>>18594519you just read the summary instead of reading the methods didnt you?
first of all, their "portion size" method is retardarion, there is no guarantee anybody has a proper caloric intake.
Second of all, this study us literally from the early 2000s, "meat eaters* are people who eat a 200g steak a day, if even that, that is a stupid subject to study.
Third of all, T levels were statistically insignificantly higher in the vegan group while their SHBG was statistically significantly high, their IGF-1 was lower because they eat basically carbs only, total colestherol is a retarded thing to measure since it measures the number of particles and not the size, it also tells you nothing because there is no way to interpret it, also vegans had statistically insignificant higher freeT i guess.
And lastly, this study was done in the 2000s, when the food pyramid idiocy was being pushed and meat was considered a "bad food", this study is funded by anti cancer agenacies who are biased against meat, too.
Gtfo with your vegan shilling, the fact that vegans are literally less healthy than a population who eats fast food and has no idea what a micronutrient is if fucking pitiful.
If you compare somebody who eats double their lean mass in kg in grams of protein each day and has a full micronutrient profile their blow the vegans out of the water.
You are retarded, your interpretation of the study is retarded and your shilling is retarded.
