We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
dietary fiber has been correlated with many negative things. It's been correlated with reproductive abnormalities. This is the biocycle study. I cite this one in my book, showing that dietary fiber consumption was inversely associated with hormone concentrations, positively associated with the risk of anovulation in females.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Meaning that the more fiber these females ate, the higher their risk of an ovulation because there was a disruption in the normal hormonal cycling of um these patients when they're eating more fiber.
dietary fiber consumption was inversely associated with hormone concentrations positively associated with a risk of an ovulation in females this is 250 women aged 18 to 44 meaning that the more fiber these females ate the higher their risk of an ovulation because there was a disruption in the normal hormonal cycling of these patients