Sperm Count in Western Men Has Dropped Over 50 Percent Since 1973, Paper Finds(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Sperm Count in Western Men Has Dropped Over 50 Percent Since 1973, Paper Finds
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/health/male-sperm-count-problem.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
147 comments
As to (3) obesity, one of the most obvious contributing factors is the increased refined sugar consumption. People are poisoning their mind and bodies.
And I know it's controversial and since everyone consumes sugar, everyone gets sensitive and defensive. However, in the 60's/70's nonalcoholic fatty liver disease did not exist in children nor did childhood type 2 diabeties, as to the former the first case in children wasn't diagnosed until 1983 and now 10% of US children have the disease.
And to preempt anyone from attacking my comment, as I said above sugar is an obvious contributing factor.
And I know it's controversial and since everyone consumes sugar, everyone gets sensitive and defensive. However, in the 60's/70's nonalcoholic fatty liver disease did not exist in children nor did childhood type 2 diabeties, as to the former the first case in children wasn't diagnosed until 1983 and now 10% of US children have the disease.
And to preempt anyone from attacking my comment, as I said above sugar is an obvious contributing factor.
This is the common theory but it doesn't really hold up. The weight of lab animals is also increasing. Even though we have records showing they haven't changed their diets or routines significantly. Chimpanzees in particular, the animal most closely related to humans, have increased in weight drastically each decade.
EDIT: Source https://aeon.co/essays/blaming-individuals-for-obesity-may-b...
>As were laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice, as well as domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas. In fact, the researchers examined records on those eight species and found that average weight for every one had increased. The marmosets gained an average of nine per cent per decade. Lab mice gained about 11 per cent per decade. Chimps, for some reason, are doing especially badly: their average body weight had risen 35 per cent per decade.
>In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities.
EDIT: Source https://aeon.co/essays/blaming-individuals-for-obesity-may-b...
>As were laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice, as well as domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas. In fact, the researchers examined records on those eight species and found that average weight for every one had increased. The marmosets gained an average of nine per cent per decade. Lab mice gained about 11 per cent per decade. Chimps, for some reason, are doing especially badly: their average body weight had risen 35 per cent per decade.
>In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities.
What's funny is the guy who discovered BPA was an estrogen mimicking chemical[1] kept having his estrogen sensitive cells triggered whenever he would put them in plastic test tubes. He called up Corning to ask them what the test tubes were made of and they told him they don't give that info out. So all this lab equipment and stuff that they use to feed animals and all up and down the food supply chain is probably full of this stuff and we all just think the obesity epidemic happened by magic.
[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/1139298/real-story-behind-bisphe...
[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/1139298/real-story-behind-bisphe...
That's crazy. I wonder if this also has an impact on hospital patients being tube fed!
Probably not as bad, PVC tubing uses different plasticizers, silicone does not need that. However, other hardware is not of the hook (e.g. plastic bags) and what they use in these materials as well.
The most terrible thing is that this might be partly heritable via epigenetics.
The most terrible thing is that this might be partly heritable via epigenetics.
> This is the common theory but it doesn't really hold up.
It's not really a 'theory' per sey. 2 independent scientists in UK and US ( I don't remember their names, see the documentary mentioned below) in the 70s came to conclude that Sugar is Toxic and causes fatty liver disease and Cancer. The Sugar Industry in US hired a PR firm comprised of a couple of well known Scientists in the US, and made these scientists who found out that Sugar is Toxic and causes diseases, looks like fools in the media. Then they (Sugar Industry) went 1 step further. The CEO of the Sugar Industry Association (or whatever that entity is called) got onto the FDA committee that was doing research into the toxicity of Sugar at that time, since it was all over the media that Sugar is deemed toxic and causes all kinds of diseases. And surprise, surprise, the committee declared that Sugar is 'GRAS approved by FDA'. GRAS = Generally Recommended as Safe, a label that makes the average consumer feel safe that Sugar is not bad. They (Sugar Industry) also simultaneously transferred the blamed for weight gain on excess consumption of fat * .
This is documented at length in the "Sugar Coated" documentary (available on Netflix) - http://sugarcoateddoc.com/
* Source: NPR: "50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat" http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/...
It's not really a 'theory' per sey. 2 independent scientists in UK and US ( I don't remember their names, see the documentary mentioned below) in the 70s came to conclude that Sugar is Toxic and causes fatty liver disease and Cancer. The Sugar Industry in US hired a PR firm comprised of a couple of well known Scientists in the US, and made these scientists who found out that Sugar is Toxic and causes diseases, looks like fools in the media. Then they (Sugar Industry) went 1 step further. The CEO of the Sugar Industry Association (or whatever that entity is called) got onto the FDA committee that was doing research into the toxicity of Sugar at that time, since it was all over the media that Sugar is deemed toxic and causes all kinds of diseases. And surprise, surprise, the committee declared that Sugar is 'GRAS approved by FDA'. GRAS = Generally Recommended as Safe, a label that makes the average consumer feel safe that Sugar is not bad. They (Sugar Industry) also simultaneously transferred the blamed for weight gain on excess consumption of fat * .
This is documented at length in the "Sugar Coated" documentary (available on Netflix) - http://sugarcoateddoc.com/
* Source: NPR: "50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat" http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/...
The most famous line from the special interest groups, "sugar is a healthy and inexpensive source of energy."
It's laughable it's even debated or requires modern study. Humans have been force feeding animals grains since at least ancient Egypt for the purpose of fattening animals, but specifically their liver. After a few thousand years of perfecting the practice the most famous dish is goose liver or foie gras, literally French for fat liver, and after thousands of years of best practice what is used to fatten the goose liver...corn, the same thing we concentrate to sweeten softdrinks (and about everything else).
Still I'm happy to say it's just a contributing factor for obesity, but certainly there is also correlation between obesity and sedentary life style, and coming full circle to the article there is correlation between sedentary lifestyle and lack of testosterone production (in part created/released to repair muscle As a result of physical activity). But hey, even big tobacco is marketing there product as healthy in many parts of the world, as it used to be promoted in the US, it's just where we are with sugar, "it's a healthy and inexpensive source of energy."
It's laughable it's even debated or requires modern study. Humans have been force feeding animals grains since at least ancient Egypt for the purpose of fattening animals, but specifically their liver. After a few thousand years of perfecting the practice the most famous dish is goose liver or foie gras, literally French for fat liver, and after thousands of years of best practice what is used to fatten the goose liver...corn, the same thing we concentrate to sweeten softdrinks (and about everything else).
Still I'm happy to say it's just a contributing factor for obesity, but certainly there is also correlation between obesity and sedentary life style, and coming full circle to the article there is correlation between sedentary lifestyle and lack of testosterone production (in part created/released to repair muscle As a result of physical activity). But hey, even big tobacco is marketing there product as healthy in many parts of the world, as it used to be promoted in the US, it's just where we are with sugar, "it's a healthy and inexpensive source of energy."
Big Industry did the same thing with lead in gasoline, once upon a time, and they got away with it for quite a while.
I hope one day we can stop this ongoing crisis after crisis caused by special interests in its tracks.
I hope one day we can stop this ongoing crisis after crisis caused by special interests in its tracks.
Well I imagine, if true, chimps aren't mysteriously gaining weight it would be related to their diet. Very likely they eat a fruit heavy diet, that's sugar. Unlikely are these wild fruits, but sugar laden industrial farmed fruits.
Now if you don't think there is a difference in fruit today versus the fruits of yesteryear just look at the fruit itself. The bananas you eat today are not the same type from 100 years ago which died out do to disease; look at a genetically modified seedless watermelon today vs the nearly hollow watermelons depicted in (fruit bowl) art even a couple hundred years ago; or even a high glycemic vegetable such as a carrot did you know the wild carrots weren't even orange but tiny little white roots looking nothing like the elongated thing you buy in the store today?
See the difference for yourself: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3428689/What-...
Now if you don't think there is a difference in fruit today versus the fruits of yesteryear just look at the fruit itself. The bananas you eat today are not the same type from 100 years ago which died out do to disease; look at a genetically modified seedless watermelon today vs the nearly hollow watermelons depicted in (fruit bowl) art even a couple hundred years ago; or even a high glycemic vegetable such as a carrot did you know the wild carrots weren't even orange but tiny little white roots looking nothing like the elongated thing you buy in the store today?
See the difference for yourself: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3428689/What-...
Fruits haven't significantly increased in size or sugar content since the 70s though. And it doesn't explain the increase in weight for other animals that don't eat fruit, e.g. dogs.
EDIT: And this article is terrible. E.g. the painting of the watermelon is just a regular watermelon just like those grown today: http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07... That's just what it looks like when it grows without enough water. Most of those examples are things that happened centuries ago.
EDIT: And this article is terrible. E.g. the painting of the watermelon is just a regular watermelon just like those grown today: http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07... That's just what it looks like when it grows without enough water. Most of those examples are things that happened centuries ago.
And here is and article about the 90 million obese, not overweight, but obese dogs and cats in the US. Admittedly I don't know much about the pet problem, but Seems to be the PHD from UCDavis suggests the major contributing factor is the increased and added sugar in their food from the major manufacturers and increase in pet treats which too are sugar laden. I mean if all I'm doing is suggesting sugar is a contributing factor as to human obesity and you bring up dogs and cats gaining weight why wouldn't you mention they have sugar added in their pet food and the sugar has been increasing?
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/201...
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/201...
My local zoo doesn't feed its gorillas with local fruit because they say the local fruit is much higher in sugar than the fruit they import for this purpose.
I can give you an anecdotal counter-example: when I was a kid I ate tons of sugar. Ice cream. Twinkies. Hi-C. Foot Loops. You name it. If it had sugar in it, I ate it. I was never overweight, nor was I particularly athletic. If anyone should have suffered negative consequences from eating too much sugar, it was me. But nope, I was perfectly svelte and healthy. I graduated high school in 1982.
Well I have a grandmother who lived to 92 years old and smoked heavily everyday, she never developed OCPD, carcinoma of the lungs, or any other health issues commonly related to cigarette smoking.
Again the first case of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a child was 1983, today 10% have it.
Compare the sugar content of the Hi-C, fruit loops and ice cream of the 70's and compare it with the products of today. And that's not to say if you were born 10 years later you would have non alcoholic fatty liver disease or childhood type 2 diabetes, but the point is those didn't exist at all in the 70's. And it's not exactly controversial, talk to any pediatrician, 100% of all childhood cases of type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease could have been avoided through diet.
Again the first case of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a child was 1983, today 10% have it.
Compare the sugar content of the Hi-C, fruit loops and ice cream of the 70's and compare it with the products of today. And that's not to say if you were born 10 years later you would have non alcoholic fatty liver disease or childhood type 2 diabetes, but the point is those didn't exist at all in the 70's. And it's not exactly controversial, talk to any pediatrician, 100% of all childhood cases of type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease could have been avoided through diet.
> Again the first case of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a child was 1983, today 10% have it.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that if sugar were the sole cause, the first case should have shown up long before 1983. I was eating tons of sugar through the seventies, and I doubt very much that I was anywhere close to alone in that.
I do not doubt that sugar (fructose in particular) is bad for you. But it seems to me that it can't be just sugar consumption that accounts for today's higher disease rates. There has to be something else going on that we haven't figured out yet.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that if sugar were the sole cause, the first case should have shown up long before 1983. I was eating tons of sugar through the seventies, and I doubt very much that I was anywhere close to alone in that.
I do not doubt that sugar (fructose in particular) is bad for you. But it seems to me that it can't be just sugar consumption that accounts for today's higher disease rates. There has to be something else going on that we haven't figured out yet.
Just to reemphasize my first comment, sugar is an obvious contributing factor to obesity. As to the diseases (type 2 diabetes and fatty liver) in children, there may be other contributing factors but ask any pediatrician, remove the sugar from the diet and these diseases can be prevented in 100% of cases.
So someone such as yourself who ate a ton of sugar in the 70's, you primed your body for obesity, whether or not you were ever obese or simply overweight. What does that mean? Well when you consume glucose and it enters the blood your body releases insulin, insulin enlarges all the cells in the body but especially fat cells, and that significantly alters how your body stores and burns fat. All things being equal if you don't have a caloric surplus your body won't store the excess fat. A caloric surplus that leads to fat storage is about 30 calories per day or about 2 peanut m&ms, so it's not much. That said not knowing anything more about your childhood diet, I do know if your sugar consumption was the same but you were a child today on average you would be consuming 500-600 more calories today than in the 70's. Therefore, you would be more likely to be overweight or even obese today than in the 70's. You don't need to be obese to have fatty liver or type 2 diabetes, but statistically you would be more likely to have those diseases if you were obese. I am not suggesting sugar is the sole factor of obesity or these disease, rather sugar removal would prevent 100% of these diseases in children, otherwise I can't argue against your anecdotal evidence of eating a ton of sugar but only highlight the reality kids today are consuming significantly more sugar on average and significantly more calories on average.
See: http://www.cleveland.com/fighting-fat/index.ssf/2010/04/amer...
So someone such as yourself who ate a ton of sugar in the 70's, you primed your body for obesity, whether or not you were ever obese or simply overweight. What does that mean? Well when you consume glucose and it enters the blood your body releases insulin, insulin enlarges all the cells in the body but especially fat cells, and that significantly alters how your body stores and burns fat. All things being equal if you don't have a caloric surplus your body won't store the excess fat. A caloric surplus that leads to fat storage is about 30 calories per day or about 2 peanut m&ms, so it's not much. That said not knowing anything more about your childhood diet, I do know if your sugar consumption was the same but you were a child today on average you would be consuming 500-600 more calories today than in the 70's. Therefore, you would be more likely to be overweight or even obese today than in the 70's. You don't need to be obese to have fatty liver or type 2 diabetes, but statistically you would be more likely to have those diseases if you were obese. I am not suggesting sugar is the sole factor of obesity or these disease, rather sugar removal would prevent 100% of these diseases in children, otherwise I can't argue against your anecdotal evidence of eating a ton of sugar but only highlight the reality kids today are consuming significantly more sugar on average and significantly more calories on average.
See: http://www.cleveland.com/fighting-fat/index.ssf/2010/04/amer...
I think I'm still not making myself clear. I don't disagree with anything you say. But something changed around the 1970s-1980s time frame that increased the incidence of these diseases from zero to 10%. Whatever it was that changed, I don't think it was that kids were eating less that some critical threshold of sugar and now are eating more than that. Something else changed, and we don't yet know what it is. But it would be worth figuring it out IMO.
As to the fatty liver disease, it's the sugar.
And I understand it does not sound reasonable, because humans had been consuming sugar, even in large quantities before 1983, so your conclusion on its face seems reasonable.
However, non alcoholic fatty liver disease isn't anything new in humans it's just new in children. It used to take until adulthood to develop the disease and now it's being developed as young as 1-2 years old. From the Liver Foundation, to the Cleveland clinic, to any pediatrician, the conclusion is all the same...it's sugar.
And for thousands of years humans have been purposefully over feeding animals for the sole purpose of causing fat livers. From the ancient Egyptians to modern foie gras, humans forcefeed these animals grains (sugars). There have been no mystery variables for thousands of years, feeding animals grains (sugars) leads to fatty livers.
As to humans it's the same thing, over consume sugar and you'll eventually develop fatty liver, it just didn't happen until adulthood until consumption of sugar exploded.
Still you are right, let's assume it's not sugar but some recently introduced variable, it is worth finding it out, but it's honestly not worth debating at the expense of kids health when we know whether or not there is some mystery variable, all that needs to be modified is sugar consumption and the disease would be eradicated. But IMO yes, kids used to eat less than some critical threshold of sugar, to claim otherwise is telling the Liver Foundation, Cleveland Clinic and American Diabetes Association they are wrong, it's even telling the sugar industry their accounting of sugar consumption is wrong. Humans have always gotten fatty liver from sugar, only the rate has increased and the age has decreased consistent with the increased sugar consumption. It really is on par with tobacco saying lung cancer or OCPD isn't caused by smoking but some other variable, and so we should find that variable rather than change our smoking habits.
And I understand it does not sound reasonable, because humans had been consuming sugar, even in large quantities before 1983, so your conclusion on its face seems reasonable.
However, non alcoholic fatty liver disease isn't anything new in humans it's just new in children. It used to take until adulthood to develop the disease and now it's being developed as young as 1-2 years old. From the Liver Foundation, to the Cleveland clinic, to any pediatrician, the conclusion is all the same...it's sugar.
And for thousands of years humans have been purposefully over feeding animals for the sole purpose of causing fat livers. From the ancient Egyptians to modern foie gras, humans forcefeed these animals grains (sugars). There have been no mystery variables for thousands of years, feeding animals grains (sugars) leads to fatty livers.
As to humans it's the same thing, over consume sugar and you'll eventually develop fatty liver, it just didn't happen until adulthood until consumption of sugar exploded.
Still you are right, let's assume it's not sugar but some recently introduced variable, it is worth finding it out, but it's honestly not worth debating at the expense of kids health when we know whether or not there is some mystery variable, all that needs to be modified is sugar consumption and the disease would be eradicated. But IMO yes, kids used to eat less than some critical threshold of sugar, to claim otherwise is telling the Liver Foundation, Cleveland Clinic and American Diabetes Association they are wrong, it's even telling the sugar industry their accounting of sugar consumption is wrong. Humans have always gotten fatty liver from sugar, only the rate has increased and the age has decreased consistent with the increased sugar consumption. It really is on par with tobacco saying lung cancer or OCPD isn't caused by smoking but some other variable, and so we should find that variable rather than change our smoking habits.
> It really is on par with tobacco saying lung cancer or OCPD isn't caused by smoking but some other variable
No, it isn't, because the negative health impacts of smoking have always been there. The negative health impacts of sugar have only appeared (or at least dramatically worsened) recently.
> From the Liver Foundation, to the Cleveland clinic, to any pediatrician, the conclusion is all the same
I'm not a big fan of arguments from authority because authorities often get it wrong. When I was growing up the unequivocal message from the authorities was: fat is bad for you, eat less fat (no more than 30% of calories from fat was the mantra). And people did, replacing the missing fat with carbs. Look how well that worked out.
No, it isn't, because the negative health impacts of smoking have always been there. The negative health impacts of sugar have only appeared (or at least dramatically worsened) recently.
> From the Liver Foundation, to the Cleveland clinic, to any pediatrician, the conclusion is all the same
I'm not a big fan of arguments from authority because authorities often get it wrong. When I was growing up the unequivocal message from the authorities was: fat is bad for you, eat less fat (no more than 30% of calories from fat was the mantra). And people did, replacing the missing fat with carbs. Look how well that worked out.
Recently the type of sugar has been the subject of controversy/research. IIRC, most sugar used to be actual sugar, but sweets and soft drinks often contain high fructose corn syrup these days. Apparentlt our body can deal with glucose reasonably well, but sucks at dealing with fructose.
"Table sugar" (sucrose) is a bonded glucose and fructose molecule.
HFCS is roughly the same ratio, though not bonded. The bond breakdown is pretty much instantaneous within the GI tract from my understanding.
This suggests little actual difference between sucrose and HFCS.... keep reading ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
... though Robert Lustig who studies this now seems to be claiming that there are different metabolic effects for sucrose and HFCS:
Lustig also confirms what many consumers have intuitively figured out — that “sucrose (sugar) and HFCS have different metabolic effects,” including those that come from the much higher fructose content of HFCS which can range from 55 to 90 percent, and in the case of crystalline fructose to practically 100 percent. (Sucrose, or natural sugar, by contrast is a 50/50 combination of bound glucose and fructose).
http://foodidentitytheft.com/obesity-expert-dr-robert-lustig...
HFCS is roughly the same ratio, though not bonded. The bond breakdown is pretty much instantaneous within the GI tract from my understanding.
This suggests little actual difference between sucrose and HFCS.... keep reading ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
... though Robert Lustig who studies this now seems to be claiming that there are different metabolic effects for sucrose and HFCS:
Lustig also confirms what many consumers have intuitively figured out — that “sucrose (sugar) and HFCS have different metabolic effects,” including those that come from the much higher fructose content of HFCS which can range from 55 to 90 percent, and in the case of crystalline fructose to practically 100 percent. (Sucrose, or natural sugar, by contrast is a 50/50 combination of bound glucose and fructose).
http://foodidentitytheft.com/obesity-expert-dr-robert-lustig...
Sounds like a bunch of BS from the sugar/soft drink industry.
I'll suggest a more practical/simple explanation between the different glucose and fructose and the diseases I mention.
Fructose: primarily broken down in the liver.
Glucose: When blood glucose rises, the pancreas releases insulin.
Again I am talking about fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes (insulin resistance), based on numbers alone it would seem children are more susceptible to developing fatty liver rather than insulin resistance, but that seems to be a very bizarre basis to suggest one is healthy. Moreover, even if a body doesn't develop insulin resistance, insulin itself is enlarging cells throughout the body, including fat cells, priming the body for obesity, which carries its own health issues. And again I only say sugar is a contributing factor to obesity, but no doubt insulin is a hell of a primer for obesity.
I'll suggest a more practical/simple explanation between the different glucose and fructose and the diseases I mention.
Fructose: primarily broken down in the liver.
Glucose: When blood glucose rises, the pancreas releases insulin.
Again I am talking about fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes (insulin resistance), based on numbers alone it would seem children are more susceptible to developing fatty liver rather than insulin resistance, but that seems to be a very bizarre basis to suggest one is healthy. Moreover, even if a body doesn't develop insulin resistance, insulin itself is enlarging cells throughout the body, including fat cells, priming the body for obesity, which carries its own health issues. And again I only say sugar is a contributing factor to obesity, but no doubt insulin is a hell of a primer for obesity.
Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
HFCS is 42% fructose, 53% glucose and 5% other sugars/polysaccharides.
Is it the fructose?
HFCS is 42% fructose, 53% glucose and 5% other sugars/polysaccharides.
Is it the fructose?
> now 10% of US children have the disease.
I don't think that number is correct. It appears to be more like 0.46 kids per 1,000, which is still high.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/03/diabet...
I don't think that number is correct. It appears to be more like 0.46 kids per 1,000, which is still high.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/03/diabet...
You referencing type 2 diabetes in children. The 10% is children with non alcoholic fatty liver disease, 1% of 2-4 year olds, 17% of 15-19 year olds, about 10% overall. But this is why it's so difficult to discuss, people get so defensive suggesting they are poisoning themselves with sugar, but once you suggest they are poisoning their own children civil discourse goes out the window.
But whether or not it's nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or type 2 diabetes in children, they simple truth is they could have been avoided in 100% of cases through diet. And as we know many type 2 diabetes patients would be able to get off insulin and diabetes medication through diet/lifestyle changes.
http://www.liverfoundation.org/chapters/rockymountain/doctor...
But whether or not it's nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or type 2 diabetes in children, they simple truth is they could have been avoided in 100% of cases through diet. And as we know many type 2 diabetes patients would be able to get off insulin and diabetes medication through diet/lifestyle changes.
http://www.liverfoundation.org/chapters/rockymountain/doctor...
Thanks for the correction -- I misread the original comment. It was the end of a long day. :)
I agree that kids should not be given refined sugar. I had almost no sugar until I was a teenager. I had my first soda at about age 16 or 17. I consumed sugar as an adult, but eliminated it again about two years ago with great results. Eating refined sugar is irrational behavior -- it has no health benefits and is more like a recreational drug than food.
I agree that kids should not be given refined sugar. I had almost no sugar until I was a teenager. I had my first soda at about age 16 or 17. I consumed sugar as an adult, but eliminated it again about two years ago with great results. Eating refined sugar is irrational behavior -- it has no health benefits and is more like a recreational drug than food.
[deleted]
Ok, but what caused an increase in sugar consumption?
If you are to look specifically at the health angle (and it surprisingly even affects our mental health), we have suffered a double whammy of the change in diet plus the widespread use of antibiotics.
It is becoming increasingly clear that our gut microbiome has a wide-ranging affect on many aspects of our health; and that the standard western diet is not good for a healthy gut microbiome and that taking antibiotics can have a detrimental affect on the gut microbiome as well.
Our gut bacteria are not only responsible for digesting much of the foods we eat. They regulate our immune systems. They also create chemicals that pass into our blood steam, and even pass the blood brain barrier, affecting our behavior.
There has been a severe decline in the health of our gut microbiome in recent generations. The extent this has had an impact on our lives is yet to be determined ––
I suspect the rise of food allergy problems is at least one of the issues. There is also the possibility that this has been a major factor in the rise of autism (which is commonly accompanied by IBD), as well as the significant increase in IBD diseases.
It certainly seems possible to me that sperm count could be affected by our body's digestion system, and the health of the gut microbiome that is so central to it.
It is becoming increasingly clear that our gut microbiome has a wide-ranging affect on many aspects of our health; and that the standard western diet is not good for a healthy gut microbiome and that taking antibiotics can have a detrimental affect on the gut microbiome as well.
Our gut bacteria are not only responsible for digesting much of the foods we eat. They regulate our immune systems. They also create chemicals that pass into our blood steam, and even pass the blood brain barrier, affecting our behavior.
There has been a severe decline in the health of our gut microbiome in recent generations. The extent this has had an impact on our lives is yet to be determined ––
I suspect the rise of food allergy problems is at least one of the issues. There is also the possibility that this has been a major factor in the rise of autism (which is commonly accompanied by IBD), as well as the significant increase in IBD diseases.
It certainly seems possible to me that sperm count could be affected by our body's digestion system, and the health of the gut microbiome that is so central to it.
This is a really interesting hypothesis. It corresponds with several recent discoveries:
- obesity: fecal microbiota transplants, when used to save patients from antibiotic-resistant clostridium difficile, resulted in unintended weight gain (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4438885/)
- allergies: using probiotics (or perhaps better, synbiotics) in conjunction with immunotherapy improves outcomes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209480/, http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanchi/PIIS2352-4642(...)
- emotions: brain-gut interactions affect emotional responses (http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/publi...)
We aren't at the point where we can say "yes, this caused all of the changes in the 70s" but it seems to be a fruitful area of study.
- obesity: fecal microbiota transplants, when used to save patients from antibiotic-resistant clostridium difficile, resulted in unintended weight gain (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4438885/)
- allergies: using probiotics (or perhaps better, synbiotics) in conjunction with immunotherapy improves outcomes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209480/, http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanchi/PIIS2352-4642(...)
- emotions: brain-gut interactions affect emotional responses (http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/publi...)
We aren't at the point where we can say "yes, this caused all of the changes in the 70s" but it seems to be a fruitful area of study.
One hypothesis, the rise of plastics really started to explode in to 40-50s and the first children to have grown up amidst that would have come of age starting in to 60s. Estrogen mimics are often emitted by plastics and can interfere with testosterone.
It would be interesting to see if there are any differential analysis that can be done with more remote populations of humans which maybe don't have exposure.
It would be interesting to see if there are any differential analysis that can be done with more remote populations of humans which maybe don't have exposure.
Here's a theory that it's caused by jet fuel: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3587983/
Because many airborne pollutants are globally wide spread, studying a remote population might be doubly interesting, because one might be able to differentiate plastics exposure (theoretically lower in remote populations) from airborne pollutants (nearly the same exposure).
There is an argument that the problems people see with both 'real wage stagnation' and 'increased divorce rates' are really problems caused by measuring the wrong thing.
The argument is quite clear when it comes to the divorce rate; Being alone, if financially tenable, is better than being in a bad relationship, so if you make being alone financially tenable for another half of the population, divorce rates will go up, and in that case, it becomes quite difficult to argue that increased divorce rates are bad. In fact, one could argue the opposite, that increased divorce rates indicate people being able to leave unpleasant relationships.
The argument is a lot less clear for wages. The strongest argument, I think, is that if you are measuring average per worker pay, women on average make less than men, and thus you will get a lower rate for 'average worker' than for 'average male worker' - even today, those numbers are stark, and before the 1970s, your 'average worker' demographics looked a lot more like what you'd see in today's "average male worker" statistics; I think you'll find that 'average male pay' has climbed rather a lot more than 'average pay'
The other argument, I think, is a lot weaker; if you double the number of workers, some would argue, you will naturally depress wages. (Of course, others would argue that the secondary effects of having more workers in an economy would make the economy more wealthy and drive wages up overall.)
The argument is quite clear when it comes to the divorce rate; Being alone, if financially tenable, is better than being in a bad relationship, so if you make being alone financially tenable for another half of the population, divorce rates will go up, and in that case, it becomes quite difficult to argue that increased divorce rates are bad. In fact, one could argue the opposite, that increased divorce rates indicate people being able to leave unpleasant relationships.
The argument is a lot less clear for wages. The strongest argument, I think, is that if you are measuring average per worker pay, women on average make less than men, and thus you will get a lower rate for 'average worker' than for 'average male worker' - even today, those numbers are stark, and before the 1970s, your 'average worker' demographics looked a lot more like what you'd see in today's "average male worker" statistics; I think you'll find that 'average male pay' has climbed rather a lot more than 'average pay'
The other argument, I think, is a lot weaker; if you double the number of workers, some would argue, you will naturally depress wages. (Of course, others would argue that the secondary effects of having more workers in an economy would make the economy more wealthy and drive wages up overall.)
A twin-engine plane with two good engines, and the capability to fly on one alone, is safer than a single-engine plane.
A twin-engine plane with two fault-prone engines, where the failure of one can result in the failure of the other, and without the ability to fly on a single (or no) engines, is not safer than a single-engine plane.
Marriage in an environment of high employment risks, and where the marriage itself can contribute to personal risks (abuse, legal, financial, or others) may well not be an attractive, or stable, institution.
A twin-engine plane with two fault-prone engines, where the failure of one can result in the failure of the other, and without the ability to fly on a single (or no) engines, is not safer than a single-engine plane.
Marriage in an environment of high employment risks, and where the marriage itself can contribute to personal risks (abuse, legal, financial, or others) may well not be an attractive, or stable, institution.
> women on average make less than men, and thus you will get a lower rate for 'average worker' than for 'average male worker' - even today
I've also heard that is attributable to woman having to bear the brunt of childbirth.
I've also heard that is attributable to woman having to bear the brunt of childbirth.
the reason is not particularly relevant to the point I was making; Just to be clear, I disagree with your assessment of the reasons for the disparity in pay, my own life experiences and education cause me to assign the disparity largely to irrational bias, but certainly I don't know of any good evidence either way.
I'm just saying that whatever the reason for the disparity in pay, adding a group of workers who make less to the average is going to push down that average.
I'm just saying that whatever the reason for the disparity in pay, adding a group of workers who make less to the average is going to push down that average.
A case of strongly-established gender-related differential in labour effectiveness.
RE your second argument: population increases have always been happening, so why would it only be from the 70s that it would finally depress wage growth?
Exponential growth won't last forever. Pretty much everything that looks exponential is actually logistic. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
Eh, I don't know about that (at least on time frames of a typical human lifespan).
For long term things, maybe. Do you have any good reads on that relationship?
For long term things, maybe. Do you have any good reads on that relationship?
Sure, the time frame will vary. But exponential economic growth started much early than the '70s, we just happen to be around when the logistic curve starts to slow down (for population too).
Yup, that's why I was saying that it's a much weaker argument, because it is a much weaker argument.
If I was going to add more evidence for that argument, I would point out that women were added to the workforce at a rate that is greater than what population growth usually is, but certainly, there is a good case to be made that adding more workers doesn't always push down wages.
If I was going to add more evidence for that argument, I would point out that women were added to the workforce at a rate that is greater than what population growth usually is, but certainly, there is a good case to be made that adding more workers doesn't always push down wages.
1965 is when birth control pills became legal.
It's also about the time that High Fructose Corn Syrup started to be shipped in bulk. HFCS-55 in particular became the dominant sweetener in soda sometime during the late 1970s.
The late 70s was also the introduction of video games and home computers. A general explosion of electronic devices has permeated almost everywhere.
Unleaded gas was introduced in 1974. What replaced lead as the antiknock agent?
The space race? Here's a 1966 video by NASA on toxic propellants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND2TeNfcmKA
The late 70s was also the introduction of video games and home computers. A general explosion of electronic devices has permeated almost everywhere.
Unleaded gas was introduced in 1974. What replaced lead as the antiknock agent?
The space race? Here's a 1966 video by NASA on toxic propellants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND2TeNfcmKA
Re. lead tetraethyl, unleaded gas has more benzene than leaded one as a side effect of the productive process, but the answer is more complicated. Benzene is only released in the environment when the engine is cold.
The "replacement" for lead tetraethyl is a combination of better valves, higher octane rating when gasoline is produced, and electronic control of spark plugs. There's some feedback between these too, for example improved burning of fuel and the introduction of catalytic converter lets you increase the octane rating without suffering increased pollution from benzene.
The "replacement" for lead tetraethyl is a combination of better valves, higher octane rating when gasoline is produced, and electronic control of spark plugs. There's some feedback between these too, for example improved burning of fuel and the introduction of catalytic converter lets you increase the octane rating without suffering increased pollution from benzene.
Sounds like these would be possible to back-test by comparing to other countries.
[deleted]
M0n-Sant0.[1] You know it, I know it, we all know it. We just forgot because they literally pays shills to make you think suggesting anything of the sort is loony. "Let nuffin go"[2](meaning no comment anywhere on the internet goes without a response) was their most organized campaign that I can think of. They literally had an entire office building dedicated to it.
There is plenty of surface information which will blow your mind, look into recent revelations(and historic) of M0n and the EPA colluding.
I'd suggest using a less popular search engine, due to the fact that unprecedented amounts of money are spent on disrupting discussion; and no company could admit to knowingly committed such crimes, not at the scale they've operated at. So it stands to reason that if they intend to continue to exist, somehow dominating google would the most cost-effective vector available to fragment and discredit criticisms.
If you really can't fathom the extent of what I suggest after doing some research, here is a quick 'red pill': Make a few well informed posts, blogs, reddit comments, Medium column, whatever, but obscure the spelling just as I did, and publish. Then do the same without obscured spelling. The # of responses you get on the latter, will blow your mind. I'd go as far as to claim substantial related credentials, and present your comment/article as a brief sneak-preview.
[1] Swap o for 0 & remove the hyphen. Subsequently abbreviated by 'M0n' [2] Swap nuffin out for proper spelling.
There is plenty of surface information which will blow your mind, look into recent revelations(and historic) of M0n and the EPA colluding.
I'd suggest using a less popular search engine, due to the fact that unprecedented amounts of money are spent on disrupting discussion; and no company could admit to knowingly committed such crimes, not at the scale they've operated at. So it stands to reason that if they intend to continue to exist, somehow dominating google would the most cost-effective vector available to fragment and discredit criticisms.
If you really can't fathom the extent of what I suggest after doing some research, here is a quick 'red pill': Make a few well informed posts, blogs, reddit comments, Medium column, whatever, but obscure the spelling just as I did, and publish. Then do the same without obscured spelling. The # of responses you get on the latter, will blow your mind. I'd go as far as to claim substantial related credentials, and present your comment/article as a brief sneak-preview.
[1] Swap o for 0 & remove the hyphen. Subsequently abbreviated by 'M0n' [2] Swap nuffin out for proper spelling.
Well as for obesity rates (besides other factors) my understanding is that around the 70s governments decided that dietary fat and cholesterol was the primary cause of heart attacks and the side effect is that people significantly increased their carb intake.
Edit: As for the wealth inequality thing, plenty of people have written about what changed in the 1970s onwards. Deregulation, free trade, workers' unions fading out...
Edit: As for the wealth inequality thing, plenty of people have written about what changed in the 1970s onwards. Deregulation, free trade, workers' unions fading out...
True for the US, but other Western countries never bought this theory.
Economic changes can probably be tracked back to Stagflation[1] and the 1973 Oil Crisis[2], and the associated rise of Neoliberalism as evidenced, early on, through the Nixon Crisis[3] and formation of the Trilateral Commission[4]. Of course there was a huge amount of social change going on at the same time, much of which was interrelated with the economic changes.
As an example of how some viewed these challenges, the Trilateral Commission's 'Crisis of Democracy' paper[5] - though heavily criticised from both sides of politics[6] - offers some interesting insight into the perspectives held by a number of highly influential people of the period.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation#Explaining_the_197...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission
[5] http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission#Criticis...
As an example of how some viewed these challenges, the Trilateral Commission's 'Crisis of Democracy' paper[5] - though heavily criticised from both sides of politics[6] - offers some interesting insight into the perspectives held by a number of highly influential people of the period.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation#Explaining_the_197...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission
[5] http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission#Criticis...
[deleted]
[deleted]
COMPUTERS AND SITTING!
A much more sedentary lifestyle for people at work.
http://www.onemedical.com/blog/live-well/male-fertility/
A much more sedentary lifestyle for people at work.
http://www.onemedical.com/blog/live-well/male-fertility/
Quote from article (meant as response to AndrewKemendo): "Phthalates are a group of chemicals used to make plastics more flexible and harder to break. In several studies over the last two decades, they have been shown to disrupt the operation of male hormones like testosterone and have been linked to genital birth defects in male infants.
Dr. Swan, who conducted a 2008 study about phthalate exposure, said that scientists have had the ability to measure exposure to plasticizers only since about 2000, via urine. That has led to a 20-year lag in the process since researchers cannot enroll men to produce sperm until they are in their 20s.
That evidence is the “missing piece of the puzzle,” she said."
Here in the Netherlands several partie are trying ot get hormone disturbing substances on the political agenda but even BPA is apparently not even illegal here. There was even a show where they measured BPA in the urine of politicians and still, very little attention is given to such substances. [0]
[https://radar.avrotros.nl/uitzendingen/gemist/14-11-2016/hor...]
Dr. Swan, who conducted a 2008 study about phthalate exposure, said that scientists have had the ability to measure exposure to plasticizers only since about 2000, via urine. That has led to a 20-year lag in the process since researchers cannot enroll men to produce sperm until they are in their 20s.
That evidence is the “missing piece of the puzzle,” she said."
Here in the Netherlands several partie are trying ot get hormone disturbing substances on the political agenda but even BPA is apparently not even illegal here. There was even a show where they measured BPA in the urine of politicians and still, very little attention is given to such substances. [0]
[https://radar.avrotros.nl/uitzendingen/gemist/14-11-2016/hor...]
Another problem is that if you ban BPA you have to replace it with something else that makes plastics less brittle. It's completely unclear whether the replacement chemical will be better or worse. Almost all chemicals we use industrially are untested.
Albeit if you do not need durability or huge oil resistance you can go very far with silicone tubing which does not need plasticizers. Nobody likes the expense or maintenance though.
I think it's pretty clear that Phthalates are a big piece of the puzzle. Here's the chain of evidence: I just picked one study for every link, but there are many for each.
People have significant levels of Phthalates in their blood: http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/phthal...
People who have higher levels of Phthalates in their blood tend to have lower testosterone: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830137
There are several pathways how Phthalates might cause this to happen in the human body, including: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26385792
Testosterone levels in Men have been dropping about 1% per year for at least the past 20 years, about the same rate as sperm counts: https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/pr...
Low Testosterone causes low sperm count: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6772497
People have significant levels of Phthalates in their blood: http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/phthal...
People who have higher levels of Phthalates in their blood tend to have lower testosterone: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830137
There are several pathways how Phthalates might cause this to happen in the human body, including: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26385792
Testosterone levels in Men have been dropping about 1% per year for at least the past 20 years, about the same rate as sperm counts: https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/pr...
Low Testosterone causes low sperm count: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6772497
Have there been any studies on how to reduce phthalate levels in humans? Does limiting exposure help? Can the body expell the stuff?
I know of one, fairly questionable study that showed that you could reduce Phthalates in your blood by about 50% by eliminating processed food, never storing or heating food in plastic, and switching to Phthalate free personal care products. There have been a few studies that have shown that the main route of exposure is through ingestion. Processed foods are more likely to contain Phthalates, probably because the ingredients may have flowed through PVC tubing that leaches them. It's really impossible to know, but the fewer processing steps your food has gone through, the less chance that this has happened. The biggest industrial use of Phthalates is as a plasticizer, and they are present in several types of plastic, in large quantities. Heating food in plastic containers has the potential to volatilize Phthalates and leach them into your food. This is a particular risk in prepared frozen food that you microwave. Many personal care products, such as soaps, shampoos, deodorants, and perfumes, contain Phthalates. Try to find ones that don't.
One particularly bad source of exposure is certain enteric coated medicines and supplements. I would strongly advise anyone to not take anything that is enteric coated unless you know what the coating is made of. Some pills can spike Phthalate levels by 50x in a single dose.
Almost all foods that contain animal fat will contain Phthalates, and this is a big source of exposure. Milk, meat, cheese, etc, all contain them, as they are fat soluble. The good news is that your body seems to clear these chemicals fairly quickly, but the problem is that you're constantly exposed to them.
Ultimately, these are chemicals that we've produced over a billion tons of. It's just not possible to avoid them entirely. If you have a baby on the way though, make sure that the new mom does everything she can to minimize exposure, as what happens during that time really can never be taken back.
One particularly bad source of exposure is certain enteric coated medicines and supplements. I would strongly advise anyone to not take anything that is enteric coated unless you know what the coating is made of. Some pills can spike Phthalate levels by 50x in a single dose.
Almost all foods that contain animal fat will contain Phthalates, and this is a big source of exposure. Milk, meat, cheese, etc, all contain them, as they are fat soluble. The good news is that your body seems to clear these chemicals fairly quickly, but the problem is that you're constantly exposed to them.
Ultimately, these are chemicals that we've produced over a billion tons of. It's just not possible to avoid them entirely. If you have a baby on the way though, make sure that the new mom does everything she can to minimize exposure, as what happens during that time really can never be taken back.
1) pilot studies.
2) it is very hard to limit exposure, they're too widespread. The main effects happen in childhood and adolescence. They may last for life.
3) not clear and not studied, but likely yes. This might not help at all like with many endocrine toxins that act on development.
2) it is very hard to limit exposure, they're too widespread. The main effects happen in childhood and adolescence. They may last for life.
3) not clear and not studied, but likely yes. This might not help at all like with many endocrine toxins that act on development.
I was surprised to see Brazil, Chile and Mexico categorized as 'Non-Western countries'.
Here's a map of Western countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:The_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:The_...
That's a silly map, given there's no actual authority to define this and the rules are arbitrary.
Here's another map of Western countries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/The_West...
The definition you're alluding to seems to be widespread within the US, but is by no means the most widespread on a global level.
I think this map is closer to what most people consider western: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Westernc...
Here's another map of Western countries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/The_West...
The definition you're alluding to seems to be widespread within the US, but is by no means the most widespread on a global level.
I think this map is closer to what most people consider western: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Westernc...
Yeah I saw that too... I don’t understand. Is Western a political definition?
The term 'west' outdates the discovery of America and no longer has anything to do with Geography. It used to mean western Europe. Now it essentially means western Europe, canada, australia, and america. All of which have cultural roots in Western europe and liberalism etc.
Yep, and "South" is a somewhat archaic term to refer to developing countries. Australia is not of the "South" despite being in the southern hemisphere.[1]
It's also weird to refer to the Asian countries north-west of Australia as "Far East"; though that usage is also fading.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_divide
It's also weird to refer to the Asian countries north-west of Australia as "Far East"; though that usage is also fading.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_divide
'western' means 'west european and similar', not 'western hemisphere'. It basically means most of europe (now) and the anglo 'new world' countries, though the exact countries involved vary depending on who is doing the defining.
I believe you can blame Samuel Huntington and his 'Clash of Civilizations' for that.
Is this result beyond dispute? No chance it's just a problem with the measurements/methodology?
Not beyond dispute at all. There's a huge number of confounding factors involved in comparing all the different datasets used over the time period concerned. One example is that older tests famously overestimated sperm counts. Additionally, many of the older data is from observational studies of people presenting at early fertility clinics. This paper attempts to control those factors and while I haven't seen any particular criticism of their methods it's an incredibly difficult problem to deal with. Especially when sperm count appears to be so responsive to small environmental variations to begin with.
It'll be interesting to see more research in the field, probably spurred on by this study. Questions that need to be answered include, why only Western countries? Does that imply a correlation between technological development and fertility? What are the trends in Korea and Japan looking like considering they modernised a while before many of their neighbours? Halving counts sounds like a lot, but it isn't really and teasing out the ultimate causes is probably going to be incredibly difficult.
It'll be interesting to see more research in the field, probably spurred on by this study. Questions that need to be answered include, why only Western countries? Does that imply a correlation between technological development and fertility? What are the trends in Korea and Japan looking like considering they modernised a while before many of their neighbours? Halving counts sounds like a lot, but it isn't really and teasing out the ultimate causes is probably going to be incredibly difficult.
My first thought was whether this could be an artifact of evolving measurement methods or changes in sampling.
Another possibility is that baseline was actually higher than normal, because maybe it fluctuates depending on context (e.g. under certain stressors like war time).
Or maybe we are just seeing the pr0n effect.
Another possibility is that baseline was actually higher than normal, because maybe it fluctuates depending on context (e.g. under certain stressors like war time).
Or maybe we are just seeing the pr0n effect.
My theory goes like this;
> In the recently released research, no significant decline in sperm quality was seen in men from non-Western countries, but this segment made up only about a quarter of the results.
There is something in developed countries that the male do not experience during his lifetime. It can be lack of fear, adrenalin, less activity, or something else. I think statistics hold up with the historic wars as well. As WW2 ends and people starts living without any fear of life, male sperm quality drops.
I think it is about what male experiences and which hormons are triggered in his lifetime.
> In the recently released research, no significant decline in sperm quality was seen in men from non-Western countries, but this segment made up only about a quarter of the results.
There is something in developed countries that the male do not experience during his lifetime. It can be lack of fear, adrenalin, less activity, or something else. I think statistics hold up with the historic wars as well. As WW2 ends and people starts living without any fear of life, male sperm quality drops.
I think it is about what male experiences and which hormons are triggered in his lifetime.
that sounds magical.
It is easily testable. Take samples of war veterans.
Not sure if it helps though. It has been so long since they have experienced a tough life, levels may already gone back to same levels as others.
Something in the water or the milk? Something basic enough that a significant majority is in contact, but culturally distinct enough that a significant minority elsewhere are not in contact.
Are we headed into a "Children of Men" scenario?
Children of men was infertility of women.
The novel the movie was based upon used male infertility. Movie switched that and pinned the infertility on females.
That said, infertility on the man or woman doesn't matter much in a "we want to make babies scenario." The end result is the same: a world like that in The Children of Men.
That said, infertility on the man or woman doesn't matter much in a "we want to make babies scenario." The end result is the same: a world like that in The Children of Men.
could we be simply better at doing these tests? eg more accuracy today vs ~44yrs ago?
Man that's messed up about the plastic. Everytime I heat up food in plastic now at my job I will think some guy out there I'm killing his sperm. Ahh the sugar too man... Alright will try to keep that in mind when eating/shopping.
Soda though, it's what keeps me awake/engaged at work, coke it's nasty as hell but... There is also unsweetened tea, I don't know if it's too strong, seems to have the opposite effect of feeling more alert. Often I go to work without sleep but that's my own problem, that's why I look forward to being self employed haha.
Soda though, it's what keeps me awake/engaged at work, coke it's nasty as hell but... There is also unsweetened tea, I don't know if it's too strong, seems to have the opposite effect of feeling more alert. Often I go to work without sleep but that's my own problem, that's why I look forward to being self employed haha.
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
The phathalates hypothesis sounds plausible to me. However, it will be a combination of factors social, economical and biological. One hypothesis, I have been thinking of is about relation between the age of the father when the child was conceived and it's correlation with sperm count of the child when he grows up.
I am not sure if this data was collected in the study. Does anyone know about any such study?
I am not sure if this data was collected in the study. Does anyone know about any such study?
Can anyone summarize the various theories developed to explain this decline?
The ones I have read while scrolling to this comment:
1. Jet fuel
2. Sugar
3. Plastics
4. Space Rockets
5. The gays
1. Jet fuel
2. Sugar
3. Plastics
4. Space Rockets
5. The gays
Thanks, you can add changes in body's probiotics and water contamination.
Water contamination is my favorite, animals share water with us and it is treated with obsolete technologies (and people fantasize about springs and pure aquiferes when it is mostly about recycling used water or polluted water from rivers and swamps)
Water contamination is my favorite, animals share water with us and it is treated with obsolete technologies (and people fantasize about springs and pure aquiferes when it is mostly about recycling used water or polluted water from rivers and swamps)
What does Western Men means exactly? (I am from India so asking.)
As every country has their own west. Does this mean West of US? Or West of whole world?
I find this fascinating. It's an important biological phenomenon and we don't know if it's due to culture or to chemistry.
Could this be from progress in pornography?
If this were an important factor, I would expect to see the same drop in non-Western countries. Porn is global.
The data doesn't show a significant decrease outside the West.
The data doesn't show a significant decrease outside the West.
It's sad that perhaps the most plausible (of the discussed reasons so far in this thread) is being downvoted. I guess people believe what they want to believe.
Anecdotally, I have felt (and sounded) a whole better ever since I stopped consuming porn. There is also a very real drive and stubbornness that I feel in myself, markedly higher than before.
I would chalk (without evidence but as a hypothesis) decreased levels of T to: - not working out (and having a desk job), - increased consumption of porn, - harmful substances in mass produced food that we don't understand fully.
Anecdotally, I have felt (and sounded) a whole better ever since I stopped consuming porn. There is also a very real drive and stubbornness that I feel in myself, markedly higher than before.
I would chalk (without evidence but as a hypothesis) decreased levels of T to: - not working out (and having a desk job), - increased consumption of porn, - harmful substances in mass produced food that we don't understand fully.
I mean... If you stopped for a week would you have more? Or is it the same everyday haha.
Atrazine.... And all the other endicrine disruptors.
Packaged food is literally toxic at this point.
Packaged food is literally toxic at this point.
Perhaps the Nature is starting to fight back against explosion of human population and associated damage.
One word: stress.
BPA, birth control/estrogen in water, and increased obesity rates would be my guess.
Not to mention estrogen from plastics:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/
>birth control/estrogen in water
Is that actually a thing? I didn't find any sources definitively showing it was enough to warrant a concern.
Is that actually a thing? I didn't find any sources definitively showing it was enough to warrant a concern.
women take birth control
they pee and flush
this water gets processed and re injected back into the pipes
if you make the mistake to drink the tap water where they re purpose it from the canalisations, you just drink birth control water.
they pee and flush
this water gets processed and re injected back into the pipes
if you make the mistake to drink the tap water where they re purpose it from the canalisations, you just drink birth control water.
Data to back it up please?
As far as I know the hormones used have quite short half life in decent conditions. Much less metabolites.
Gonna need some evidence to back that up. Wouldn't the treatment get rid of the birth control?
From what I was reading, this seems to be an anti-BC talking point, but I couldn't find any evidence to suggest that any estrogens in tap water is caused by BC.
From what I was reading, this seems to be an anti-BC talking point, but I couldn't find any evidence to suggest that any estrogens in tap water is caused by BC.
Sounds like you have a local water supply problem if they serve you recycled sewage (or a regretful plumbing problem).
This is common among communities living on the Mississippi River, for example.
Interesting. Could you elaborate?
Exogenous testosterone also lowers sperm count.
Anxiously awaiting the first comment on the feminizing effects of soy...
In particular, the article says:
"In a Harvard study published last year in the journal Human Reproduction, Jorge E. Chavarro, M.D., Sc.D., and his colleagues found a strong association between men’s consumption of soy foods and decreased sperm counts."
The study in question seems to be this:
https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/23/11/2584/2913898/S...
"The intake of 15 soy-based foods in the previous 3 months was assessed for 99 male partners of subfertile couples who presented for semen analyses to the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center. ... There was an inverse association between soy food intake and sperm concentration that remained significant after accounting for age, abstinence time, body mass index, caffeine and alcohol intake and smoking. In the multivariate-adjusted analyses, men in the highest category of soy food intake had 41 million sperm/ml less than men who did not consume soy foods." (For reference, various sources say anywhere from 20 to 150 million sperm/ml is average.)
Contrariwise, the Wiki article on soy points to this meta-study (from four years before the above):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106
"Clinical evidence also indicates that isoflavones have no effect on sperm or semen parameters, although only three intervention studies were identified and none were longer than 3 months in duration."
Here's another from a few months after the meta-study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19819436
That last one seems to be a randomized controlled study, where they gave a bunch of college men either milk protein or one of two variants of soy protein.
I don't know if there's anything in soy that isn't in the "soy protein isolates" from the last study. If there isn't, then the last study seems like strong evidence. The first one could conceivably come down to some sort of selection bias.
"In a Harvard study published last year in the journal Human Reproduction, Jorge E. Chavarro, M.D., Sc.D., and his colleagues found a strong association between men’s consumption of soy foods and decreased sperm counts."
The study in question seems to be this:
https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/23/11/2584/2913898/S...
"The intake of 15 soy-based foods in the previous 3 months was assessed for 99 male partners of subfertile couples who presented for semen analyses to the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center. ... There was an inverse association between soy food intake and sperm concentration that remained significant after accounting for age, abstinence time, body mass index, caffeine and alcohol intake and smoking. In the multivariate-adjusted analyses, men in the highest category of soy food intake had 41 million sperm/ml less than men who did not consume soy foods." (For reference, various sources say anywhere from 20 to 150 million sperm/ml is average.)
Contrariwise, the Wiki article on soy points to this meta-study (from four years before the above):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106
"Clinical evidence also indicates that isoflavones have no effect on sperm or semen parameters, although only three intervention studies were identified and none were longer than 3 months in duration."
Here's another from a few months after the meta-study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19819436
That last one seems to be a randomized controlled study, where they gave a bunch of college men either milk protein or one of two variants of soy protein.
I don't know if there's anything in soy that isn't in the "soy protein isolates" from the last study. If there isn't, then the last study seems like strong evidence. The first one could conceivably come down to some sort of selection bias.
And the counter argument:
http://ussec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SOY13_7_Soy-and-...
http://ussec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SOY13_7_Soy-and-...
You ended the wait yourself.
and if so the explanation of why it affects Western men and not Asian men ...
I've noticed over the last 20 or so years that men in the West, in general, appear increasingly effeminate.
I've also noticed that a lot of male pop stars have really high voices.
I've long suspected these observations are more than cultural. Recent studies seem to back this intuition.
I've also noticed that a lot of male pop stars have really high voices.
I've long suspected these observations are more than cultural. Recent studies seem to back this intuition.
Is this sort of pseudoscientific anecdata what passes for discourse on HN now? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - where's yours?
This is only the most egregious comment in here, not the only one in general. Someone above is talking about gut microbiome (which we know vanishingly little about) as being a primary causer, diet is apparently 100% the issue (colinear effects in other populations throw water on this theory pretty hard), plastics are a real problem (no evidence supports this, though there is a significant lag), etc.
Basically no one wants to just say "No one knows, let's keep researching." Everyone has to chime in. That'd be one thing if it was relegated to HN or forums, but it's true in the "scientific" community [1] and the media as well; perhaps moreso.
[1] Of which I am sadly a part of, so don't think I am an anti-science person, just anti-parts of this ridiculous industry.
Basically no one wants to just say "No one knows, let's keep researching." Everyone has to chime in. That'd be one thing if it was relegated to HN or forums, but it's true in the "scientific" community [1] and the media as well; perhaps moreso.
[1] Of which I am sadly a part of, so don't think I am an anti-science person, just anti-parts of this ridiculous industry.
I think the thing that's worth remembering about HN is that it's far more of a forum for engineers than scientists. The user base here is very well read, very interesting, a pleasure to interact with, and a lot of the time very obviously technically skilled. They are not, as a general rule, particularly scientifically literate.
Isn't that was research is, a bunch of people putting forward various theories which are then subjected to rigorous testing?
Just because he's not referencing a survey or study doesn't make it useless data. Anecdotal data is not useless.
There's been a noticeable increase in effeminate men in NYC over the last 6 years. Maybe it's due to the increased acceptance of LGBT, maybe it's something else...
There's been a noticeable increase in effeminate men in NYC over the last 6 years. Maybe it's due to the increased acceptance of LGBT, maybe it's something else...
Are you sure you aren't falling victim to a frequency illusion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Frequ...
I get where you're coming from, but the increased effemination in men has been so pronounced in my own experience over the past 20 years I'm still chiming in on it.
Wow, I'm just as dumbfounded as you.
The rate of males identifying as gay has been rising either because of the changing culture, and/or something in the water.
Such a statement claiming western men as becoming more effeminate is obvious.
Such a statement claiming western men as becoming more effeminate is obvious.
Well homosexuality being more accepted I guess would be a cultural change, yes, but that doesn't mean there are more gay men now than there were before, it means there are more men who are openly gay than there were before. It's a bit hard to tell whether there was an actual increase in gay men due to the known fact that many men hid their sexuality prior to it being more acceptable.
I think this is a far more sensible and defensible position and a simpler explanation than something in water, unless that was a facetious comment.
I think this is a far more sensible and defensible position and a simpler explanation than something in water, unless that was a facetious comment.
Auto-tune is probably more of an explanation than hormones. I've been to more than one of concerts in recent years where the lead singer couldn't actually hit the high notes live.
> I've also noticed that a lot of male pop stars have really high voices.
Male pop stars had really high voices long before 20 years ago - the BeeGees, the Beach Boys, Freddy Mercury are three off the top of my head. I'm sure I could come up with some more if I thought about it for more than 5 seconds.
Male pop stars had really high voices long before 20 years ago - the BeeGees, the Beach Boys, Freddy Mercury are three off the top of my head. I'm sure I could come up with some more if I thought about it for more than 5 seconds.
Not that the op comment has any basis, but singing falsetto or having vocal range has little to do with the high/low-ness of the baseline voice.
In the 1700s castratis were quite popular throughout Europe. Does that mean they had low sperm count then, or was it just something people liked?
I really don't believe you can explain cultural phenomenon through medical science.
I really don't believe you can explain cultural phenomenon through medical science.
Well, castrati certainly did have low sperm counts...
Castrati means literally castrated, normally boys before puberty to retain the soprano/mezzo-soprano pitch on adulthood. This got forbidden in 1870 in Italy and by the Roman church in 1902.
castratis have exceptionally low sperm count
Is there a direct correlation between sperm count and appearance though? Its probably more relevant to consider testosterone.
I can't help but have noticed that same thing, anecdotally (very anecdotally, but seems seems so pronounced that I'm commenting). Higher voice registers, smaller frames, more effeminate postures and body language.
Effeminate by what attributes?
Western cultural values, I guess.
This seems to be a really weird talking point of the right wing (although I'm not saying that it's only the right, or that hyperdunc is right wing), that people have stopped caring about hyper-masculinity, and it must be caused by hormones and not just a change in cultural values.
This seems to be a really weird talking point of the right wing (although I'm not saying that it's only the right, or that hyperdunc is right wing), that people have stopped caring about hyper-masculinity, and it must be caused by hormones and not just a change in cultural values.
I had gynecomastia from when I was 10 years old up until I was in my early 20s, when I had surgery to remove it. Wonder if I can blame plastics for that.
As I said in that thread, this is another statistic that had a rapid and precipitous change starting in the early 1970s. I've stated this elsewhere, but it's like something(s) happened the late 60s/early 70s that totally transformed our world and I have no clue what they were nor can I find anyone who has written about it.
Wealth inequality [1], Real Wage stagnation [2], Obesity Rates [3], Divorce Rates [4]
[1] http://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways-...
[2] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
[3] http://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2015/11/20/6358359882436...
[4] http://www.stateofourunions.org/2009/si-divorce.php