Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sperm Count Zero

gq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#131

Post by craftyguy »

tluyben2 wrote: post #8
zaroth wrote: post #4

I had heard that sperm counts are dropping. What was news to me was that the decline is continuing, even accelerating, and also the concomitant drop in testosterone levels, starting even in utero. The bit about AGD was also pretty crazy — followed by the bit about men becoming less male . Some fear-mongering there no doubt, but a topic which in this era is more likely to be met with scoffs of “good riddance” rather t…

> followed by the bit about men becoming less male. This is pretty obvious without any research (papers). The difference between my generation and our children is already staggering in this regard. Not sure if that's just change in culture or physiological though; maybe a bit of both?

> The difference between my generation and our children is already staggering in this regard. Not sure if that's just change in culture or physiological though; maybe a bit of both?

Said every parent about their children's generation since the dawn of human civilization..[0], [1]

0. http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaint...

1. https://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#132

Post by dudul »

This article only mentions sperm count. However, as per what I recall from my visit to an IVF clinic, this is only 1 of the 3 important factors. The gamete's shape and motility are the other 2. The last one being the most important if I recall correctly.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#133

Post by fit2rule »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #46
thomasfedb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am routinely met with open hostility from self proclaimed trans activists, feminists, etc. Hostility towards what? I assume they attack a view you hold, rather than your being a stay-at-home mother.

Oh, lots of different things. As best I can tell, the hostility is towards me personally, not a specific view per se. I've been accused on HN of being transphobic for attempting to speak about women's issues. I don't really care to dig up a whole lot of examples to convince skeptics. I was homeless for nearly 6 years and only asking for help with trying to figure out how to make money online. I got damn little suppor…

FWIW, I'm a manly-man, and I routinely attract aggression from non-cis folks because I've had kids and enjoy being a Dad. I think this is just par for the course, personally - if people did like having kids and being 'traditional' in their family future, they wouldn't be non-cis...

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#134

Post by hokkos »

spraak wrote: post #114
gaius wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Testosterone drops from high consumption of soy products too, so what are you going to do?

It actually doesn't [1] [2]. But if it did, then just avoid both. [1] Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224 [2] Soybean isoflavone exposure does not have feminizing effects on men: a critical examination of the clinical evidence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106

It actually does, there is a documented event of it happening, but to be fair it is harmless for the majority of the population in resonable consumption : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18558591

A 60-year-old man was referred to the endocrinology clinic for evaluation of bilateral gynecomastia of 6 months' duration. He reported erectile dysfunction and decreased libido. On further review of systems, he reported no changes in testicular size, no history of testicular trauma, no sexually transmitted diseases, no headaches, no visual changes, and no change in muscular mass or strength. Initial laboratory assessment showed estrone and estradiol concentrations to be 4-fold increased above the upper limit of the reference range. Subsequent findings from testicular ultrasonography; computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis; and positron emission tomography were normal. Because of the normal findings from the imaging evaluation, the patient was interviewed again, and he described a daily intake of 3 quarts of soy milk. After he discontinued drinking soy milk, his breast tenderness resolved and his estradiol concentration slowly returned to normal.

Also there is a clear explanation of why so much plant products have hormonal disruptors in it, to modulate the fertility of herbivore, but it's not a story NutritionFact would tell you

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474615/

Plants have physical and chemical mechanisms for defense from attack by animals. Phytochemical defenses that protect plants from attack by insects include antifeedants, insecticides, and insect growth regulators. Phytochemical options exist by which plants can modulate the fertility of the other major group of plant predators, vertebrate herbivores, and thereby reduce cumulative attacks by those herbivores. The success of such a defense depends upon phytochemical mimicry of vertebrate reproductive hormones. Phytoestrogens do mimic reproductive hormones and are proposed to be defensive substances produced by plants to modulate the fertility of herbivores.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#135

Post by DoreenMichele »

fit2rule wrote: post #133
DoreenMichele wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, lots of different things. As best I can tell, the hostility is towards me personally, not a specific view per se. I've been accused on HN of being transphobic for attempting to speak about women's issues. I don't really care to dig up a whole lot of examples to convince skeptics. I was homeless for nearly 6 years and only asking for help with trying to figure out how to make money online. I got damn little suppor…

FWIW, I'm a manly-man, and I routinely attract aggression from non-cis folks because I've had kids and enjoy being a Dad. I think this is just par for the course, personally - if people did like having kids and being 'traditional' in their family future, they wouldn't be non-cis...

I've got one word for you: Hypocrisy.

I spent 9 months being extremely supportive of a MtF trans youth in crisis who expected and demanded that I be totally accepting of who and what they were. Then they had a cow and shit all over me for mentioning that "pretty boys" weren't my cup of tea and reamed me out about how that's prejudice.

So their preferences and predilections must be unquestioningly validated. Mine? Just another BS excuse for the individual to heap more verbal abuse on me.

We eventually parted company. Last I heard, they are still telling lies about me to other people.

That's absolutely not the inclusiveness that so many people claim they want. It's hypocrisy. What they really want is to preserve the Lord Of The Flies pecking order where people on top get to shit all over people on bottom, but they want to be the people shitting on others, not the people being shit on.

It's not actually an attempt to create some lovely egalitarian society. It's more like a desire for revenge and that revenge is frequently aimed at individuals who didn't actually harm them.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#136

Post by ktpsns »

Figure from the article: https://media.gq.com/photos/5b71dc69cc91ae0c5f57efdc/master/...

Oh wow. This suggested correlation is pulling your hair out. First, there are two data points for the "men total sperm count" dataset. I can hardly imagine there are no measurements bewtween 1970 and 2010. Analysis of this data: Sure, you can draw a line. An exponential decrease is much more likely, thought. This would look much less or much more dramatic. Never trust statistics you haven't counterfeited on your own.

Obviously, the "global plastic production" follows an exponential. And probably any other metric such as "global number of people" or "global number of cars" would exhibit a similar curve. You can correlate everything if you want...

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#137

Post by winceschwab »

sixstringbudha wrote: post #125
Youden wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely the former. HN doesn't take well to people making unsubstantiated assertions. If you want to make a statement like this, don't bother unless you have evidence. It's also usually better to frame it around the evidence, like "this study from UCLA found that higher consumption of animal products led to decreased testosterone levels". This way, the discussion will be focused on the evidence or the conclusion y…

>HN doesn't take well to people making unsubstantiated assertions. ooooo..scary. Tell something that fits with the hive mind narrative and HN will give you all its love without asking for no citation. (I mean, some one might ask for it, but HN will take care of flagging it and make it disappear). So do all forums where there is an ability for people to down vote stuff.

“The atom bomb works. Fission makes uranium explode.”

See how I didn’t need a citation?

It’s because the facts are not only well-understood, but a river of citation is ready to flow for you, and you would have to dig for verifiable evidence. You could pull up a youtube video, and watch facts unfold, as real world events from the past.

“My pets love me. I know this is true because I see it in them every day.”

You know what? Possible. But you couldn’t offer a citation, if you wanted to. And on top of that, there’s no easy way to discern what goes on inside an animal’s mind, or whether the situation changed and the statement no longer holds up.

“Animal products cause problems for those who consume them.”

Is a broad statement, enough to be useless.

“It’s been found that consuming animal products is associated with this specific problem.”

Better, but says who? And associated does not indicate cause and effect. It doesn’t even indicate a direct relationship.

“Consuming animal products causes this specific problem.”

How? Under what conditions? What’s the mechanism? Who can replicate these results? Why is it not universally applicable, when we can look back on history, and point to people living over 100 years, without encountering the specific problems mentioned?

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#138

Post by dwaltrip »

pesmhey wrote: post #99
zaroth wrote: post #4

I had heard that sperm counts are dropping. What was news to me was that the decline is continuing, even accelerating, and also the concomitant drop in testosterone levels, starting even in utero. The bit about AGD was also pretty crazy — followed by the bit about men becoming less male . Some fear-mongering there no doubt, but a topic which in this era is more likely to be met with scoffs of “good riddance” rather t…

I’ve got a hypothesis that there is a set amount of testosterone possible in the world (or social group). More males = less to go around. It would make sense from a not-constantly-on-edge perspective as the amount of males per unit of territory goes up. Just a hypothesis, could make for interesting research.

The body produces testosterone. It's not allocated from some fixed global reserve.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#139

Post by Dylan16807 »

jondubois wrote: post #108
ImaCake wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't really any good evolutionary explanations for the decrease in sperm count. Changes in the distribution and frequency of any given genotype/phenotype literally takes generations to occur, and would require some kind of selective pressure (as you say, competition and medically induced fertility are possibilities). This is happening too fast and too uniformly.

>> would require some kind of selective pressure Not selective pressure, but lack of it. When you take away selective pressure for a specific trait, organisms become weaker on average in respect to that trait; when a trait loses importance, populations divert their resources to different traits.

For a gene to decay without selective pressure takes a very long time, especially when your population is not on the edge of starvation.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#140

Post by pesmhey »

dwaltrip wrote: post #138
pesmhey wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve got a hypothesis that there is a set amount of testosterone possible in the world (or social group). More males = less to go around. It would make sense from a not-constantly-on-edge perspective as the amount of males per unit of territory goes up. Just a hypothesis, could make for interesting research.

The body produces testosterone. It's not allocated from some fixed global reserve.

Your body is part of a global network of human beings, where social status and hormones are like, actual things that feed off each other. Here’s some research along those lines:

joeytcheng.com

Post reply on HN