circular wrote: Gilgamesh wrote:
This means -- I am not going to stop making this point, sorry!
-- that we can't tell from the abstract whether it was dietary constituents, or higher caloric intake on the HCD that produced the observed effect....
Thanks for making the point again Gilgamesh. I'm too busy to read all the threads so hadn't seen where you've done this before. A helpful thing to keep in mind.
Thanks. These discussions of dietary constituents with no mention of energy content aren't very helpful to me. But it doesn't mean others aren't helped.
Analogy: I feel like I'm in a discussion with people talking about how switching from a street bike to a mountain bike (or vice versa in some cases) altered their cardiac risk profile. Everyone's discussing theories involving the weight of the mountain bike, the shape of the seat, the gear ratios, etc. But no one is bothering to count how many minutes they exercise on each kind of bike. And other studies show that people tend to exercise more when they own a mountain bike, because it's more fun (let's say, for the sake of the example). Gear ratios and seat shapes are irrelevant: buy a mountain bike, you exercise more. Exercise improves cardiac risk profile! This doesn't alter the fact that switching to the mountain bike helps, but it does
mean that people can just exercise more on their street bike and have the same effect, because it's the amount of exercise that matters, not "bike constituents". We would need "iso-biking" comparisons to know whether "bike constituents" matter, just like we need iso-caloric comparisons to know whether dietary constituents matter.
Sorry if I'm being too serious for folks here. Just trying to isolate the true independent variable -- or, more likely, one of them. (My working hypothesis is most certainly not
that dietary constituents do not matter at all!)
Going offline for a while. Be well everyone!
P.S. About testosterone and diet:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20096034