Testosterone boost

>>39772212
I heard garlic and onion raise test, if u can handle the gas that is.

>>39772229

i remember a guy posting something about vitamin d and zinc. DO i take suplements?

>>39772237
Supplements probably won't hurt. Making sure you're getting enough of the nutrients you need to keep your body running smoothly is probably gonna make test easier to produce.

>>39772212
I doubt it will make a big change. on the other hand, if u are low test, then propably even 100ng/dl more will make a difference.

Dont want to discourage you, Im low test myself (300ng/dl) and I have tried it all without much difference. But, after keeping a good, straight diet (lots of egs, zinc, red meat) and supplements (tribulus and pinus masonaria pollen) I felt a bit better for most of time. If u are rich, you can use it.
But if u really are low test, then you will need roids or professional help.

>>39772257

Sorry about that. Have you tried zinc and d vitamin suplements.Fish oil?

>>39772280
I havent tested myself enough to tell if there is a medical difference - but yeah, if your lowered test is caused by zinc defficiency then taking zinc can do a lot, I think

I think I feel a bit better after taking it, but I dont have medical papers for that. Actually, Im taking ZMA, so it extra magnesium may also help.

Didnt tried fish oil for more than a month, didnt notice difference during that short period.

If I will have some extra money I will test my test again, but as for now I have year old data and lots of changes made in my lifestyle, so propably it wont be very scientificaly correct

>>39772323
But I can at least tell, that I got my morning woods back from time to time, so all this cumulated changes (more sports, less stress and depression, supplementation, better diet) propably changed something. I was a teenager without morning woods for long time.

>>39772346
I'm glad to read that!

>>39772212
going plant based has increased and leveled my testosterone for the last year.

Eating red meat raises estrogen bruh, give it all up for a month and practice a very balanced and proper plant based diet and you'll make plenty of gains.

btw plant based =/= vegan. It's literally the diet of gladiators homie. You don't have to care about the animals either.

File: simleydog.jpg (59KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 720x960px

bump

>>39772440

i'm not that retarded dipship

>>39772467

How retarded are you?

>>39772515

somehaow, but not that much to believe veganism will increase my testosterone,

>>39772548

Who said that?

does increased test help dickgainz?

nothing you eat will "raise your test" once you have a healthy diet you dumb cucks
just eat normally and work out ffs

N O F A P
O
F
A
P

>>39772212
Take brewers/nutritional yeast. Lots of zinc, magnesium, vitamin D etc, stuff you need in order to produce test.

Anyways, read this, it's all there:
> https://examine.com/supplements/Testosterone+Booster/
> http://examine.com/nutrition/how-can-i-increase-testosterone-naturally/

Beware that: the best you can do naturally is to get lots of micronutritients daily.

20mg clomid every other day
this cured my low test at age 19
AMA

File: MuhSides.jpg (11KB, 200x307px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x307px

>>39772467
"Vegans had higher testosterone levels than vegetarians and meat-eaters"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/

PIC RELATED MY SIDES LOLLLLL

FUCKING MEAT KEKS EVERY SINGLE TIME

also
"Mean serum insulin-like growth factor-I was 9% lower in 233 vegan men than in 226 meat-eaters and 237 vegetarians (P = 0.002)."

have fun with your cancer goals of 2016 faggot

> can I raise my natty test like 5 ng/dl or whatever by being the worst kind of fitness autist?

Just pin test faggot. Even if all that bullshit raised your test 100 ng/dl (which it won't) you wouldn't notice a significant difference.

>>39773611
So just a PCT that may or may not work? Senpai. Unless OP's talking to a doctor, that won't do shit, unless he gets lucky and happens to have a very specific condition.

>>39773611
How long did it take to have noticeable results?

>>39772237
remember to not fap too much if you want to keep your zinc :^)

>>39773620
How would there be a difference between vegan and vegetarian test levels?

>>39773611
you still have low test, you just have lower estrogen

do you even know how hormones work, nigger

>>39776538
The feedback loop for test production uses high estrogen levels as the cut off.

File: 1479343598430.jpg (110KB, 867x1024px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 867x1024px

>>39773620
did you even read the study?

>>39772212
Reducing cortisol, sleeping more and eating more will do much more than zinc, assuming you aren't totally deficient.

File: 14639895_1311951912182768_5776320810674910411_n.jpg (18KB, 542x540px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 542x540px

>>39773620
>Vegans had higher testosterone levels than vegetarians and meat-eaters, but this was offset by higher sex hormone binding globulin, and there were no differences between diet groups in free testosterone

So vegans had higher total testosterone, but also higher SHBG which effectively reduced their free testosterone. The free testosterone levels remained the same. Also lower IGF-1 = less gains.

Man if you weren't suffering from terrible nutritional deficiencies from your shitty vegan diet then maybe you'd actually be able to read more than a single sentence in a study.

Vegans BTFO once again.

Please help me. My balls actually shrunk and the volume of my semen is almost a tea spoon.
WHAT DO I DO?

>>39772237
"Vitamin D" means a dick. He was pointing out that other people's semen can boost test.

>>39772212
try tribulus, it worked for me, but it wasn't significant enough to make muscle growth easier, my test went from 512 to 545 in one month taking it, without any dietary changes or any other supplements, i'm gonna start eating a lot of peas, brocoli, aspargus and other green vegetables, those also help with testosterone levels when you're younger and also try getting enough levels of vitamin D, calcium and healthy fats, all of those help your body to produce test

>>39772212
>Testosterone boost
>Please give me your dietary advice to increase my testosteron levels
Eat more protein/meat, sleep more, work out harder/more than your already doing, have more sex and fap more
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2013/07/no-fap-more-like-no-fucking-way.html
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/09/enough-already-sex-and-baddassery-are.html
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/09/enough-already-sex-and-baddassery-are_07.html
>https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation%23General_benefits&ved=0ahUKEwjNr4Tr-ufQAhVK7yYKHdJHDMIQygQIHzAA&usg=AFQjCNEu1jw0iEzDr0quc5W8qzk4mzsNrw
>http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(16)00377-8/abstract/ejaculation-frequency-and-risk-of-prostate-cancer-updated-results-with-an-additional-decade-of-follow-up
>http://answers.webmd.com/answers/5004889/what-nutrients-do-you-lose-when-ejaculating-or-masterbating-do-you-lose-testerone-
>https://www.healthtap.com/user_questions/1294935-how-long-does-your-body-take-to-replace-the-nutrients-lost-by-masturbation
>>39772440
>Eating red meat raises estrogen bruh
This has to be bait
>http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
>https://www.anabolicmen.com/fats-and-testosterone/
>give it all up for a month and practice a very balanced and proper plant based diet and you'll make plenty of gains.
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-best.html
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-simplicity-of-dieting-it-really-is.html
>(cont.)

>>39777440
>>39772440
>(cont.)
>It's literally the diet of gladiators homie
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2012/04/apex-predator-diet-for-athletes-and.html
>"Contrast these diets of these lean, mean killing machines with that of the gladiators. Gladiators in the Roman era were generally captives obtained from battles with neighboring tribes, all of whom generally subsisted on meat. As such, they were generally described in accounts by ancient authors as huge framed, broad shouldered, muscular, and wild eyed,(Tacitus, Jordanes, Turnbull) and were chosen to be warriors for their stature and ferocity. >Once placed into the arena, however, their diet was changed to a nearly vegetarian diet, and not because the gladiators needed the extra energy. "The vegetarian diet had nothing to do with poverty or animal rights. Gladiators, it seems, were fat. Consuming a lot of simple carbohydrates, such as barley, and legumes, like beans, was designed for survival in the arena. Packing in the carbs also packed on the pounds. 'Gladiators needed subcutaneous fat," Grossschmidt explains. "A fat cushion protects you from cut wounds and shields nerves and blood vessels in a fight.' Not only would a lean gladiator have been dead meat, he would have made for a bad show. Surface wounds "look more spectacular," says Grossschmidt. 'If I get wounded but just in the fatty layer, I can fight on," he adds. "It doesn't hurt much, and it looks great for the spectators.'"(Curry)"
>http://archive.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/gladiator.html

how can you convince your doctor to test your T levels?

>>39776643
You realize igf-1 causes cancer right? You can't make any gains when you are in the cancer ward of a hospital dying

vegans 1
meat cucks 0

>>39776640

How do you reduce cortisol?

>>39777826
>You realize igf-1 causes cancer right? You can't make any gains when you are in the cancer ward of a hospital dying
>http://www.saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/
>vegans 1
>meat cucks 0
Vegans and vegetarians never had anything to begin with and more lies and misinformation won't make your pseudoscience better than actual science.
>>39777440

>>39777644
you just ask them to do a blood panel and tell them what kind of things you would like to know, they just tick a checkbox and the lab will do it.

Make a list beforehand of all the things you're interested in. bound test, free test, shbg, gh, igf-1 etc can all be interesting.

>>39777826
life causes cancer. you could go almost entirely without igf-1 and have almost zero chance at getting cancer, but you'd also be a tiny, underdeveloped manlet who looks like a 8-year old boy.

Cancer is broadly encouraged by two things; things that make cell replication more likely to go wrong, and things that make cell replication happen more often.

Carcinogens that make cell replication go wrong more frequently are certainly bad and should be avoided at all costs, but if you try to avoid the latter, then you should also not be lifting, eat high protein diets, vitamins, ...

Even testosterone itself has the same effect.

>>39776643

> lower IGF-1 = less gains.


http://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-based-bodybuilding/

>>39777216
go to a doctor

>>39772740
The only sane and correct answer

>>39772237
Take zinc in the morning, with vitamin D & fish oil in the afternoon and magnesium near bed.

File: printer.jpg (37KB, 640x627px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x627px

Cut out sugar and processed foods.

Literally any other dietary advice is bullshit.

>>39778187
pretty sure there was actual scientific studies done that showed eating a specific way would alllow your body to produce optimal test levels. And it was more than just cutting out processed foods and sugar. Things like getting a certain amount of healthy fats and zinc, etc naturally.

File: 1477224822238.jpg (696KB, 2007x1304px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 2007x1304px

>>39778203
Sure, and eating mostly plant based diet has been shown to increase test, but I'm not going to recommend somebody that on an imageboard because

1. They wont listen
2. Everyone will meme against vegans or whatever the flavour of bullshit of the day is
3. It will have minimal results on free test

Anything that isn't going to increase your test by more than a few hundred ng/dl isn't going to affect your lifting and progress.

If you want to increase testosterone over the long term fix your:

>Sleep
>Exercise
>Sunshine
>Diet
>Sex life & social interaction

or pin

These are the only scientific documented ways of doing it and worrying about 5 ng/dl because you're eating too much red meat is retarded.

Also on the vitamins, Zinc facilitates Vitamin D and Vitamin D is approximately 900% more effective when taken from sunlight vs diet when controlled against volume.

Yes, Vitamin D supplements can be useful for people in northern countries but for people who just live in their bedroom supplements are a shitty cheat that isn't going to treat most of the problem.

>>39778266
>Sure, and eating mostly plant based diet has been shown to increase test
>>39777440

>>39778132
that doesn't seem to say much of anything. Nowhere does it cite anything that actually says that IGF-1 doesn't help gains.

Bodybuilders take HGH (and have, for a long time) to increase their IGF-1, and it does work, in many different ways. It makes your muscles look bigger, it makes you recover faster, it increases bone density, joint healing etc etc. It's certainly nothing like steroids when it comes to muscle mass.

> postmenopausal women

kek

the other study is interesting though.

>>39772781
K Y S
Y
S

>>39772781
No Fap doesn't increase test
>>39777440

>>39772677
you did cunt. You need animal fat to produce testosterone

Intake nicotine or some other aromatase inhibitor as well as correct diet deficiency through supplement and diet(zinc,D3,Bcomplex and omega3, saturated fat and cholesterol are major culprits).

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/01/18/how-to-increase-testosterone-naturally/
Is there any truth to this? I can't imagine any writer for this site is anything but a skinny closet gay mid-30s beta male with a lumberjack beard, but is the advice sound?

>>39779025
>Is there any truth to this? I can't imagine any writer for this site is anything but a skinny closet gay mid-30s beta male with a lumberjack beard, but is the advice sound?
Yes and it's been proven. Read the endocrine and anabolic men links
>>39777440

>>39772212
People who are not vitamin deficient and have fats in their diets are retarded if you think any diet will increase your test level to a noticable degree.
Its fucking stupid.
Just get gear and be done with it.

/thread

>>39777906
Reduce stress, sleep more, lower BF%.

>>39772781
Fuck off jew

>>39778266
>Sex life & social interaction
What did you mean by this?

do cold showers work?

just pin test

its even safer lol

If i have low test, am i sterile too?

>>39773620
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/

>"In Western cultures vegetarian diet is associated with an elevated risk of mental disorders."

You are fucking retarded and science shows that you are only going to get more retarded.

>>39778132
(1) IGF-1 is a co-carcinogen for certain cancer types but whether circulating levels have any effect on most isn't known outside the petri dish. Tumors produce their own growth factors in a local autocrine fashion, saturating all the relevant receptor kinetics without much exogenous dietary influence. In some models IGF-1 can be protective against carcinogenesis by enhancing immunosurveillance and DNA repair.

(2) The low protein diet the postmenopausal women were on relative to the IGF-1 dose would mean aminoacylation of transfer RNA in muscle wouldn't be sufficient to see any anabolic effects. Like pushing the gas pedal on an empty tank.

(3) The other study looks at acute rises in anabolics as part of the counterregulatory response to increased fuel mobilisation after acute exercise and not AUC for extended periods of time that anyone with remedial physiology knowledge would know hormones require to have effects due to acting predominantly on gene expression.

As usual Greger cherry picks and distorts the literature to push a vegan narrative while using YouTube as a presentation medium since he'd be laughed out of any STEM academic environment.

>>39781806

Atleast he cites his sources when he makes scientific claims.

>>39781682

>ironically posts the wrong link

>>39782178
Without balance, evidence weighing, competing hypothesis, etc that's no better than the generic quack. Especially for the lay public that doesn't have much background knowledge in the fields he and people like him frivolously dabble in.

>>39776538
Clomid is a SERM, it doesn't affect the level of estro directly, rather it blocks negative feedback (from estro)(presumed) back to the hypothalamus which is a stimulus for the brain to release more FSH and LH which in turn raises test.

>>39782269

It'd be nice if you could use your own scientific references to rebut him. Otherwise, a claim like

> Tumors produce their own growth factors in a local autocrine fashion, saturating all the relevant receptor kinetics without much exogenous dietary influence.

sounds like a misrepresentation when studies do find positive associations between IGF-1 levels and certain cancers, which he cited examples of

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19142965
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3113287/

It's not exogenous IGF-1 being referred to either.

>>39777967
no citations and a site that sells supplements

and you call me pseudoscience

>>39782323
A standard cancer biology text like Weinberg would be helpful. In prostate cancer for example

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11781836

>positive associations
See, that's one of the problems when I say evidence weighing and competing hypotheses. You can't draw causality in EBM from epidemiological data with low effect size and no clear dose-response relationship. These associations could be mediated by all sorts of things: pre-diabetes (which increases IGF-1 thru IGF-1 resistance and hypercaloric intake), carcinogens associated with high quality protein sources, spillover from precancerous tissue or residual confounding from height. Using it to say anything that raises IGF-1 increases, while anything that lowers decreases risk is far too preliminary for clinical decision making. For example, fiber (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27821775) and exercise (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11222653) increase IGF-1 / IGF-1 bioavailability, would it be appropriate to say they are bad?

>>39777440
>chaosandpain
into the trash

>>39780754
I don't know if they raise test but they certainly make you more disciplined. stepping into a cold shower, especially during winter, is more a test of endurance and self-discipline than anything else.

>>39782480

>See, that's one of the problems when I say evidence weighing and competing hypotheses. You can't draw causality in EBM from epidemiological data with low effect size and no clear dose-response relationship.

You agree that in test tubes it aids cancer growth, and then in population studies it expectedly associates with higher cancer incidence and you say you can't draw conclusions from the data? I get the can't-use-epidemiology-alone-for-definitive-answers game, but with the mechanisms there, it's doesn't seem reasonable to say that it's not likely a direct connection. In regards to the guy in the video, it's hardly a situation where you could say he's trying to be deceive people. You just disagree with him.

>For example, fiber (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27821775)

That's a very roundabout study to use to say that. Gut microbes promoting IGF-1 production in the livers and fat cells of mice. The study didn't even use fiber itself, it used SCFAs on antibiotic-treated mice. I find that more misleading than anything in the video.

>and exercise (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11222653)

The effects of exercise on the uptake of IGF-1 into areas of a rat's brain. Of course having 0 available IGF-1 or no IGF-1 circulating in your blood isn't the goal, it's there for a reason. The discussion isn't about what would happen if you "blocked the entrance of circulating IGF-I into the brain by subcutaneous infusion of a blocking IGF-I antiserum" but what the effect of high IGF-1 levels are on cancer growth/risk.

>>39782577
>You agree that in test tubes it aids cancer growth
Like I said, not in every case when it is applied exogenously, which would be the test tube homologue of transport into the interstitium from the blood.

>but with the mechanisms there, it's doesn't seem reasonable to say that it's not likely a direct connection. In regards to the guy in the video, it's hardly a situation where you could say he's trying to be deceive people. You just disagree with him.
To restate, when there's multiple equally parsimonious and plausible connections, it's not appropriate to present only one.

>That's a very roundabout study to use to say that. Gut microbes promoting IGF-1 production in the livers and fat cells of mice. The study didn't even use fiber itself, it used SCFAs on antibiotic-treated mice. I find that more misleading than anything in the video.
Mind explaining why? Animal models tend to be higher in the evidence hierarchy than in vitro.

>Of course having 0 available IGF-1 or no IGF-1 circulating in your blood isn't the goal, it's there for a reason. The discussion isn't about what would happen if you "blocked the entrance of circulating IGF-I into the brain by subcutaneous infusion of a blocking IGF-I antiserum" but what the effect of high IGF-1 levels are on cancer growth/risk
Funny how easily the inductive reasoning in that video is accepted, but everything else must be verbatim. Exercise, particularly the aerobic variety for extended durations of time, increases endothelial transcytosis of IGF-1 via shear. Compared to animals/humans who do not exercise, then, we should see increased cancer when holding everything else static if we play the IGF-1->IGF1R signaling->cancer story. Perhaps it's not that simple.

>>39782681

>not in every case

But you did agree "IGF-1 is a co-carcinogen for certain cancer types." In the end it doesn't matter what kind of cancer you're getting, you don't want cancer.

>To restate, when there's multiple equally parsimonious and plausible connections, it's not appropriate to present only one.

Unless it's a video about IGF-1's relationship to cancer in particular, which doesn't even seem to be a fringe belief.

https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms?cdrid=653120

>Higher than normal levels of IGF-1 may increase the risk of several types of cancer

Is cancer.gov cherrypicking and intentionally deceiving people by stating that?

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/04/growth-factor-raises-cancer-risk/

Is the Harvard Gazette just being sensationalist by mentioning the consistent, strong association between IGF-1 and prostate cancer incidence?

>Mind explaining why?

For one, you said fiber and then linked to a study that didn't involve fiber.

>Funny how easily the inductive reasoning in that video is accepted, but everything else must be verbatim

The reasoning in the video is "IGF-1 levels above what would be considered normal is bad" while this is saying "no IGF-1 activity is bad," which is the other end of the spectrum.

>>39782769
>In the end it doesn't matter what kind of cancer you're getting, you don't want cancer.
That depends. Heroin overdose will prevent cancer. It's not exactly desirable.

>https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms?cdrid=653120
Doesn't say anything about causality, just use as a biomarker. The context on the other hand

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/obesity-fact-sheet
>Obese people often have increased levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in their blood (a condition known as hyperinsulinemia or insulin resistance), which may promote the development of certain tumors.

Overweight/obesity is probably the pertinent factor, which is multifactorial and not the same as increased circulating IGF-1 in isolation or from other things.

http://www.wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/continuous-update-project-findings-reports/continuous-update-project-cup-matrix

>http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/04/growth-factor-raises-cancer-risk/
I'm not seeing any mention of a "consistent, strong association", but puff pieces on epidemiology are often not the best sources

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27920032

>For one, you said fiber and then linked to a study that didn't involve fiber.
Fermentable fiber leads to SCFA production. Interestingly, increasing intake leads to similar downstream effects of IGF-1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24140431

>The reasoning in the video is "IGF-1 levels above what would be considered normal is bad" while this is saying "no IGF-1 activity is bad," which is the other end of the spectrum.
So, if this is so established, instead of preclinical hand-waving it should be easy to provide a concrete dose-response relationship for implementation into routine cancer risk screening. Yet the sourced epidemiological studies don't do this and are all on variations within the normal range of IGF-1.

>>39783039

>That depends. Heroin overdose will prevent cancer. It's not exactly desirable.

What? Just concede that point. Whatever cancer is affected, you don't want it.

>Obese people often have increased levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in their blood which may promote the development of certain tumors.

As in the fact that obese people have higher IGF-1 levels puts them at higher risk of cancers. That's one of the mechanisms by which obesity raises cancer risk. It's not a separate point.

>I'm not seeing any mention of a "consistent, strong association",

It goes on about it.

>Last week, the researchers announced that, in a six-year study of 32,826 nurses, those with the highest levels of IGF-1 had a two-and- a-half times greater risk of colorectal cancer.
>The week before, another group from the same laboratory reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that a study of 14,916 male physicians concluded that men run the same risk. In the case of those with the highest IGF-1 and lowest IGFBP-3, the relative risk of colorectal cancer rose fourfold, after accounting for differences in weight, height, alcohol intake, and other known
risk factors.
>“The fact that these two large studies give the same results for both men and women increases our confidence in the findings,” notes Edward Giovannucci, an assistant professor of
medicine who led the nurses’ study.
>Ma mentions evidence of a connection between colorectal cancer and acromegaly, a condition that causes enlargement of facial features, hands, and feet due to excess secretion of growth hormone. “The rate of colorectal cancer among acromegalics is abnormally high, because their IGF-1 levels can be up to 10-fold higher that those of normal people,” she notes.

But okay.

>Fermentable fiber leads to SCFA production

I shouldn't have to tell you that a byproduct is not the same as its precursor. It would be dishonest to present it that way.

>>39781429
your test would have to be extremely low for that.

>>39772212
WROAD brah.

(Whole Red Onion A Day)

Non saturated fat was the thing

File: doggo.png (316KB, 944x655px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 944x655px

pretty much everyone will benefit from
fish oil and a good multivitamin.
memes aside mutants multi is great, a little pricey but containts pretty much everything you'll ever need in pill form

>>39776533
Because vegetarians eat eggs, milk, etc. It's a far more complete diet than vegans get.

>>39783129
>What? Just concede that point.
The point I'll concede is a cost-benefit analysis is necessary because there's no evidence to think there is a free lunch in biology like that right now for these kinds of cancers.

>That's one of the mechanisms by which obesity raises cancer risk. It's not a separate point.
I don't see how. IGF-1 action here is perturbed by other abnormalities and isn't the same as solely increasing IGF-1. A similar but equally confused argument is advanced by proponents of the insulin-obesity hypothesis to claim that insulinogenic foods cause fat gain.

>It goes on about
...two associational studies (can't tell which because these journalists love to write edgy babble but never link to the original publications - http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/11/28/working-with-the-media-can-be-beneficial-but-linking-to-and-citing-your-research-should-be-compulsory - though probably one of the billion and one fishings of one of the NHS and PHSs because Harvard and which are technically the same but split in two because sexism) and some cute ad hoc hypothesizing regarding acromegaly that isn't exactly in experimental stone

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18157698
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18971124
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11161960

Notably, it also involves supraphysiological levels of growth hormone, which induces insulin resistance, and hence can attenuate processes such as DNA repair

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12706296

>I shouldn't have to tell you that a byproduct is not the same as its precursor
'Byproduct' is pretty harsh. If fermentable fiber leads to similar SCFA production, and similar end effects are seen with fermentable fiber feeding (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087995 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23507173 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21553845), it's pretty mechanistically convincing. Dare I say, more convincing than the IGF-1 -> cancer meme.

>>39783610
Sorry but you're not getting the point. The other guy is right.
>.t an MD

You can't really increase test other than just being healthy, aim instead to reduce oestrogen. Things like broccoli and pomegranates help with this.

Also avoid alcohol and soy. A reverse osmosis water filter is GOAT but expensive so really just avoid BPA and phthalates.

>>39783866
Im neither of those guys but you are just a medstudent if not a biomed student loser.