a non-caloric sweetener in coffee does not offset consuming too many calories throughout the day.

In The News: Michael Phelps & Tony The Tiger Make It Official

So Michael Phelps (perhaps you've heard of him?) has apparently angered a few nutritionists for agreeing to appear on boxes of Kellogg's Frosted Flakes cereal.

Really? I can't believe some people in the nutrition field are up in arms over this when there are more serious issues worth devoting time to.

How about stepping back a little and loosening up? It's not as if he's the face of Burger King or Ben & Jerry's.

No, Frosted Flakes are not a nutrition powerhouse, but the recently launched lower sugar variety only delivers 120 calories and 8 grams (2 teaspoons) of added sugar in a 1 cup serving. It's not THAT horrible -- and certainly not the culprit of obesity.

A cup of Frosted Flakes as part of a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is no reason to hit the panic button.

The most ironic part of this whole "controversy" is that "health experts [are] worried about the message he'll be sending to children across America."

How so? Isn't his main message all about exercising and being in shape?

This is a man who achieved fame by being the fastest swimmer at the Olympics. His career is all about burning calories!

I find the mental junk food provided by any given episode of The Hills to be much more worrisome.

All You Need To Know About Antioxidants

Knowing my fondness for dark chocolate and almonds, a friend recently gifted me with, what else, a Perugina "dark chocolate & almonds" bar.

Later that day, prior to indulging in a post-dinner nibble, I scanned over the packaging.

Right above the nutrition facts was a small text box that read: "175 milligrams of antioxidants per serving."

You are already picturing my eyeballs rolling out of my eyes and down the kitchen floor, right?

Here's the thing. It's one thing to advertise certain chocolates as "healthier" by displaying their cocoa content, but displaying milligrams of antioxidants is really pushing it, for several reasons.

First of all, there is no set number for how many antioxidant milligrams should be consumed on a daily basis.

Secondly, the way most antioxidant content in food is measured is not in milligrams but by something known as ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity).

This is basically a test of how efficient a given food is at protecting cells from a radical known as the peroxyl radical.

As a sidenote, berries are among the highest ORAC scorers.

And then, of course, there's the whole "issue" of antioxidants. We are just now beginning to understand a little bit about them.

Many people, however, think they're doing themselves a favor by happily downing whatever antioxidant supplement drugstores or supplement shops are happily shilling.

Not so fast.

Let's start at the beginning.

Oxygen is a wonderful element that helps our cells function properly, but it also causes a problem.

When an atom or molecule in our body comes in direct contact with oxygen, it loses one electron (stick with me, I promise this won't turn into a chemistry lecture) and becomes "oxidized."

Although some oxidation is normal (remember, our cells are constantly dying and being replaced), free radicals are, basically, destructive atoms and molecules that are not happy about missing an electron.

They unleash their frustrations by running into cells and damaging them, unleashing a chain reaction of cell injury that can compromise DNA and set the stage for a variety of diseases and cancers.

What makes all of this even trickier is that a certain amount of free radicals in our body is actually a good thing, as they make up part of our immune system, fighting off any foreign substances.

When it comes to excess free radicals, though, this is where the approximately 6,000 current recognized antioxidants come into play.

Mind you, our body is able to produce some antioxidants. However, these are only able to take care of the free radicals that are the product of normal body functions.

They are certainly not equipped to handle the free radicals that are the product of environmental pollutants and smoking.

Antioxidants basically look for free radicals and give them an electron so they can go on their merry way and stop wreaking havoc.

Some are preventive, and stop a free radical cascade before it begins.

Others, known as "chain breaking," get in the middle of a free radical gang and break it up before more trouble ensues.

Antioxidants (including vitamins C and E) are pretty special because they can donate electrons and, rather than become free radicals, remain stable.

Believe it or not, antioxidant research is still fairly new, and a lot of questions still need to be answered.

What is known is that antioxidants are most effective when consumed in food (it is believed that they work better in combination with certain phytonutrients) and in conjunction with other antioxidants.

So, downing thousands of milligrams of Vitamin C doesn't automatically guarantee a free radical defeat.

This partially helps to explain why the issue of "variety" and "diversity" is often stressed in nutrition.

Red-colored fruits and vegetables offer very different antioxidants than green colored ones, which offer different ones from blue and purple ones.

This is why "eating the rainbow" is often encouraged -- it provides as diverse a nutrient and antioxidant pool as possible.

Similarly, the antioxidants in whole grains are different from the ones in legumes, which are different from the ones in fruits.

Clinical trials have shown that isolated antioxidants in pill form are not as effective as those in food; in fact, some preliminary studies have shown that high doses of supplemental antioxidants can actually cause further oxidation.

I know, my head is spinning too.

In the end, though, we come back to standard nutrition advice. Eat a diverse, mainly unprocessed plant-based diet. That never seems to be the culprit of anything.

And a note to the folks at Perugina chocolates: a single cup of coffee delivers about 750 milligrams of antioxidants, so 175 isn't exactly a mind-blowing figure...

In The News: Dieting Off The Runway

Vogue magazine asked Kate and Laura Mulleavy -- the sisters behind the highly successful Rodarte fashion line -- if they were interested in dieting and working out with a trainer for a feature piece.

The two women, interested in shaping up and getting healthier, agreed to four months of personal training, home delivered meals, and diary entries to later be published in the fashionista's Bible.

After sixteen weeks of training six days a week and consuming approximately 1,300 calories a day, Kate lost thirty pounds; her sister, twenty.

Needless to say, controversy has erupted.

"They are perpetuating unrealistic body images," some claim.

Others think Vogue is sending out the wrong message that in order to be succesful, one must be thin.

Now look, I am by no means a fashion guru and am often horrified at the gaunt, clearly underweight bodies that march down runways at fashion shows.

In this case, though, I don't see what the problem is.

It is worth noting that in one of her diaries, Kate writes:

"Funnily enough, just before we received the call from Vogue about this story, Laura and I went to see our doctor for a physical.

Our mother was worried about out workload and lack of exercise; we wanted to be healthier and balance our stress levels."

These were not size 4 models dining on coffee and cigarrettes being told they were "too fat" to walk down a runway (you can see a photo of Kate and Laura prior to their makeover by clicking on their names at the start of this post).

The Mullavys were also never given the message that if they "wanted to make it" as designers, then they better lose weight.

They are already accomplished and successful.

The magazine featured their work -- and complimented their designs -- several times before this weight loss article was conceived.

Their present weight is a healthy one -- they are not emaciated or displaying unhealthy bodies.

I also appreciated that their plan consisted of pre-set meals (to ensure that they were nutritionally balanced, rather than just letting the two women figure out how to eat correctly on a 1,300 calorie diet) and implemented exercise under the supervision of a trained professional.

Another interesting tidbit from their diary entries:

"“We’ll have wine when we feel like it and cheat on holidays.”

In short, these are two adult women who chose to participate in something they saw as a way to improve their health.

In the same way that someone has the right to feel completely content and self-assured with fifteen extra pounds on them, it is also reasonable to expect that there are overweight people who truly want to improve their health and, why not, look better too.

This was not a challenge the sisters had to complete successfully in order to launch their clothing line.

At no point do the Mullavys mention doing this to "look hot", land significant others, or fit into a dream bikini. And, they currently report feeling healthier and more energetic than before.

I realize they went on a strict eating plan and exercise regimen, but they were not taking diet pills, cutting out food groups, or doing senseless things like subsisting on liquids concoctions made of cayenne pepper, lemon juice, and honey for a week (I'm looking at you, Beyoncé).

The New York Times article quotes Dr. Cynthia Bulik, eating disorders professor at The University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, who makes a very good point:

"“I saw more of an emphasis on healthy eating and healthy fitness than an order, ‘You’ve got to lose weight."

I do, however, absolutely side with the feminist-thinking folks at Radar magazine, who can't help but wonder that if Vogue editors are so concerned about people's health, why don't they ask a dietitian to have a chat with fashion guru Andre Leon Talley?

What are your thoughts?

You Ask, I Answer: Gary Taubes

I would very much appreciate any thoughts you have regarding Gary Taubes.

-- Karen Carabio
Reno, NV

This question arrived in my inbox on March 3, the same day I heard that Mr. Taubes was due to speak at New York University's Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health on March 13.

I wanted to attend that event before answering Karen's question, so as to truly familiarize myself with his theories and viewpoints.

If you are not familiar with Gary Taubes, he is a journalist and physicist who has contributed articles to Science magazine since the 80s.

He became a semi household name in August of 2002 when his article "What If It's All Been A Big Fat Lie?" made the cover of The New York Times Magazine.

Its main point? Carbohydrates -- and only carboydrates -- are to blame for rising obesity rates in the United States.

Cut out carbs from your diet, Taubes claimed, and you won't gain weight. And when he says "carbohydrates", he's even referring to whole grains.

His article paved the way for the 2002 rebirth of the Atkins diet.

And what a rebirth it was! Six hundred low-carb products were launched in 2003.

Even common products like oils, cheese, and diet sodas included large "Low Carb!" stickers on their packaging, capitalizing on consumers' growing interest in shunning carbohydrate-rich foods.

By 2005, however, the hype died down, the Atkins company filed for bankruptcy, and "low carb" was out (thank goodness!).

That certainly didn't change Taubes' mind, though.

Last year, he pubished Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease.

Its main point? Dietitians are blaming the wrong guy for this country's increasing weight problems.

Obesity, Taubes claims, is not caused by overeating. Not only that -- calories have nothing to do with weight gain or loss!

So what is the cause? Taubes attributes it to insulin.

The more insulin you produce, he believes, the more weight you gain.

Therefore, it follows that carbohydrates (which raise blood glucose levels more than fat or protein, thereby signaling the body to release more insulin) cause weight gain.

At his March 13 NYU talk, Taubes presented a few more points.

He first referred to animal studies demonstrating that when animals overfeed themselves, their metabolism revs up and burns more energy than usual; when they underfeed, their metabolism slows down.

Taubes went on to explain that the same concept can be attributed to humans.

If we overeat, he explained, our bodies are smart enough to know to burn more calories. If we undereat, our metabolism slows down.

In Taubes' view, calories in and of themselves are irrelevant because our bodies can handle what comes their way.

Fair enough -- one of the main flaws behind very low calorie diets is that they end up slowing metabolism down, thereby making it easier to gain weight when regular eating patterns are resumed.

And while it is true that our metabolisms can compensate if we overeat by 50 or so calories, don't count on it to balance things out if you overeat by 300, 500, 1,000 or 1,200 calories.

Taubes claims that all overweight people are in such a state simply because of high carbohydrate consumption.

Okay, but can he point to examples of people overeating calories and NOT gaining weight?

Taubes believes that "portion control" only works because people are eating less carbohydrates.

Yes, but they are also eating less fat and protein, thereby discrediting his entire argument.

After the talk, a member of the audience asked Taubes how he explains many Asian cultures subsisting on "bad carbs" like white rice and having lower obesity rates than the United States.

His response? "Well, they've been eating rice for thousands of years, so their bodies are just used to it." Huh?

At one point in his talk, Taubes claimed that sugar and refined carbohydrates are only approximately a hundred years old or so in much of Europe and North America.

I would love to know where he got that information from, since the most basic of research on sugar points to its existence in Persia around 650 AD, and its delivery by European Crusaders to their continent in 1100 AD.

Sugar is not new. It has been consumed by civilizations around the world for centuries. Following his logic then, why aren't most humans "immune" to calories from sugar?

Overweight and obesity are clearly linked to a higher consumption of calories.

If you are skeptical, do me a favor and eat 1,000 more calories than usual (solely from pure fat or protein sources; absolutely no carbs) every day for a month.

Then, get on a scale.

Or, try the reverse and subsist on 400 calories of pure carbohydrates every single day for a month. According to Taubes, you would still gain weight.

Taubes was also asked by an audience member if he thinks it is possible for humans to live healthfully without consuming a single gram of carbohydrates.

His answer? A resounding "yes."

At one point in his presentation, he even referred to fiber as "insignificant." I thought my eyebrows were going to reach the ceiling.

I seriously wonder how he came to this conclusion; a thorough review of the evidence-based research on fiber consumption and its role in decreading cancer risks (particularly colon and prostate ones) clearly demonstrates the important role it plays in overall health.

Once again, this theory can easily be disputed by trying it out yourself.

If you think fiber is irrelevant to your health, go two weeks on a fiber-free diet -- no laxatives allowed! I'm pretty sure you'll soon realize just how crucial fiber is.

By the way, Taubes' infamous 2002 article quickly received a response from the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Washington Post health reporter Sally Squires (I am unable to find her excellent article online -- can anyone help?).

Michael Fumento of Reason magazine also added his two cents at the time.

Gary Taubes fired back a response, which in turn was replied to by Fumento.

I have provided links to all these articles to enable you to read and form your own conclusions.

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

In The News: Holy Calories

Faith-based weight-loss programs are a rapidly growing branch of the diet industry, some of which -- Bod4God, Weigh Down, and First Place -- were featured in The Chicago Tribune a few days ago.

All these programs incorporate Bible reading, prayer sessions, Scripture memorization, and a commitment to approach food and hunger from Christian-based teachings to traditional weight loss and management strategies.

Advocates and members credit these programs with helping them differentiate between physical and spiritual hunger, replace temporary culinary pleasures with God's word, and finally shed unwanted pounds that refused to disappear with a variety of popular diets.

Many experts -- not affiliated with these programs' religions -- give credit to them for successfully instilling ideas of portion control, hunger awareness, and balanced lifestyles to groups of people who had a hard time grasping these concepts with other programs.

These are certainly no "touch and go" plans.

This, for instance, is what First Place's new members agree to upon joining:

"ATTEND a meeting each week.
ENCOURAGE one other person in your class weekly.
PRAY daily.
READ two chapters in the Bible daily.
MEMORIZE one Bible verse weekly.
Complete a weekly BIBLE STUDY, which takes about 15 minutes a day.
Follow the First Place LIVE-IT FOOD PLAN.
Keep a First Place COMMITMENT RECORD or food diary.
EXERCISE a minimum of three times a week."

Weigh Down, meanwhile, describes their program in this manner:

"From the day you begin a Weigh Down seminar, you will never again count a single calorie or fat gram, you will never again examine the contents list on a box, you will never again consult a food-exchange list or menu planning card, you will never again do your shopping in the dietetic food aisle of the grocery store, and you will never again step onto a treadmill to work off the candy bar you ate."

Unlike other faith-based programs, they do not advocate a largely vegetarian diet heavy on beans, legumes, and whole grains, instead explaining:

"God did not "accidentally" leave the Basic Four food groups out of the Bible! He created the wonderful flavors of blue cheese dressing, pepperoni pizza, and chocolate brownies. He wants us to enjoy them - within His boundaries of what is healthy for our bodies. The body is the Temple of God, and we must begin treating it as such."

Some health professionals have a more cautious approach to these plans, initially citing a certain degree of inappropriateness they feel accompanies charging for a service on behalf of a religious figure.

Issues of self-esteem and responsibility are also touted as potentially problematic.

Weigh Down, for instance, firmly believes that eating beyond your level of hunger is a sin.

This, some think, adds an extra layer of guilt to emotional binge eating, which is already enveloped in a range of negative emotions and, often times, self-loathing.

Weigh Down has also been criticized -- even by former members -- for not giving any importance to physical activity, citing it as unnecessary and instead claiming that cutting down on portions and forming a stronger relationship with God are the only two things necessary for successful weight loss.

Per Weigh Down's website:

"In Weigh Down, the only exercise God requires is surrendering your will to His perfect system of hunger and fullness."

Weigh Down's overall philosophy also does not sit well with some members of the nutrition community.

It basically claims that as long as people cut down their portions, the actual foods they eat are irrelevant; for all intents and purposes, a Twinkie is equivalent to a cup of oatmeal.

Many find this to be odd -- and not very wise -- advice, especially since the program was created and developed by a Registered Dietitian.

What do you think?

In The News: Corrupted Virginity

Extra virgin olive oil is considered the champion of all oils thanks to its high amounts of polyphenols, antioxidants, and monounsaturated fats.

This powerful combination has been shown to decrease risks of heart disease (by lowering 'bad cholesterol'), high blood pressure, and even breast cancer, according to some promising research from the Canary Islands.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

Well, here's a reality check you might not be too keen on cashing -- that "extra virgin" olive oil you have been buying might be anything but!

Reader Chris Davis notified me of a lengthy article published by The New Yorker earlier this year which spotlights worldwide olive oil fraud, a market laden with corruption and political scandals that can produce as much money as cocaine trafficking.

Since reading the article, I have done a bit more research and want to share the not too uplifting news with you.

A lot of supposed extra-virgin olive oil is really soy or hazelnut oil that has been adulterated.

Unfortunately, the words "imported from Italy" do not necessarily mean what you think.

If low-quality oils from North Africa are shipped to Italy, where they are then tampered with and bottled, the packaging can legally claim that oil is an Italian import.

You might take that to mean that Tuscan olives from a small farm are made into extra virgin olive oil. Wrong!

The Food and Drug Administration does not test oils coming into the United States for adulteration.

Although a group known as the North American Olive Oil Association takes care of that -- and they have discovered several distributors selling inferior quality oils as extra virgin -- their testing is nowhere near as rigorous as that f the International Olive Oil Council.

There are currently several proactive anti-fraud ideas being floated around.

One would require all bottles of extra virgin olive oil to list the acidity of their contents (to be considered extra virgin, olive oil must contain an acidity of no more than 0.8%).

Of course, who is to say that these figures can't be doctored with the exchange of cold hard cash?

One interesting solution to this problem comes from the region of Andalucia in Spain (one of the world's largest manufacturers of olive oil). There are talks of using molecular cell technology to determine if olive oil labeled as extra virgin matches the structure of the authetic product.

In the meantime, what can you do as a consumer? From a label standpoint, look for any bottles bearing the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC) stamp of approval.

If this is absent, see if the label lists the acidity figures for the supposed extra virgin olive oil. Look for an acidity level of 0.8% or less.

No luck? Look at the price tag. A liter of olive oil at $7.99 is highly unlikely to be extra virgin.

For more information, check out the International Olive Oil Council's website.

Shame On You: Blind Item

For those of you unfamiliar with the term 'blind item', it is what gossip columnists publish when they have a piece of gossip so hot -- and damaging -- that they don't dare publish it with first and last name to avoid possible lawsuits.

For instance, New York City's infamous Page Six gossip column recently printed the following:

WHICH reality star turned rocker recently had major work done after a minor weight loss? Following in the footsteps of her plastic surgery-addict mother, the young starlet got her tummy tightened and her breasts lifted.

Believe it or not, I now have a blind item of my own, courtesy of a business and kitchen insider who knows firsthand of some terrible sneakiness taking place behind the scenes.

WHICH popular "healthy" food delivery business -- linked to a popular diet -- is pulling the wool over some of its New York City customers? Even though your meal is supposed to be "heart healthy" and low in calories, many of the chefs who work for the outsourced company that makes the meals are known to add more butter, cream, and salt to any "healthy" dish that doesn't taste good to them!

I was absolutely flabbergasted to find this out. People are putting their trust in a company to deliver healthy, tasty food, and they are instead getting highly caloric, fattening meals.

In all fairness, the popular diet company does not seem to be aware that this is going on. Negligent? Absolutely. If I was an executive member of this company, I would have someone from my staff supervising the chefs making these meals.

To be absolutely sure of what you are eating, your best bet is to make it yourself at home. Or, at the very least, understand that when you eat out, even if it sounds mega healthy, you run the risk of consuming more calories than you would at home, or added ingredients you would never think of putting onto your dinner plate!

PS: I know for a fact this has been happening in New York City. This service is national, though, so I don't know if this is a national or regional problem. I'll see what I find out.

You Ask, I Answer: Soy

I eat a good amount of soy every day. What is your opinion on the studies that claim soy is anything but healthy?

-- Gretchen Trimm
Greensborough, NC

The soy debate has been going on for a while, and it only appears to be intensifying.

Whereas many people appear to focus on whether soy is inherently good or bad, I think a more helpful way of looking at this issue is to consider how we are eating our soy.

For instance, let’s take potatoes. I could easily make the case that potatoes are unhealthy if I base my research on people who only eat them as French fries, chips, or mashed potatoes loaded with butter and bacon bits.

A similar thing is happening with soy.

The studies showing the benefits of including soy in one’s diet referred to nutritious variations of it, whether it’s tossing actual soybeans into a salad, eating tempeh, or having steamed or grilled tofu.

Unfortunately, once soy became popular in the United States, it was used to make soy chips, soy pretzels, and soy ice cream. In other words, soy became overshadowed by sodium, high fructose corn syrup, and a variety of food additives and unhealthy ingredients.

Remember that the closer your food is to nature, the higher its vitamin, mineral, and antioxidant component.

If someone's only source of soy is unhealthy foods (i.e.: McDonald's hamburgers and hamburger buns contain soy by-products), their nutrition status would clearly not benefit.

Just like a plain baked potato is a better source of fiber, vitamin C, and potassium than a potato-ish concoction in a can of Pringles, minimally processed versions of soy offer health benefits not found in a convenience snack made out of soydust.

I would not suggest anyone stop eating soy or consider it a harmful addition to their diet. If anything, products like edamame and tempeh are a great source of fiber, healthy fats, and protein.

However, I also think it is wrong to view soy -- or any other food -- as miraculous or healthy if consumed in extremely high amounts.