QotNews Hacker News, Reddit, Lobsters, and Tildes articles rendered in reader mode.
Men’s average testosterone levels have halved in last 50 years, say scientists. Researchers warn of ‘major crisis in male reproductive health’ partly driven by obesity and diabetes.
Men’s average testosterone levels have halved over the past 50 years, according to scientists, who say society is facing a male fertility crisis.
Total testosterone levels in men declined by 54% between 1972 and 2019, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in London on Tuesday.
Rising levels of obesity and diabetes are expected to play a part, but the team behind the work suggest that environmental factors such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals – which can be found in various household items – and global heating could also be factors in the apparent striking decline.
He set back the scientific awareness on this by decades by translating it in the stupidest possible way, but there is real science behind certain environmental pollutants and even medications that get into groundwater and lower testosterone. And certain species of frogs and fish are ultra sensitive to those pollutants which caused some males to change to females. The movie Jurassic Park touched on this because the park used frog DNA to bring back the dinosaurs, which is why some of them switch to male.
Fun fact: The Onion, the satire news source, purchased the Infowars brand as part of their court settlement against Jones, and are using it for their satirical shenanigans.
Depends on the size and where in the body they are found.
Many attach themselves to molecules in your body, such as sperm, making lots of harm. If afterwards they get spelled it doesn't matter cuz the damage is done
not quite so simple: in a Columbia study of bottled water from a few years ago, the most common type of micro- and nano-plastic was the type of nylon used to make water filters… https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/bottled-water-can-contain-hundreds-thousands-nanoplastics
so for example when people use a reverse osmosis filter to remove microplastic, they’re also adding new micro and nanoplastics from the filter itself
Don’t sleep on surfactants. They are in all detergents but a particularly nasty class of them called NPEs are still legal to use in the States for commercial applications (hotels & hospitals).
NPEs disrupt sleep, cause rashes, irritability, brain fog, red eyes. They are major endocrine disruptors that absorb through the skin, mimic estrogen, and result in testosterone crashes in men. Legal in the States, banned in Canada & the EU. Cause… 🤷♂️.
If you’re one of the many “I don’t sleep well in hotels,” people… good chance you aren’t home sick, you’re reacting to the NPEs saturating the sheets you slept in.
Super fun, surfactants are also used to irrigate our crops. They penetrate the flesh of many fruits and vegetables and can’t be washed off.
Life expectancy doesn't work like that, it's heavily offset by very young deaths, like infants.
And even if it wasn't, that still doesn't mean we age slower, or that people 50 years ago were "younger" despite being the same age
Don't they control for infant mortality in average life expectancy tables, though? I want to say that they have a separate statistical category for childhood deaths now. If they didn't, average lifespan would be a bit lower than 76, or whatever it is.
The drop off started a few decades before Americans started getting obese though, this title is a bit misleading. The main cause is most likely environmental toxins, specifically groundwater and soil pollutants.
On the plus side the rates on domestic violence have dropped around 10% since the 90s. Got to imagine it was 20-30% higher in the 70s than it is now but no stats to go on.
Possibly but the amount of microplastics actually retained in your body may be substantially lower than originally believed. The integrity of the samples they tested were corrupted by the gloves scientists were using, which shed a ton of microplastics. A paper just got published on it, I'll return with a link at some point.
It's still a ridiculous amount of microplastics, a recent study found that the average adult has a plastic spoon worth of microplastics in their brain. That amounts to 0,5% of the weight of your brain consisting of microplastics. They also found that the amount of plastics in the brain increased by 50% in the last decade.
Isn't this one of the studies that specifically had contamination issues distorting the results?
Also, important nitpick, it's the average amount that increased by 50%. Check the brain results of 2024 and 2016. The highest concentration is basically the same, but the spread is much smaller
This study is one of the studies that the contamination paper I cited directly responds to. It's not that microplastics aren't an issues -- it's that our previous attempts to measure them were so flawed that the true average magnitude of plastics in human tissue could be virtually anything.
That study is being widely challenged as having improper measuring methodology and other flaws. And to be clear I'm still worried about plastics, just that study is unlikely to be true.
It does, but glove shedding is so dramatically different from brand to brand, person to person, and even glove to glove that it's not reproducible or proportional, meaning that simply finding the difference between a experimental sample and a control blank isn't really a sufficient procedure, at least by my reading of the paper. Feel free to check it out yourself: https://pubs.rsc.org/ay/article/18/14/2914/1243107/Avoiding-and-reducing-microplastic-false-positives?silentauthchecked=true
EDIT: You might typically think "well why can't you just conduct something like hierarchical linear regression to account for sample non-independence, but if the authors are to be believed, that would account for individual and manufacturer differences but not simple differences in how much pressure was applied to a sample when it was tested. There really isn't a good way to correct for this short of changing the procedure entirely.
They don’t have to be forever retained in the body to have effects. I mean hell, the pieces alone can micro slice and dice your insides on the way out.
That could be true, but I also think a lot of pop science has been presenting singular microplastics studies with some major methodological flaws as gospel for the same reason Fox News insists violent immigrants are flooding the US. The fear-mongering gets a lot of clicks and attention, but the reality, I think, is just that a lot of this research is still in its infancy and positioning it as fact is probably causing a lot of misconceptions among the general public.
Of course, we want as few microplastics in us and the environment as possible, they very likely are very bad, we should be dumping a ton more money into settling on methodology and ecologically valid studies of microplastic consumption, and we should be making manufacturers who've caused this issue pay for all of it, but we don't yet solidly understand how much we actually consume and how severe the effects are.
It also doesn't help that by the time we complete that research, we'll likely have moved onto as a society to some new plastics that we haven't yet studied, but that's another issue.
EDIT: Case in point -- I was a researcher on a very large study exploring reduced nicotine cigarettes to motivate smokers not interested in quitting smoking to quit, with the hope that it would empower the FDA to dictate nicotine restrictions. We found exactly what we wanted to find, which was great, but then Trump came into office and vaping took off.
That's cool, but I don't understand how that changes anything I've said. I'm a neuroscientist; maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't think there currently is a broad scientific consensus as to exactly how much we're typically consuming and the course of effects they have from entering to exiting the body. From what I've read, the answer to both of those seem to be "more than zero" and "probably a bunch of stuff ranging from inflammation, GI microbiome issues, hormone disruption, neural dysfunction, etc. but it's hard to say exactly".
Interesting, will read the study when you share it, thanks.
Nonetheless, the amount of microplastics in body its higher today than it was 20 years ago and it's also been show that they interfere with sperm mobility and hormonal production
Shared it in my comment above. Yeah, any amount probably isn't good, but it's [probably] not the "everyone has a full-spoon-amount of plastic in their brain" that was previously making waves around pop science publications on the internet last year.
glove contamination doesn’t explain why the amount of microplastics in brains doubled between 2016 and 2024 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1
the point is that all the samples were analyzed the same way at the same time, but the brains from 2024 had much higher levels of plastic than the brains from 2016
so the increase found in the study is not coming from gloves...
that's a fair point. I'll admit I didn't read jt at first as I assumed it was similar to another that I had looked into before, and it's cool they tested both samples at the same time.
I would like to mention though, that the glove contamination problem wasn't controlled for, so there is a possibility that differences in handling outside of what was controlled may have contributed somwhat as well.
gloves also didn’t cause the association between microplastics in tissue samples and cardiovascular events or mortality observed over the next 3 years in the NEJM study...
When a science has an inherent file drawer problem and you measure phenomena that are noisy enough that almost any outcome is plausible, it's easy for compelling narratives to emerge around whatever result is observed. Big numbers don't mitigate the likelihood that we're committing a Type 1 Error or even just using an outlier to represent the true mean. Almost the entirety of the mid-2000s replication crisis was real effects undergoing a regression to the mean. They wouldn't have gotten as much attention in the first place if that hadn't stumbled upon a big, eye-catching number.
The effect they are trying to capture is probably real in some way, but citing any specific number becomes unreliable without the glove shedding issue being addressed. They address many possible known contaminants and how they mitigated them, but they never address gloves because they weren't a known contaminate when they were doing this research. They highlight that the minimize contaminants by employing the same procedures at both timepoints, but when the contaminant is both systemtic and stochastic, as the gloves are, it doesn't actually eliminate this possibility. Obviously, the Nature portfolio of journals are very top-tier; I'm sure the work was carefully critically evaluated, etc., but the gloves issue is a significant hurdle when it comes to interpretation.
gloves don’t explain why the brains of people with dementia had up to ten times as much micoplastic in them
and gloves do not explain the cardiovascular and mortality risks associated with higher levels of microplastics in the NEJM study https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2309822
i agree that measurements of exact numbers are difficult and likely need refinement, but all i know for sure is that the petrochemical industry really appreciates anyone helping them wave away all potential health concerns on the basis of “contamination”
Any study measuring microplastic concentration conducted by scientists wearing gloves could be called into question
I completely agree that manufacturers love this, which is why you need to be wondering why a decade plus of this research was conducted before anyone thought to check glove contamination.
EDIT: Let's be clear, I'm a socialist neuroscientist -- if it were up to me, I'd have the C-Suite of these manufacturers in labor camps, but science is only helpful towards these goals when it's sufficiently accurate and I want a better standard for my tools.
it’s possible to allow room for improvements in techniques without dismissing the issue wholesale. if you care at all about this, consider leaning into that rather than jumping straight to “ACKSHULLY the amount of microplastics in your body is way less than they thought because of gloves” — because all readers take away from that is “cool, guess i don’t have to worry about this anymore” when the available evidence does NOT support that
people with short attention spans are desperate for an excuse to ignore environmental health. no need to hand it to them on a platter with no additional detail
Well, those are different affirmations you said there.
Not being able to definitely say something is one thing (rarely in science you have such a thing)
And being inconclusive is another.
Many studies have been able to identify mechanisms and correlations that indicate that it is indeed a thing
there's plastic in our balls. if we can't get the powers that be to care about plastic being in our collective balls we can't get them to care about anything all
People have been eating soy for literally 5000 years. Whole cultures would have poor reproductive capacity if what you’re saying is true. You are a recapitulating bro-science from 15 years ago, just give it up.
Hey again! Thank you for the genuine reply. Good stuff! Here's a paper from within the past few years that I just looked up that basically says what I'm talking about - that soy isn't the endocrine disruptor in humans that people worried it was. It will give some background. But if you go to PubMed and search for soy and things like human health or endocrine disruptor, you'll see many more papers. (I'd focus on reviews and open access/free so you can get past the abstract.)
Obviously, some will still find concerns while others won't. That's pretty much all of nutrition science, though. So many factors, so much personal and genetic variation, so many ways to study a problem. All very hard to disambiguate and to really know what's what. But I'm just saying to my knowledge it's not the problem people have made it out to be. Anyway, you're already smashing it as a 34 year vegetarian, so congrats on that. Well done.
You are linking a paper sponsored by the Soy bean industry.
“Mark John Messina receives funding from the Soy Nutrition Institute as its Executive Director. Both Mindy Kurzer and John Sievenpiper are on the advisory board of the Soy Nutrition Institute.”
Fair point to express such a concern. But that’s not proof of some nefariousness. Funding is clearly disclosed in the paper, and they attest to a COI mitigation plan. Every one of the authors lists a university affiliation, not some industry think tank. Plus it’s a review paper that cites an array of other studies, not primary research. In addition, I advised the person to whom I replied to go look for themselves at open access primary literature at PubMed. I’m not sure what else you want from a Reddit comment.
The soy thing was always misinformation. The alt right picked it up citing a like 40 year old study in sheep where it did have an effect. However, sheep have a very different diet and digestion of plants than we do so "sheep eating a lot of soy" can mean it being a large percentage of their diet in terms of both weight and calories. Whereas even a soy heavy human diet isn't gonna be anywhere near 50% soy beans.
It was always xenophobic, homophobic, inflammatory propaganda and misinformation.
Ok well it’s time to get serious. Move to a farm, grow your own vegetables, adhere to an ivermectin and raw milk regimen, swim in sewage, stop getting vaccinated, don’t take Tylenol or antidepressants and stop drinking birth control pill and abortion water!
If the problem is that you are not violently vomiting to the point you can see death coming for you and you really want to be, raw milk is the solution.
It’s comparing apples and oranges to now. Raw milk would probably be fine if drank shortly after milking. Storing it on shelves and anything not short term is asking for issues. That’s not even going down the road of pesticides, modern antibodies and just the general trashy-ness of the planet today. So yes, in today’s terms, drinking raw milk is moronic unless you’re having a glass right off the teat.
You better clean the teat first because cattle are not clean animals. They shit all over and lay down in it and get it everywhere. That’s what makes you sick when you drink raw milk. It’s the bacteria in the shit. Gets all over the udders and even kind of up in them.
I mean…of this list, only sewage, no Tylenol and no vaccines are problematic. Jury is still out on ivermectin and raw milk. Shouldn’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater”
The jury is not still out on raw milk. I have cattle. I’ve watched them stand around in the lot and shit on each other’s faces. They lay down in shit. They step in it. They get it everywhere including on their udders. When you drink raw milk you are likely drinking shit milk.
Yeah their point is a bad one. They’re additive issues. They don’t cancel each other out lol. EVERYONE would have to be opting out of having kids for their point to make sense. Since not everyone is opting out of having kids, reduced fertility still has an impact.
Why should that be a greater problem? Is this the perspective of the taxman that does not tax tech giants and multinationals properly and perpetuates unfunded pension schemes?
Look into the data, it is actually very worrying. If current trends continue soon the majority of young couples trying for a baby will need medical intervention to get pregnant. That is highly concerning. Just look how much sperm counts have dropped in recent years. It could literally be spelling the end of the human race if the trends don't change.
About 1 in 10 couples trying for a baby do so for more than a year and get an “infertility” diagnoses. Of that 1 in 10, among those who pursue medical intervention to get pregnant, about 60% will end up with a live birth.
Infertility is horrible and incredibly traumatic, but not nearly as widespread as it’s made out to be.
That's why the countries with the lowest birthrates in the world are japan and South Korea. Two countries with the lowest BMI and diabetes levels? You are not thinking clearly if you think they are the only factors.
I don't have access to the data, I'm just making the assumption that people choosing to be childless is much more common than people being so involuntarily (excluding age).
Oh no, low T is caused by vaccines, Tylenol, antidepressants and not wearing jeans in the sauna. But RFK, jr is gonna make it better by putting them all on a farm and making them grow and eat their own vegetables.
It is not. It’s been lowering since before the obesity epidemic. Environmental pollution is the biggest cause. Men who work in and live near chemical plants or where chemicals are dumped in water and soil have lower testosterone than men who don’t.
In that cade cuz they are comparing testosterone levels and not fertility
Again, didnt read that one, but generally they take all that into account.
Remember that scientists are smart people who know what they are doing. If you and I know that childlessness and modern life has to be taken into account, rest assure they know that as well
the question is does the hormonal anomaly lead to this will to not having children, it would be worth checking if woman is having some form of biological deregulation like men
yes, they are chance that we will never really know, unless we find a way to purge out the pollution out of the body and a significant shift in behavior is noticeable
They’re hardly a major factor when just compared to poor diet and sedentary lifestyle. That along with genetics are your major identifiable risk factors for endocrine disorders like DM II. And the lower testosterone levels in men.
I only did one project on them a couple of years ago, but from what I remember PFAs pose significant risks to both male and female fertility. We are only just now beginning to understand how widespread the damage has been.
I understand diet and lifestyle are the biggest factors, but I don’t think there is peer reviewed evidence to support your statement that off-gassing chemicals are ‘hardly a factor’. If anything, current research supports the opposite.
I think the implied point is... genetic problems and poor diet and sedentary lifestyle contribute most to endocrine disorders - along with other much smaller factors.
So, since genetics don't change much the poor diet and sedentary lifestyle are likely the major players in the sudden drop.
Modern medicine has allowed many people to survive and function who would not have without it, leading them to have children they otherwise would not have had. Because these individuals rely on medication or medical attention to remain functional and reproduce, they likely carry an accumulation of genetic issues
NIH and the American Diabetes Association define normal fasting glucose level as 70 -
99 mg/dL But some research shows that Testosterone levels start dropping well before that 99 number.
In a 2012 study of 400 Korean men in their 40s and 50s:
>
Total testosterone was significantly decreased in non-diabetic subjects with high-normal glucose and IFG levels. In particular, subjects in the high FPG groups (above 88 mg/dL) showed decreased testosterone levels after adjusting for age, BMI, smoking, and alcohol consumption
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3391640
I can tell you from personal experience as a 55 year old man, I had ED problems for a couple years when my fasting glucose was in the upper 90s. Two months of low carb diet got that number into the 80s and the problems stopped immediately. I was never diagnosed as Diabetic or Pre-Diabetic. The problems start earlier than most people realize.
A 100 year "trend" that doesn't have nearly sufficient enough sample size to draw a global conclusion is next to worthless.
The biggest issue with hormone testing as it is is that it fluctuates day to day, hour to hour. This data would need to be EXTENSIVE to be something worth really considering. But it's not so something worth noting but barely worth concerning oneself over
Right, but nobody went through the data or methodology of the selected X studies this reported on. It might well be enough shit data to make a shit conclusion.
Without peer review science is worth very little for a very good reason, come on.
Meh, I'll sacrifice the last 10 crappy years of my life for a chance at humanity escaping the Fermi paradox. We don't have that much time left before we've doomed our species to eventual extinction. Me being comfy in retirement is pretty meaningless next to that.
Tough luck. Just accept mortality applies to species a well (in such case it is extinction, which is the norm), and that one of the solutions to the paradox lies in the tendency to self-destruction characterizing an "intelligent" technological species.
Yeah, that definitely might be, it certainly is looking like it at the moment. But I don't think we have the information available to say it's a certainty and I have some hope for us still.
Yup, the lowest birthrates in the world are Thailand, South Korea and Japan. It is definitely not just a white people problem. That guy is definitely racist.
So, what am I doing right, then? I’m part of this group, probably have whatever levels the rest do. But I managed not to get fat, and I’ve avoided diabetes so far.
To further elaborate on your point, I may call attention to a work titled "Macho Man" also authored by the aforementioned experts responsible for YMCA.
Truly, The Village People were ahead of their time.
"There were no differences in basal T levels among the major political parties or independents (Democrats: M = 498.86, SD = 185.29; Republicans: M = 460.01, SD = 185.41; Independents: M = 445.63, SD = 146.93; F(4,128) = 0.915, p = 0.457)"
Democrat men have nonsignificantly more testosterone than Republican men (498.86 versus 460.01).
A small group of men who only weakly identified with Democrats briefly felt slightly more Republican (went from feeling pro Dem on a scale of 1 to 100 at 65 dropping to 58) when they were temporarily given gender affirming care of more testosterone.
So they went from feeling 65 prodem to 57 prodem. They did not become republicans, and overall dems had nonsignificanly higher T than republicans.
"Before the testosterone treatment, we found that weakly affiliated Democrats had 19% higher basal testosterone than those who identified strongly with the party"
"When weakly affiliated Democrats received additional testosterone, the strength of their party affiliation fell by 12% (p = 0.01), and they reported 45% warmer feelings towards Republican candidates for president"
I too feel that warmer feelings, but not a total coversion, in a small subset of people is pretty telling.
Sure the baseline numbers go in the opposite direction, but if we lean in really hard and only look at a small subgroup that didn't change their mind but shifted it a bit temporarily as the result of an artificial intervention that was several times the magnitude of what people actually experience, that is very telling.
Here is another study that shows at base line Dems have higher T.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0306453021002705
There is a phenomenon that when you lose your T shoots up (and drops when you win), so at followup Dems had lower T because they had just won the election.
But again, at baseline before any manipulation Dems have higher T.
Jesus christ. Quote the part relating overall T levels, meaning this one that you quoted earlier "Democrat men have nonsignificantly more testosterone than Republican men (498.86 versus 460.01)" from this sstudy:
LifeProTip: meat is often high in fat, and not necessarily a good source of protein. Nutritionists consider a hard-boiled egg to the gold standard protein source, as it contains a complete set of amino acids and is relatively low in fat. Other sources or protein that are better sources of protein (per calorie) than your typical cuts of meat include nuts, legumes, seeds, quinoa, spinach, etc.
Lmfao nuts? You kidding me bro? Look nuts are good but they are not better sources of protein per calorie then lean beef or chicken. And spinach? Bro, like a pound of spinach has less than 100 calories it’s not a source of protein simply based on volume alone.
Spinach and nuts , they good foods, but they don’t replace a chicken breast. You need to eat both. I feel like this article is predicated on chicken nuggets and 73% ground beef with no fat drained to make its claims.
A chicken breast without rib meat is nearly all protein.
Bro what are you talking about! Spinach is 8 calories protein per 20 calories. It’s 3g carbs 2g protein meaning 40% the calories are protein. Sure that’s good macros, it’s good food. But to say it’s protein/calorie is higher than meat is just a lie.
But chicken breast is 90% protein…. Even 93/7 ground beef with no fat drained is 57.5% protein per calorie which again, is higher then spinach.
Literally chicken breast 2.5 times protein per calorie then spinach. Did that slip your mind Mr I have a degree?
Is spinach a better source of protein than a chicken nugget? Sure. But to just put it forward as “better than (all) meat” is absurd.
Lot of good that degree did you, maybe you should apply it and do some simple math on macros then go lift.
People always pretend this is somehow "good due to overpopulation". Nope. Because we won't lower population slowly, instead we will have 9 to 10 billion old people and basically no kids. Society will crash, brutally.
Men get the same comments when they are like “I’m 280lbs with low testosterone imma get trt”. Men get clowned when they say that calling them fat and saying the trt will make them grow tits. Which it honestly probably will lol
Is there a paper or article that actually talks about the measured levels of testosterone? When getting tested there is a pretty wide range that is “normal” it would be interesting to see if the loss is still in the range or if the whole “normal” range has shifted down over time.
Could some of it be related to the widespread use of birth control pills and associated selective breeding? You might want to have fun with the high testosterone dude but not settle down and have kids with him.
Aside from fertility, which I’d argue isn’t relevant if you don’t want biological children, the health effects of low testosterone can be erectile dysfunction, muscle loss, increased body fat, weaker bones, hair loss, fatigue, memory issues and mental health issues like depression and anxiety.
Basically, many of the things women deal with as they age during perimenopause and menopause.
I can personally attest that it’s not fun at all. Neither is trying to convince your doctor your symptoms are real and life altering in order to get HRT (hormone replacement therapy). You’re told you need to lose weight, do yoga and go on antidepressants and stop complaining.
Interesting that they’re considering the same for men all of a sudden like it’s an emergency. I struggle to have sympathy here, if I’m honest.
All of the data that the media presents about this, is really too narrow to draw any conclusions.
What are the differences between the groups? Is there a marked difference based on location, age, socioeconomic group, ethnic group, weight, education, etc?
The figure may be "down 50% in fifty years", but what about the changes between years? Is it a case that we're down 50% now, but we're actually up 10% in the last 20 years?
A single unified, straight-line drop across all groups over time basically has just one explanation, because only climate change could affect everyone across the entire planet at the same time.
Some people mention things like soil pollutants, groundwater pollution, cleaning chemicals and microplastics.
Distribution of these things is not even across the planet. If these are a significant cause, then we should see variance across regions based on the concentration of each in a given region.
I think one thing to consider is the total cumulative exposure we now have to synthetic fragrance. It has skyrocketed in the last few decades. Think about the total number of fragrances we get hit with a day - laundry detergents, scent beads, plug ins, soaps. Colognes, hair stuff, cleaning supplies. It’s on your clothes, your sheets, towels, skin, hair, the air you breathe. All day and all night. You can’t go anywhere without get it. At low doses I’m sure the stuff is fine. But I doubt anyone has ever tested the types of exposures people get every day.
I plotted the use of fragrance and make T levels over time. I can’t share it here, but the inverse correlation is nearly perfect. Obviously correlation does not equal causation, but it sure should give us a reason to look at it.
Give it a few years. With all the arsenic, mercury, parasites and pfas that these data centers are spewing out… and all the clean water/air regulations thrown to the curb…
Soy isoflavones do not exhibit estrogenic effects compared with non-isoflavone controls on 4 measures of estrogenicity
https://advances.nutrition.org/article/S2161-8313(24)00161-3/fulltext
Neither soy protein nor isoflavone exposure affects TT, FT, E2 or E1 levels in men
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623820302926
And for good measure:
Consumption of dairy is associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer, consumption of soy is not
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/5/1526/5743492
[OP] mvea | 16 hours ago
Men’s average testosterone levels have halved over the past 50 years, according to scientists, who say society is facing a male fertility crisis.
Total testosterone levels in men declined by 54% between 1972 and 2019, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in London on Tuesday.
Rising levels of obesity and diabetes are expected to play a part, but the team behind the work suggest that environmental factors such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals – which can be found in various household items – and global heating could also be factors in the apparent striking decline.
Boomshank | 15 hours ago
"Turning the frogs gay" you say?
KellyJin17 | 15 hours ago
He set back the scientific awareness on this by decades by translating it in the stupidest possible way, but there is real science behind certain environmental pollutants and even medications that get into groundwater and lower testosterone. And certain species of frogs and fish are ultra sensitive to those pollutants which caused some males to change to females. The movie Jurassic Park touched on this because the park used frog DNA to bring back the dinosaurs, which is why some of them switch to male.
Boomshank | 15 hours ago
For sure.
He set back a LOT of things.
Fortunately, I was aware of amphibians switching sex before the sweaty Muppet started ranting about gay frogs
twoiko | 11 hours ago
Fun fact: The Onion, the satire news source, purchased the Infowars brand as part of their court settlement against Jones, and are using it for their satirical shenanigans.
Boomshank | an hour ago
Hahaha- I have been following that.
The guy that replaced the sweaty Muppet does an incredible sweaty Muppet impersonation
Cero_Kurn | 16 hours ago
microplastics
Edmee | 14 hours ago
Microplastics are the lead paint of our generation.
Crashman09 | 14 hours ago
And every subsequent generation.
We are definitely not getting rid of them
Chief_Kief | 13 hours ago
Wonder how bad bioaccumulation will get in the coming centuries…how much plastic can our planet and bodies contain before truly destroying ourselves?
Crashman09 | 12 hours ago
Idk.
I think we have already destroyed ourselves, the results are just in pending.
xaranetic | 7 hours ago
Unlike small molecules, they can at least be easily filtered out
Crashman09 | 6 hours ago
Except they just go back into the environment to be reabsorbed by other organisms
Cero_Kurn | 4 hours ago
Depends on the size and where in the body they are found. Many attach themselves to molecules in your body, such as sperm, making lots of harm. If afterwards they get spelled it doesn't matter cuz the damage is done
Past_Curve_9558 | 4 hours ago
Unfortunately nano plastics are also problematic and are not easily filtered due to their small size
ParadoxicallyZeno | 4 hours ago
not quite so simple: in a Columbia study of bottled water from a few years ago, the most common type of micro- and nano-plastic was the type of nylon used to make water filters… https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/bottled-water-can-contain-hundreds-thousands-nanoplastics
so for example when people use a reverse osmosis filter to remove microplastic, they’re also adding new micro and nanoplastics from the filter itself
dudly825 | 3 hours ago
Don’t sleep on surfactants. They are in all detergents but a particularly nasty class of them called NPEs are still legal to use in the States for commercial applications (hotels & hospitals).
NPEs disrupt sleep, cause rashes, irritability, brain fog, red eyes. They are major endocrine disruptors that absorb through the skin, mimic estrogen, and result in testosterone crashes in men. Legal in the States, banned in Canada & the EU. Cause… 🤷♂️.
If you’re one of the many “I don’t sleep well in hotels,” people… good chance you aren’t home sick, you’re reacting to the NPEs saturating the sheets you slept in.
Super fun, surfactants are also used to irrigate our crops. They penetrate the flesh of many fruits and vegetables and can’t be washed off.
taktaga7-0-0 | 15 hours ago
50yr ago, the average man was probably also 5-10yr younger than the average man today, given the change in life expectancy from 69 then to 76 today.
Lucas_2234 | 15 hours ago
that- That is not how that works.
Life expectancy doesn't work like that, it's heavily offset by very young deaths, like infants.
And even if it wasn't, that still doesn't mean we age slower, or that people 50 years ago were "younger" despite being the same age
refusemouth | 14 hours ago
Don't they control for infant mortality in average life expectancy tables, though? I want to say that they have a separate statistical category for childhood deaths now. If they didn't, average lifespan would be a bit lower than 76, or whatever it is.
Lucas_2234 | 14 hours ago
life expectancy at birth, which is what Taktaga would be referring to most likely, is influenced by child mortality.
NecrisRO | 15 hours ago
76 is now ? Haha yeah, nobody reaches that in this economy
KellyJin17 | 15 hours ago
The drop off started a few decades before Americans started getting obese though, this title is a bit misleading. The main cause is most likely environmental toxins, specifically groundwater and soil pollutants.
dudly825 | 3 hours ago
Which also disrupt hormones that regulate hunger signals.
I won’t be shocked if we don’t discover the plastic and petrochemicals didn’t cause the obesity epidemic.
MisterSanitation | 3 hours ago
Would you mind sharing some sources on that?
I haven’t heard this claim before but if I can get testosterone fueled gym bros to care about the environment that’s only a good thing.
psychrolut | 2 hours ago
On the plus side the rates on domestic violence have dropped around 10% since the 90s. Got to imagine it was 20-30% higher in the 70s than it is now but no stats to go on.
Cero_Kurn | 16 hours ago
Its also microplastics
no joke, google it
DonHedger | 15 hours ago
Possibly but the amount of microplastics actually retained in your body may be substantially lower than originally believed. The integrity of the samples they tested were corrupted by the gloves scientists were using, which shed a ton of microplastics. A paper just got published on it, I'll return with a link at some point.
Edit: Paper
K1kobus | 8 hours ago
It's still a ridiculous amount of microplastics, a recent study found that the average adult has a plastic spoon worth of microplastics in their brain. That amounts to 0,5% of the weight of your brain consisting of microplastics. They also found that the amount of plastics in the brain increased by 50% in the last decade.
Big-Finding2976 | 4 hours ago
So the blood-brain barrier blocks half the good stuff that I actually want to reach my brain but it lets the flipping microplastics through?
CorvidCorbeau | 4 hours ago
Isn't this one of the studies that specifically had contamination issues distorting the results?
Also, important nitpick, it's the average amount that increased by 50%. Check the brain results of 2024 and 2016. The highest concentration is basically the same, but the spread is much smaller
DonHedger | 3 hours ago
This study is one of the studies that the contamination paper I cited directly responds to. It's not that microplastics aren't an issues -- it's that our previous attempts to measure them were so flawed that the true average magnitude of plastics in human tissue could be virtually anything.
InfinitelyThirsting | 52 minutes ago
That study is being widely challenged as having improper measuring methodology and other flaws. And to be clear I'm still worried about plastics, just that study is unlikely to be true.
galaxy_brain_69420 | 10 hours ago
Would definitely love to know how the gloves magically didn't shed microplastics into the control samples.
DonHedger | 3 hours ago
It does, but glove shedding is so dramatically different from brand to brand, person to person, and even glove to glove that it's not reproducible or proportional, meaning that simply finding the difference between a experimental sample and a control blank isn't really a sufficient procedure, at least by my reading of the paper. Feel free to check it out yourself: https://pubs.rsc.org/ay/article/18/14/2914/1243107/Avoiding-and-reducing-microplastic-false-positives?silentauthchecked=true
EDIT: You might typically think "well why can't you just conduct something like hierarchical linear regression to account for sample non-independence, but if the authors are to be believed, that would account for individual and manufacturer differences but not simple differences in how much pressure was applied to a sample when it was tested. There really isn't a good way to correct for this short of changing the procedure entirely.
evergreen-embers | 8 hours ago
They don’t have to be forever retained in the body to have effects. I mean hell, the pieces alone can micro slice and dice your insides on the way out.
DonHedger | 2 hours ago
That could be true, but I also think a lot of pop science has been presenting singular microplastics studies with some major methodological flaws as gospel for the same reason Fox News insists violent immigrants are flooding the US. The fear-mongering gets a lot of clicks and attention, but the reality, I think, is just that a lot of this research is still in its infancy and positioning it as fact is probably causing a lot of misconceptions among the general public.
Of course, we want as few microplastics in us and the environment as possible, they very likely are very bad, we should be dumping a ton more money into settling on methodology and ecologically valid studies of microplastic consumption, and we should be making manufacturers who've caused this issue pay for all of it, but we don't yet solidly understand how much we actually consume and how severe the effects are.
It also doesn't help that by the time we complete that research, we'll likely have moved onto as a society to some new plastics that we haven't yet studied, but that's another issue.
EDIT: Case in point -- I was a researcher on a very large study exploring reduced nicotine cigarettes to motivate smokers not interested in quitting smoking to quit, with the hope that it would empower the FDA to dictate nicotine restrictions. We found exactly what we wanted to find, which was great, but then Trump came into office and vaping took off.
evergreen-embers | an hour ago
Idk girl I work in a PFAS/microplastics lab lol
DonHedger | 30 minutes ago
That's cool, but I don't understand how that changes anything I've said. I'm a neuroscientist; maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't think there currently is a broad scientific consensus as to exactly how much we're typically consuming and the course of effects they have from entering to exiting the body. From what I've read, the answer to both of those seem to be "more than zero" and "probably a bunch of stuff ranging from inflammation, GI microbiome issues, hormone disruption, neural dysfunction, etc. but it's hard to say exactly".
Cero_Kurn | 9 hours ago
Interesting, will read the study when you share it, thanks.
Nonetheless, the amount of microplastics in body its higher today than it was 20 years ago and it's also been show that they interfere with sperm mobility and hormonal production
DonHedger | 3 hours ago
Shared it in my comment above. Yeah, any amount probably isn't good, but it's [probably] not the "everyone has a full-spoon-amount of plastic in their brain" that was previously making waves around pop science publications on the internet last year.
ParadoxicallyZeno | 3 hours ago
glove contamination doesn’t explain why the amount of microplastics in brains doubled between 2016 and 2024 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1
pingo5 | 3 hours ago
It does if the study you linked had contamination from gloves.
ParadoxicallyZeno | 3 hours ago
the point is that all the samples were analyzed the same way at the same time, but the brains from 2024 had much higher levels of plastic than the brains from 2016
so the increase found in the study is not coming from gloves...
pingo5 | 2 hours ago
that's a fair point. I'll admit I didn't read jt at first as I assumed it was similar to another that I had looked into before, and it's cool they tested both samples at the same time.
I would like to mention though, that the glove contamination problem wasn't controlled for, so there is a possibility that differences in handling outside of what was controlled may have contributed somwhat as well.
ParadoxicallyZeno | 2 hours ago
gloves also didn’t cause the association between microplastics in tissue samples and cardiovascular events or mortality observed over the next 3 years in the NEJM study...
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2309822
the petrochemical industry loves it when people are ready to jump on their bandwagon and dismiss this whole field of research as contamination tho
DonHedger | 2 hours ago
When a science has an inherent file drawer problem and you measure phenomena that are noisy enough that almost any outcome is plausible, it's easy for compelling narratives to emerge around whatever result is observed. Big numbers don't mitigate the likelihood that we're committing a Type 1 Error or even just using an outlier to represent the true mean. Almost the entirety of the mid-2000s replication crisis was real effects undergoing a regression to the mean. They wouldn't have gotten as much attention in the first place if that hadn't stumbled upon a big, eye-catching number.
DonHedger | 2 hours ago
The effect they are trying to capture is probably real in some way, but citing any specific number becomes unreliable without the glove shedding issue being addressed. They address many possible known contaminants and how they mitigated them, but they never address gloves because they weren't a known contaminate when they were doing this research. They highlight that the minimize contaminants by employing the same procedures at both timepoints, but when the contaminant is both systemtic and stochastic, as the gloves are, it doesn't actually eliminate this possibility. Obviously, the Nature portfolio of journals are very top-tier; I'm sure the work was carefully critically evaluated, etc., but the gloves issue is a significant hurdle when it comes to interpretation.
ParadoxicallyZeno | 2 hours ago
gloves don’t explain why the brains of people with dementia had up to ten times as much micoplastic in them
and gloves do not explain the cardiovascular and mortality risks associated with higher levels of microplastics in the NEJM study https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2309822
i agree that measurements of exact numbers are difficult and likely need refinement, but all i know for sure is that the petrochemical industry really appreciates anyone helping them wave away all potential health concerns on the basis of “contamination”
DonHedger | an hour ago
Any study measuring microplastic concentration conducted by scientists wearing gloves could be called into question
I completely agree that manufacturers love this, which is why you need to be wondering why a decade plus of this research was conducted before anyone thought to check glove contamination.
EDIT: Let's be clear, I'm a socialist neuroscientist -- if it were up to me, I'd have the C-Suite of these manufacturers in labor camps, but science is only helpful towards these goals when it's sufficiently accurate and I want a better standard for my tools.
ParadoxicallyZeno | 30 minutes ago
it’s possible to allow room for improvements in techniques without dismissing the issue wholesale. if you care at all about this, consider leaning into that rather than jumping straight to “ACKSHULLY the amount of microplastics in your body is way less than they thought because of gloves” — because all readers take away from that is “cool, guess i don’t have to worry about this anymore” when the available evidence does NOT support that
people with short attention spans are desperate for an excuse to ignore environmental health. no need to hand it to them on a platter with no additional detail
im_a_dr_not_ | 13 hours ago
> Common Plastic Chemical Found To Feminize Males and Masculinize Females
https://scitechdaily.com/common-plastic-chemical-found-to-feminize-males-and-masculinize-females/
purpleplatapi | 7 hours ago
I have. The research is very inconclusive. No one can definitively say it does.
Cero_Kurn | 4 hours ago
Well, those are different affirmations you said there. Not being able to definitely say something is one thing (rarely in science you have such a thing) And being inconclusive is another.
Many studies have been able to identify mechanisms and correlations that indicate that it is indeed a thing
vertigounconscious | 2 hours ago
there's plastic in our balls. if we can't get the powers that be to care about plastic being in our collective balls we can't get them to care about anything all
Boomshank | 15 hours ago
It's all the endocrine disrupting shit.
From too much soy, to the coatings on receipts, to other plastics.
Edit: apparently my knowledge on soy is out of date.
But hey, we gotta sell more shit! Those shareholders aren't gonna share themselves!
Noy_The_Devil | 15 hours ago
Soy is not a significant factor in any universe my guy. Stick to the science.
Obesity and microplastics, mainly.
Boomshank | 15 hours ago
Soy can be a contributing factor.
In isolation? No. But neither are any of the factors in isolation
artificialidentity3 | 15 hours ago
People have been eating soy for literally 5000 years. Whole cultures would have poor reproductive capacity if what you’re saying is true. You are a recapitulating bro-science from 15 years ago, just give it up.
Boomshank | 15 hours ago
Well shit.
Thanks for the update. I missed that one.
I'm FAR from a bro-science dude. I've been vegetarian for 34 years. I still thought the isoflavones could disrupt endocrine systems.
Thanks for the correction.
artificialidentity3 | 14 hours ago
Hey again! Thank you for the genuine reply. Good stuff! Here's a paper from within the past few years that I just looked up that basically says what I'm talking about - that soy isn't the endocrine disruptor in humans that people worried it was. It will give some background. But if you go to PubMed and search for soy and things like human health or endocrine disruptor, you'll see many more papers. (I'd focus on reviews and open access/free so you can get past the abstract.)
Obviously, some will still find concerns while others won't. That's pretty much all of nutrition science, though. So many factors, so much personal and genetic variation, so many ways to study a problem. All very hard to disambiguate and to really know what's what. But I'm just saying to my knowledge it's not the problem people have made it out to be. Anyway, you're already smashing it as a 34 year vegetarian, so congrats on that. Well done.
Grutter | 6 hours ago
You are linking a paper sponsored by the Soy bean industry.
“Mark John Messina receives funding from the Soy Nutrition Institute as its Executive Director. Both Mindy Kurzer and John Sievenpiper are on the advisory board of the Soy Nutrition Institute.”
Hardly an Independent source.
artificialidentity3 | 3 hours ago
Fair point to express such a concern. But that’s not proof of some nefariousness. Funding is clearly disclosed in the paper, and they attest to a COI mitigation plan. Every one of the authors lists a university affiliation, not some industry think tank. Plus it’s a review paper that cites an array of other studies, not primary research. In addition, I advised the person to whom I replied to go look for themselves at open access primary literature at PubMed. I’m not sure what else you want from a Reddit comment.
Shaeress | 8 hours ago
The soy thing was always misinformation. The alt right picked it up citing a like 40 year old study in sheep where it did have an effect. However, sheep have a very different diet and digestion of plants than we do so "sheep eating a lot of soy" can mean it being a large percentage of their diet in terms of both weight and calories. Whereas even a soy heavy human diet isn't gonna be anywhere near 50% soy beans.
It was always xenophobic, homophobic, inflammatory propaganda and misinformation.
Boomshank | 17 minutes ago
As I'm quickly discovering, thanks to the (rightful) downvoting I'm getting for repeating the misinformation
Thanks for the update🙂
Cero_Kurn | 9 hours ago
The soy part made me chuckle. I thought u were going to calle me a soy boy, but it was just out of date info hehe
Physical_Dentist2284 | 15 hours ago
The students for life say it’s the fact that we’re drinking everyone’s abortions.
Dandy11Randy | 12 hours ago
I was really hoping the unironic soy boy take was gonna be the most schitzo thing I saw today
uniquelyavailable | 4 hours ago
Yes because everything on the internet is true
Physical_Dentist2284 | 15 hours ago
Ok well it’s time to get serious. Move to a farm, grow your own vegetables, adhere to an ivermectin and raw milk regimen, swim in sewage, stop getting vaccinated, don’t take Tylenol or antidepressants and stop drinking birth control pill and abortion water!
phoebeethical | 7 hours ago
Wat
Physical_Dentist2284 | 7 hours ago
These are all solutions that our current administration and Republican elected officials have come up with.
phoebeethical | 7 hours ago
Oh thank god it was sarcasm… when you suggest it anyway
NickFF2326 | 4 hours ago
It’s sadly not sarcasm. Those are actual root causes that Republicans in this administration have proposed. They are beyond morons.
rexleonis | 3 hours ago
It's easy to criticise but how do Democrats suggest to increase testosterone back to old levels?
NickFF2326 | 3 hours ago
They tend not to make claims not backed by scientific research. Especially ones that can kill people.
rexleonis | an hour ago
might be. but I've yet to hear "smarter" suggestions other than bashing the way our ancestors lived
NickFF2326 | 57 minutes ago
What? Who has bashed the way our ancestors lived?
FadeAway77 | 2 hours ago
Do you think drinking raw milk is a solution? Lmfao.
Physical_Dentist2284 | 2 hours ago
If the problem is that you are not violently vomiting to the point you can see death coming for you and you really want to be, raw milk is the solution.
rexleonis | an hour ago
I don't know. they drank raw milk 100 years ago when testosterone was double of today. coincidence? maybe.
but still waiting for constructive criticism, not just bashing "moronic" ways our ancestors lived
NickFF2326 | 51 minutes ago
It’s comparing apples and oranges to now. Raw milk would probably be fine if drank shortly after milking. Storing it on shelves and anything not short term is asking for issues. That’s not even going down the road of pesticides, modern antibodies and just the general trashy-ness of the planet today. So yes, in today’s terms, drinking raw milk is moronic unless you’re having a glass right off the teat.
Physical_Dentist2284 | 43 minutes ago
You better clean the teat first because cattle are not clean animals. They shit all over and lay down in it and get it everywhere. That’s what makes you sick when you drink raw milk. It’s the bacteria in the shit. Gets all over the udders and even kind of up in them.
Electrical-Penalty44 | 59 minutes ago
All the milk farmers I know drink raw milk, and sell the pasteurized stuff. They just say if they detect harmful bacteria in it they don't drink it.
I've had it and it tastes MUCH better; almost like a vanilla milkshake!
As for the other Republican stuff...yikes.
Physical_Dentist2284 | 41 minutes ago
Yeah I know people who dip their Oreos straight into the bulk tank. Doesn’t mean it’s not full of bacteria.
Electrical-Penalty44 | 39 minutes ago
You should also remove "growing your own vegetables" from your anti-Republican rant too.
birdosaurus-rex | 4 hours ago
I mean…of this list, only sewage, no Tylenol and no vaccines are problematic. Jury is still out on ivermectin and raw milk. Shouldn’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater”
Physical_Dentist2284 | 2 hours ago
The jury is not still out on raw milk. I have cattle. I’ve watched them stand around in the lot and shit on each other’s faces. They lay down in shit. They step in it. They get it everywhere including on their udders. When you drink raw milk you are likely drinking shit milk.
badken | 5 hours ago
Off topic, but can you recommend a Spiritual Dentist?
Physical_Dentist2284 | 2 hours ago
I can but they are really expensive and don’t take insurance.
SunflaresAteMyLunch | 16 hours ago
A fertility crisis is hardly a problem when people deliberately opt out of having kids.
Not to say that dropping testosterone levels isn't a problem, but not for that reason.
Dirtgrain | 14 hours ago
Well, it might be even a greater problem, when the fewer who want kids struggle.
A1sauc3d | 11 hours ago
Yeah their point is a bad one. They’re additive issues. They don’t cancel each other out lol. EVERYONE would have to be opting out of having kids for their point to make sense. Since not everyone is opting out of having kids, reduced fertility still has an impact.
In_der_Tat | 11 hours ago
Why should that be a greater problem? Is this the perspective of the taxman that does not tax tech giants and multinationals properly and perpetuates unfunded pension schemes?
Horror-Range-9535 | 6 hours ago
Assuming it is binary, either couples are able or not, disregarding that each time trying is a roll of dice itself:
100 couples.
80 want to get 2 children, of those 75% are able -> 120 children
40 want 2 children, 75% are able -> 60 children
40 want 2 children, 37,5% are able -> 30 children
In_der_Tat | 23 minutes ago
And?
moonlight__sunshine | 11 hours ago
Look into the data, it is actually very worrying. If current trends continue soon the majority of young couples trying for a baby will need medical intervention to get pregnant. That is highly concerning. Just look how much sperm counts have dropped in recent years. It could literally be spelling the end of the human race if the trends don't change.
yes______hornberger | 5 hours ago
About 1 in 10 couples trying for a baby do so for more than a year and get an “infertility” diagnoses. Of that 1 in 10, among those who pursue medical intervention to get pregnant, about 60% will end up with a live birth.
Infertility is horrible and incredibly traumatic, but not nearly as widespread as it’s made out to be.
moonlight__sunshine | 4 hours ago
Yes, currently. This is what I'm saying that in the future it will be nearly everyone that needs help.
shhhhh_h | 10 hours ago
Nah it’ll just be the end of the luxurious living conditions that led to the obesity and diabetes
moonlight__sunshine | 7 hours ago
That's why the countries with the lowest birthrates in the world are japan and South Korea. Two countries with the lowest BMI and diabetes levels? You are not thinking clearly if you think they are the only factors.
SunflaresAteMyLunch | 6 hours ago
I don't have access to the data, I'm just making the assumption that people choosing to be childless is much more common than people being so involuntarily (excluding age).
chloralhydrate | 16 hours ago
Maybe they opt out because low t makes you feel that way.
DookieFries | 15 hours ago
Obesity is the most common cause of lower testosterone levels
Physical_Dentist2284 | 15 hours ago
Oh no, low T is caused by vaccines, Tylenol, antidepressants and not wearing jeans in the sauna. But RFK, jr is gonna make it better by putting them all on a farm and making them grow and eat their own vegetables.
senditloud | 14 hours ago
You need the sarcasm font designator please!!! Put
/s at the end. It’s too hard to tell these days…
twoiko | 10 hours ago
Poe's law bb
I just assume everyone's a troll, saves me a lot of stress.
KellyJin17 | 15 hours ago
It is not. It’s been lowering since before the obesity epidemic. Environmental pollution is the biggest cause. Men who work in and live near chemical plants or where chemicals are dumped in water and soil have lower testosterone than men who don’t.
DookieFries | 14 hours ago
Yeah people who are directly poisoned with be more effected. But obesity effects a larger pool of men by orders of magnitude
Cero_Kurn | 16 hours ago
fertility has dropped a lot even if you account for that
all studies take that into account
SunflaresAteMyLunch | 15 hours ago
Any examples? You'd have to look at male infertility among couples trying to conceive as a percentage of the overall population in that age cohort.
Cero_Kurn | 9 hours ago
I can't look them.up right now but they also mention it in the methodology how they consider it
SunflaresAteMyLunch | 6 hours ago
I can't find that in the text.
It talks about low testosterone and its potential impact on fertility, but does not mention voluntary childlessness that I can see.
Cero_Kurn | 4 hours ago
In that cade cuz they are comparing testosterone levels and not fertility
Again, didnt read that one, but generally they take all that into account. Remember that scientists are smart people who know what they are doing. If you and I know that childlessness and modern life has to be taken into account, rest assure they know that as well
ElectricalSeries6627 | 8 hours ago
the question is does the hormonal anomaly lead to this will to not having children, it would be worth checking if woman is having some form of biological deregulation like men
SunflaresAteMyLunch | 5 hours ago
Sure, but determining the potential endocrinal root cause for deciding not to have kids seems like a very tricky study to make...
ElectricalSeries6627 | 5 hours ago
yes, they are chance that we will never really know, unless we find a way to purge out the pollution out of the body and a significant shift in behavior is noticeable
stazley | 16 hours ago
PFAs are released in almost everything that’s manufactured. That ‘new’ car/house/furniture smell is just endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
ThisisMalta | 15 hours ago
They’re hardly a major factor when just compared to poor diet and sedentary lifestyle. That along with genetics are your major identifiable risk factors for endocrine disorders like DM II. And the lower testosterone levels in men.
stazley | 11 hours ago
I only did one project on them a couple of years ago, but from what I remember PFAs pose significant risks to both male and female fertility. We are only just now beginning to understand how widespread the damage has been.
I understand diet and lifestyle are the biggest factors, but I don’t think there is peer reviewed evidence to support your statement that off-gassing chemicals are ‘hardly a factor’. If anything, current research supports the opposite.
Boomshank | 14 hours ago
Genetics are a major contributor to the sudden drop in testosterone in men?
How... How would that even work?
_Fred_Austere_ | 13 hours ago
I think the implied point is... genetic problems and poor diet and sedentary lifestyle contribute most to endocrine disorders - along with other much smaller factors.
So, since genetics don't change much the poor diet and sedentary lifestyle are likely the major players in the sudden drop.
ThisisMalta | 7 hours ago
Genetics being risk factor for DMII is what is said….the person I was responding to had brought up endocrine disorders.
ElectricalSeries6627 | 8 hours ago
Modern medicine has allowed many people to survive and function who would not have without it, leading them to have children they otherwise would not have had. Because these individuals rely on medication or medical attention to remain functional and reproduce, they likely carry an accumulation of genetic issues
dudly825 | 3 hours ago
Found the eugenicist.
dudly825 | 3 hours ago
Those chemicals are a source of chronic fatigue. Hard to find motivation to exercise when you’re sick.
SillyRedditor1999 | 13 hours ago
NIH and the American Diabetes Association define normal fasting glucose level as 70 - 99 mg/dL But some research shows that Testosterone levels start dropping well before that 99 number.
In a 2012 study of 400 Korean men in their 40s and 50s: > Total testosterone was significantly decreased in non-diabetic subjects with high-normal glucose and IFG levels. In particular, subjects in the high FPG groups (above 88 mg/dL) showed decreased testosterone levels after adjusting for age, BMI, smoking, and alcohol consumption
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3391640
I can tell you from personal experience as a 55 year old man, I had ED problems for a couple years when my fasting glucose was in the upper 90s. Two months of low carb diet got that number into the 80s and the problems stopped immediately. I was never diagnosed as Diabetic or Pre-Diabetic. The problems start earlier than most people realize.
Noy_The_Devil | 15 hours ago
Not peer reviewed.
But interesting nonetheless. Probably microplastics and obesity.
Illustrious_Night126 | 5 hours ago
People getting older as well
Noy_The_Devil | 5 hours ago
Oh yeah, damn that's probably almost most of it even if they didn't control for it.
KellyJin17 | 15 hours ago
This is just the latest in about 70 years of studies showing this same trend.
Excellent_Month_2025 | 7 hours ago
Men get very upset when you tell them it’s male fertility that is the problem. But they wanted to blame women again!
Onaliquidrock | 3 hours ago
Is this a bot comment to create division and make people believe other people are morons?
Richinaru | 10 hours ago
A 100 year "trend" that doesn't have nearly sufficient enough sample size to draw a global conclusion is next to worthless.
The biggest issue with hormone testing as it is is that it fluctuates day to day, hour to hour. This data would need to be EXTENSIVE to be something worth really considering. But it's not so something worth noting but barely worth concerning oneself over
Noy_The_Devil | 6 hours ago
Right, but nobody went through the data or methodology of the selected X studies this reported on. It might well be enough shit data to make a shit conclusion.
Without peer review science is worth very little for a very good reason, come on.
Few-Ambition4072 | 13 hours ago
Sorry, but can we stop linking The Guardian and link the actual study?
3DNZ | 12 hours ago
We dont use our bodies as much anymore.
Justdoingitagain | 8 hours ago
Yup it’s this
kaam00s | 10 hours ago
HALVED ????
That's actually crazy.
It probably has enormous consequences on society, day to day life and the future of humanity. And yet we largely ignore this type of causes.
blues_for_horoz | 9 hours ago
"Obesity was also not controlled for"
Ridiculous doom bait.
silverionmox | 9 hours ago
Well, even if it's caused by obesity, then it's still a problem, apart from all the other problems caused by obesity.
UndergroundCreek | 15 hours ago
Dunno. With 9 billion people on Earth going on 10 billion that may be a good thing.
ReasonablyBadass | 12 hours ago
Nope. Because we won't lower population slowly, instead we will have 9 to 10 billion old people and basically no kids. Society will crash, brutally.
valkenar | 15 hours ago
This is exactly my thinking. We've got plenty of people, I seriously doubt that fertility rates are going to hold us back as a species.
_Fred_Austere_ | 13 hours ago
Rate of change is important. The next generation supports the last. We must prepare for changes or there is hardship.
Your retirement is crying.
valkenar | 13 hours ago
Meh, I'll sacrifice the last 10 crappy years of my life for a chance at humanity escaping the Fermi paradox. We don't have that much time left before we've doomed our species to eventual extinction. Me being comfy in retirement is pretty meaningless next to that.
In_der_Tat | 11 hours ago
>a chance at humanity escaping the Fermi paradox
Tough luck. Just accept mortality applies to species a well (in such case it is extinction, which is the norm), and that one of the solutions to the paradox lies in the tendency to self-destruction characterizing an "intelligent" technological species.
valkenar | 8 hours ago
Yeah, that definitely might be, it certainly is looking like it at the moment. But I don't think we have the information available to say it's a certainty and I have some hope for us still.
Boomshank | 14 hours ago
The dog whistle you're not hearing is that the issue is WHITE men aren't reproducing fast enough
tgeyr | 12 hours ago
It's a global phenomenon except in Africa.... Most of Asia and south Americans also have declining birth rates below 2.
Thinking it's a right wing dog whistle tells more about you like you're rejoicing it's only affecting white people and it's not a concern. Wtf ??
moonlight__sunshine | 11 hours ago
Yup, the lowest birthrates in the world are Thailand, South Korea and Japan. It is definitely not just a white people problem. That guy is definitely racist.
PresentBluebird6022 | 11 hours ago
Yeah I think this guy's insane...
moonlight__sunshine | 11 hours ago
Go home, you're drunk.
Horror-Range-9535 | 6 hours ago
Long term? Yes. But the fall of the cliff will be rough
taktaga7-0-0 | 15 hours ago
So, what am I doing right, then? I’m part of this group, probably have whatever levels the rest do. But I managed not to get fat, and I’ve avoided diabetes so far.
StatusCopacetic | 15 hours ago
Now let's see what the future will look like with all the young kids shooting up steroids and peptides
nightwood | 11 hours ago
Also sleep loss I bet
ConspicuouslyBland | 10 hours ago
Not enough sleep and obesity have a causal relation if I'm not mistaking.
Crazycook99 | 5 hours ago
And I bet microplastics in our testicles doesn't help either
highoncatnipbrownies | 5 hours ago
Can’t afford children in this economy anyway.
Hyperion1144 | 4 hours ago
Yeah... We're just evolving to accommodate our environment.
MutedFeeling75 | 15 hours ago
Ya
mootmutemoat | 15 hours ago
Given gen z men went for Trump, guessing he just appeals to low testosterone men.
No wonder he loves ymca.
(/s that's a myth btw, gay men have = T)
Empty_Insight | 14 hours ago
To further elaborate on your point, I may call attention to a work titled "Macho Man" also authored by the aforementioned experts responsible for YMCA.
Truly, The Village People were ahead of their time.
igniteyourbones579 | 12 hours ago
Testosterone is associated with being a republican. They literally did a study on this. Search for testosterone induces red shift in democrats.
mootmutemoat | 6 hours ago
"There were no differences in basal T levels among the major political parties or independents (Democrats: M = 498.86, SD = 185.29; Republicans: M = 460.01, SD = 185.41; Independents: M = 445.63, SD = 146.93; F(4,128) = 0.915, p = 0.457)"
Democrat men have nonsignificantly more testosterone than Republican men (498.86 versus 460.01).
A small group of men who only weakly identified with Democrats briefly felt slightly more Republican (went from feeling pro Dem on a scale of 1 to 100 at 65 dropping to 58) when they were temporarily given gender affirming care of more testosterone.
So they went from feeling 65 prodem to 57 prodem. They did not become republicans, and overall dems had nonsignificanly higher T than republicans.
Thanks for proving my joke might be true?
igniteyourbones579 | 5 hours ago
Yeah just leave out the relevant part:
"Before the testosterone treatment, we found that weakly affiliated Democrats had 19% higher basal testosterone than those who identified strongly with the party"
"When weakly affiliated Democrats received additional testosterone, the strength of their party affiliation fell by 12% (p = 0.01), and they reported 45% warmer feelings towards Republican candidates for president"
mootmutemoat | 5 hours ago
Leave out the fact that the 12% drop still meant that they leaned democrat?
Leave out the fact that dems without gender affriming care still had nonsig higher levels of testosterone overall?
Sorry I left out the fact that giving a small amount of dems testosterone still made them dems?
You are seriously contorting yourself here, you just get hopium injections?
igniteyourbones579 | 5 hours ago
"Leave out the fact that the 12% drop still meant that they leaned democrat?"
42% warmer feelings toward republican candidates is pretty telling...
"Leave out the fact that dems without gender affriming care still had nonsig higher levels of testosterone overall?"
Where exactly from the study did you get this part?
mootmutemoat | 4 hours ago
Quoted it above, with numbers and everything.
I too feel that warmer feelings, but not a total coversion, in a small subset of people is pretty telling.
Sure the baseline numbers go in the opposite direction, but if we lean in really hard and only look at a small subgroup that didn't change their mind but shifted it a bit temporarily as the result of an artificial intervention that was several times the magnitude of what people actually experience, that is very telling.
Here is another study that shows at base line Dems have higher T. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0306453021002705
There is a phenomenon that when you lose your T shoots up (and drops when you win), so at followup Dems had lower T because they had just won the election.
But again, at baseline before any manipulation Dems have higher T.
igniteyourbones579 | 4 hours ago
"Quoted it above, with numbers and everything."
That part doesn't exist in the study in question. Did you use AI?
"Here is another study that shows at base line Dems have higher T"
link doesn't work.
mootmutemoat | 4 hours ago
It does exist in the study. Are you confusing the guardian article with the study?
The link works, it is a pdf from the well known publisher. Just as it usually is in science.
Starting to think you don't actually science...
igniteyourbones579 | 3 hours ago
Jesus christ. Quote the part relating overall T levels, meaning this one that you quoted earlier "Democrat men have nonsignificantly more testosterone than Republican men (498.86 versus 460.01)" from this sstudy:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/brb3.70651
There is no word "nonsignificant" in the whole study.
Yeah now the link works. Losing increases testosterone. How does this matter in the context of the study in question? The one I linked.
ILikeNeurons | 14 hours ago
LifeProTip: meat is often high in fat, and not necessarily a good source of protein. Nutritionists consider a hard-boiled egg to the gold standard protein source, as it contains a complete set of amino acids and is relatively low in fat. Other sources or protein that are better sources of protein (per calorie) than your typical cuts of meat include nuts, legumes, seeds, quinoa, spinach, etc.
Most of us eat too much meat, and it's harming our health.
Diabetes is not good for blood flow, either.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/meatless-meals/art-20048193
okmister22 | 12 hours ago
Both links are the same just fyi thanks for sharing
ILikeNeurons | 4 hours ago
There are three links posted above...
No-Problem49 | 5 hours ago
Lmfao nuts? You kidding me bro? Look nuts are good but they are not better sources of protein per calorie then lean beef or chicken. And spinach? Bro, like a pound of spinach has less than 100 calories it’s not a source of protein simply based on volume alone.
Spinach and nuts , they good foods, but they don’t replace a chicken breast. You need to eat both. I feel like this article is predicated on chicken nuggets and 73% ground beef with no fat drained to make its claims.
A chicken breast without rib meat is nearly all protein.
ILikeNeurons | 4 hours ago
Per calorie, not per pound.
Spinach is higher in protein per calorie than meat, but it is also higher in water, which we also need and many of us aren't getting enough of.
I have a degree in nutrition, what is your expertise?
No-Problem49 | 3 hours ago
Bro what are you talking about! Spinach is 8 calories protein per 20 calories. It’s 3g carbs 2g protein meaning 40% the calories are protein. Sure that’s good macros, it’s good food. But to say it’s protein/calorie is higher than meat is just a lie.
But chicken breast is 90% protein…. Even 93/7 ground beef with no fat drained is 57.5% protein per calorie which again, is higher then spinach.
Literally chicken breast 2.5 times protein per calorie then spinach. Did that slip your mind Mr I have a degree?
Is spinach a better source of protein than a chicken nugget? Sure. But to just put it forward as “better than (all) meat” is absurd.
Lot of good that degree did you, maybe you should apply it and do some simple math on macros then go lift.
What a sub 2 plate bench response….
ReasonablyBadass | 12 hours ago
People always pretend this is somehow "good due to overpopulation". Nope. Because we won't lower population slowly, instead we will have 9 to 10 billion old people and basically no kids. Society will crash, brutally.
confuseum | 6 hours ago
And everyone's wages have halved as well.
Mazzidazs | 7 hours ago
Somehow this is gonna be twisted into women's fault
murderedbyaname | 6 hours ago
We're going to get jumped, but funny when it's a women's study most of the comments are "get off your fat ass you fatty mcfat fat".
No-Problem49 | 5 hours ago
Men get the same comments when they are like “I’m 280lbs with low testosterone imma get trt”. Men get clowned when they say that calling them fat and saying the trt will make them grow tits. Which it honestly probably will lol
AnAncientOne | 6 hours ago
This is how we go out, not with a bang but with a whimper
Desperate-Country440 | 6 hours ago
Stupid jurnalism, teh real question is "What produce obesity and diabetes?".
elihurootsghost | 5 hours ago
Is there a paper or article that actually talks about the measured levels of testosterone? When getting tested there is a pretty wide range that is “normal” it would be interesting to see if the loss is still in the range or if the whole “normal” range has shifted down over time.
Bugnuzzler | 5 hours ago
Could some of it be related to the widespread use of birth control pills and associated selective breeding? You might want to have fun with the high testosterone dude but not settle down and have kids with him.
SqueezyKeewee | 5 hours ago
Sperm count has also halved
YeshilPasha | 5 hours ago
Eh, it is problem that will fix itself. I wouldn't call it "crisis".
Vpk-75 | 4 hours ago
Its for the best. Humankind is destroying the planet and more.
AptCasaNova | 3 hours ago
Aside from fertility, which I’d argue isn’t relevant if you don’t want biological children, the health effects of low testosterone can be erectile dysfunction, muscle loss, increased body fat, weaker bones, hair loss, fatigue, memory issues and mental health issues like depression and anxiety.
Basically, many of the things women deal with as they age during perimenopause and menopause.
I can personally attest that it’s not fun at all. Neither is trying to convince your doctor your symptoms are real and life altering in order to get HRT (hormone replacement therapy). You’re told you need to lose weight, do yoga and go on antidepressants and stop complaining.
Interesting that they’re considering the same for men all of a sudden like it’s an emergency. I struggle to have sympathy here, if I’m honest.
zaffeo | 3 hours ago
Is the solution taking testosterone supplements (injections) i guess?
w8cycle | 2 hours ago
I think it’s more than obesity and diabetes. Something is wrong with the environment and our food.
asdrunkasdrunkcanbe | an hour ago
All of the data that the media presents about this, is really too narrow to draw any conclusions.
What are the differences between the groups? Is there a marked difference based on location, age, socioeconomic group, ethnic group, weight, education, etc?
The figure may be "down 50% in fifty years", but what about the changes between years? Is it a case that we're down 50% now, but we're actually up 10% in the last 20 years?
A single unified, straight-line drop across all groups over time basically has just one explanation, because only climate change could affect everyone across the entire planet at the same time.
Some people mention things like soil pollutants, groundwater pollution, cleaning chemicals and microplastics.
Distribution of these things is not even across the planet. If these are a significant cause, then we should see variance across regions based on the concentration of each in a given region.
Accomplished-Team459 | an hour ago
Reminds me of that one research that polyester underwear might affect sperm count.
Incidentally, polyester as clothing material is introduced 70 years ago in the 50s and become 'hot' 50 years ago.
Zingldorf | 5 minutes ago
Unfortunately Alex Jones was kinda right, “chemicals in the water are turning the freaking frogs gay”
msjammies73 | 13 hours ago
I think one thing to consider is the total cumulative exposure we now have to synthetic fragrance. It has skyrocketed in the last few decades. Think about the total number of fragrances we get hit with a day - laundry detergents, scent beads, plug ins, soaps. Colognes, hair stuff, cleaning supplies. It’s on your clothes, your sheets, towels, skin, hair, the air you breathe. All day and all night. You can’t go anywhere without get it. At low doses I’m sure the stuff is fine. But I doubt anyone has ever tested the types of exposures people get every day.
I plotted the use of fragrance and make T levels over time. I can’t share it here, but the inverse correlation is nearly perfect. Obviously correlation does not equal causation, but it sure should give us a reason to look at it.
AdCute9088 | 9 hours ago
Pfas,microplastics,air pollution, pesticides and more have entered the chat
Tommy27 | 14 hours ago
There is a large chunk of the US male population that look at eating vegetables and fruit as being not masculine. Some of this is self inflicted
Justdoingitagain | 8 hours ago
Lack of physical activity
nokia_3410 | 7 hours ago
So what? Its done one purpose.. dont try a 'suprised pikachu'
TraditionalLaw7763 | 15 hours ago
Give it a few years. With all the arsenic, mercury, parasites and pfas that these data centers are spewing out… and all the clean water/air regulations thrown to the curb…
equals_peace | 15 hours ago
it's all the sugar in our preserved food
MidnightPrevious4473 | 4 hours ago
Well....yeah...not working out and eating too many calories will do that
Zandofkilldof | 9 hours ago
Its because of exessive masturbation and porn so obvious
micjosisa | 14 hours ago
No surprise. They infiltrated the bulk of our processed food with soybean oil. Intentionally.
AltruisticCoelacanth | 12 hours ago
Soy isoflavones do not exhibit estrogenic effects compared with non-isoflavone controls on 4 measures of estrogenicity https://advances.nutrition.org/article/S2161-8313(24)00161-3/fulltext
Neither soy protein nor isoflavone exposure affects TT, FT, E2 or E1 levels in men https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623820302926
And for good measure:
Consumption of dairy is associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer, consumption of soy is not https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/5/1526/5743492
celestialhwheel | 7 hours ago
Earth is a living organism that's desperately trying to flush out the infection
Geist_Lain | 15 hours ago
This has always seemed weird to me; I have to take HRT to get my t levels below 800.