If it was an experiment, then the results would show whether the effect was from the fiber, the low fat, both added together, or both interacting together.
So if it was an experiment, don’t speculate about what caused the effect. Go look at the data.
If it was observational/correlational, that’s a different story. But if people were “put on diets,” it was an experiment.
Please read Bills post and get back to me about my senseless speculation.
I didn’t have a choice but to speculate. But you seem to know better than I so have at it brother…
I stand by my statement. I said “Go look at the data.” Bill made this easy for us.
You should always look at the experiment BEFORE you speculate.
In this case, nothing can be learned from the experiment. But if it had been well designed, there WOULD have been something to learn.
Do not dismiss OR accept studies unless you understand what can rationally be interpreted from the study’s results.
All we can rationally say from these results is that EITHER low fat OR high fiber OR both adding or interacting together MAY lower androgens in males. If we also know that there are other studies linking low fat with lowered androgens, then our best guess is that the low fat may be largely responsible. But we really don’t know for sure.[/quote]
OK, sorry I kinda snapped at you there.
I am operating from the POV that I know low fat diets can and do often result in lowered T. I also know that our ancestors ate many times the fiber we do today. I am also “speculating” that they were’t experiencing any T issues back then.
The opinion I gave incorporated all these suppositions/assumptions and I was just relaying my hypothesis, nothing more.
Indeed, had I conducted this study/experiment, it would’ve elicited more conctete answers.
I also understand that results often reflect the theories of the people running the study… Whether they actually should or not.