For those unaware -- men's sperm count has gone down 3% a year since we've started measuring.
I see these two facts as potentially related and warranting significant investigation.
back
3 comments
Not only that, but testosterone levels have been dropping in men for decades. Being that testosterone is essential to men's health and well-being, and they comprise 50% of people, you'd think society would care more about it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-t...
https://uk.reuters.com/article/health-testosterone-levels-dc...
Last year I got my hormone levels checked for the first time (normal), and I'm going to continue to do so yearly to keep track. Given how important it is, it's really surprising to me that testosterone levels aren't part of regular health exams/bloodwork panels - I had to convince my doctor add it on.
You might know this but be aware that lab testing companies have lowered the acceptable range of testosterone from 348-1197 ng/dL to 264-916 ng/dL, a ~25% decrease. Source: https://www.labcorp.com/assets/11476
Hormone levels fluctuate significantly from day to day based on a variety of factors so a single snapshot testosterone level test doesn't really tell you anything useful (unless it's way outside the reference range). If you suspect a deficiency then you'll need multiple tests over weeks taken at different times of the day in order to get a reliable diagnosis.
Yeah I'm aware. Didn't suspect anything wrong, just wanted to get a baseline established while I'm young
Right, and even then, different doctors/specialties have different standards for what counts as low testosterone. My primary swore up and down that my 300 was fine (and even 200 would be) but men's clinics would insist I need to be at 900.
I'm not sure I'd agree with the men's clinics that will probably more easily sell you appointments for test. prescriptions, but on the other hand LabCorp recently lowered their average range because of the declining measures in the population: https://www.labcorp.com/assets/11476
I think assuming this is the new norm for humans is a mistake, and should instead be treated as a widespread health issue.
Because the only real fix is giving the patient testosterone which has very real stroke risks.
Only slightly increased risk in the first two years
https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20190723/testostero...
Citation? If you are deficient in testosterone, replacing it is giving your body what it needs.
There are also lots of conflicting studies like this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26248567/
> the only real fix is
What an irresponsible statement. Science has not yet exhausted the frontiers of biomechanics.
No reason to test for a condition now for a future better fix. Test in the future.
Curious if anyone can cite any equivalent research for women, or if it exists?
Girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier, the average is no 10 years old, whereas it was 15 last century, and significant percents (differs by race though) are hitting it at 7.
Its true with boys to some extent as well according to studies. So at lease for boys/men, there is early onset of hormone production but an overall decrease in the hormone production.
That's not equivalent - indeed, it's not research.
Who has measured girls' hormones over time?
High Quality Organic Milk delayed/postponed this for two years (11-13) in our household. Just one datapoint, but we did it on advice from others. We switched from generic milk upon the first indications/hints.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing
Genuinely, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Without scientific sources "high quality organic milk does x" might as well say snake oil. Unless I'm misreading your post, and you're not espousing snake oil.
If I had to guess...I think he is suggesting the added hormones in food (dairy/milk specifically) have a link to early onset of puberty.
It is my understanding both the hormones and antibiotics given to livestock do it fact have impact on the people that consume them.
---
> The phytoestrogen stuff that is popping up in other comments than your own seems a lot of BS, honestly
It's hilarious that "soy boy theory" gets parroted so loudly on HN.
---
Please stop.
Caring about men's issues is literally an insult. I don't know why you'd think society would give a rip.
It'd actually be quite reassuring if a lot of this was due to body temperature, and not phytoestrogens.
phytoestrogens suppress natural estrogen production because they partially bind to existing estrogen receptors. there was never any (serious) doubt that there was an issue
There's some serious doubt on Wikipedia FWIW... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogen#Males
It is unclear if phytoestrogens have any effect on male sexuality, with conflicting results about the potential effects of isoflavones originating from soy. A 2010 meta-analysis of fifteen placebo-controlled studies said that "neither soy foods nor isoflavone supplements alter measures of bioavailable testosterone concentrations in men."[31] Some studies showed that isoflavone supplementation had no effect on sperm concentration, count, or motility, and had no effects on testicular or ejaculate volume.[32][33] Sperm count decline and increasing rate of testicular cancers in the West may be linked to a higher presence of isoflavone phytoestrogens in the diet, but such a link has not been definitively proven.[34] Furthermore, there is some evidence that phytoestrogens may affect male fertility, but "further investigation is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn"
Hi, human endocrine researcher here: Wikipedia is garbage for "controversial" medical topics -- it's even worse for many non-controversial biochemical processes (please take a look at the human alcohol metabolism graph... utter garbage!). Citing a few researcher's conclusions (NO! You do NOT do this!) is haphazard, it usually does NOT match the same conclusions one's peers would reach were they to review piece as a whole.
Here's what easily deductively reproduceable with a cursory understanding of the systems involved (and digging through a lot of literature):
> Phytoestrogens bind to estrogen receptors (YES)
> Chemicals -- other than estrogens -- that bind to estrogen receptors are Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators
> SERMs are NOT the same as estrogens, but they do increase certain estrogenic effects depending on their chemical structure (good: lipid profile, prostate stability; AND bad gynocomastia, electrolyte retention)
> Each SERM has a specific amount of "power" (receptor affinity and corresponding gene expression, i.e how much it increases or decreases the expression of certain genes)
> Soy, and plant products, contain many different phytoestrogens/SERMs, isoflavones are the strongest
Now, onto the goodies:
> The HPTA (Hpyothalmic-Pituitary-Testicular Axis) controls hormone output
> There are estrogen receptors (and others) in the hypothalmus
> Suffice to say, Hypothalmic Hormonal receptors modulate the levels of circulating sex hormones in the body
> When there is an increase of hormones in the body, the excess get bound to hypothalmic receptors, causing the hypothalmus to tell the Pitutary + Testes to produce less hormones OVERALL (FSH, LH, tesosterone, estrogen, etc.)
> Less production of hormones is NOT necessarily bad - Estrogen is the most important hormone in women AND men (take a large amount of any aromatase inhibitor, i.e estrogen "killer," and you will feel a LOT worse than if you were to take an anti-androgen)
> SERMs do decrease circulating hormone levels (by how much is dependent on many variables), due to negative feedback on the HPTA > Once again, this is NOT necessarily bad, because SERMs still bind to estrogen receptors and elicit estrogenic effects on the body
A few for the road:
> Healthy estrogen levels are vital to male libido (as is a proper estrogen:testosterone ratio, too little of either is bad)
> Too little testosterone may also cause too little estrogen, because estrogen is produced in the male body primarily from aromatase (enzyme that converts testosterone to estrogen)
> FSH is involved in sperm production
> LH is involved in testosterone production
This is all the information you need to make an informed opinion on the whole topic. I'm sick of all sides involved. Pseudoscience and agenads, all of you!
Thank you so much for your answer! It's sad how hard it is to get this kind of expert opinion, in the age of information. Do you have any site to recommend over Wikipedia?
Go straight to the source: libgen.lc + https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Having a truly informed opinion is difficult. In the realm of biology, it requires knowing a lot of vocabulary and fundamental systems. However, once that foundation is built, it becomes very easy to educate oneself on any topic within that sphere.
Textbooks are the gold standard -- if you have the time and inclination.
Papers are good for understanding the mechanisms behind why something happens -- but should be taken with a grain of salt.
What conclusions would you draw from this collection of facts?
If I was shooting for complete 100% accuracy:
> "Phytoestrogens, through their ability to bind to all human steroid hormone receptors, exert effects on the miriad of human biological systems that rely on hormones for homeostasis, both directly through SERM-like activity, and indirectly through HPTA modulation of hypothalamic hormone receptors."
If one were to ask "do phytoestrogens impact male: sexuality, sperm count, mood, etc." the answer is always going to by "yes," but it's a misleading yes. We don't get any specificity as to how much of an impact (certain) phytoestrogens have (that is a matter for you to make your mind up on by reading through hundreds of experimental papers and deciding which ones are worth anything ;).
Whatever other questions that stem from this start getting into the realm of public policy and personal impact, "are phytoestrogens bad? Should they be regulated? Am I going to avoid phytoestrogens?" Frankly I have no interest in getting involved in such a subjective matter.
Bulls are also having fertility issue. Climate change is making progress in taming population issues.