Soy and test

Google soy consumption and testosterone.
>First study that shows up

Am I reading this wrong or does it show exact;y what I think it shows? If so why do I still hear about cringy balding pussies telling me it doesn't have any effect on testosterone?

Other urls found in this thread:

fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(09)00966-2/fulltext
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>n=12

useless and invalid.

>healthy male volunteers that were in good health

poor study performed by substandard scientists. just being honest. you ceaselessly check these things a million times. you don't *ever* have style errors like that in a meaningful study

Did not reach p = 0.05

How many girls have you fucked? I bet it's a lot and I bet it was all high quality too and I bet you're super smart and good looking and can beat any guy in a fight user.

>useless and invalid.
why?

>n=12

If you honestly think 12 most likely very unhealthy nonathletic males is enough to convince you if a food lowers your T or not you're retarded

...

Did you fail introduction to stats? It should be obvious and im not even into nutrition. Try to see if there was a recent lit review on soy + test

Go home big soy. It’s a scientific study. Refute it with peer reviewed findings that disprove it, or shut the fuck up.

Did you read the abstract? And do you understand how sampling works

You guys are probably too mentally handicapped to understand what a meta-analysis is if you think that a study on a dozen people has any sort of trruth to it, but here's a better source:

fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(09)00966-2/fulltext

15 double blind studies with 36 populations tested, no correlation between soy consumption and low testosterone. I wish we could push for "posting on Veeky Forums lowers your testosterone" so that all these autists with body image issues who think anyone but them is to blame for their pathetic minds and bodies would fuck off.

You should be attacking the n=1 (1 study) and not n=12.

n=12 does not really prove or disprove anything. n=12 across 10,000 studies would be something (there is a big difference between 12,000 different studies and 1 study with n=120000)

Do you understand the concept that the burden of proof falls on the person claiming something? And did you read the part of the article that says

>but the changes did not reach statistical significance

If you think the soy meme is bad some retards here are doing DIY orthodontic treatments

>12 subjects
into the trash

>(((documentaries that aim to convert men to plant-based diets)))

funny how there's hundreds of meta analysis and large studies that prove isoflavones have extremely little to no effect on testosterone or estrogen, yet every brainlet thinks their two or three scientifically insignificant studies are the golden grail

Please don't lump all us balding men together

>thinking the effects of soy matter when you're juicing

Anyone who did his introductory biochem knows that phytoestrogens are acting as estradiol antagonists. If they have any effect at all on serum testosterone levels, it would be the opposite.

COPE HARDER
O
P
E

H
A
R
D
E
R

So if all of you don't consume any soy, why do you still look like garbage? Do they manifest on your body once you finally kill the soy Boogeyman?