Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors • Hacker News Board

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#481

Post by goatcode » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

boatsie wrote: post #422

goatcode wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to do it all at once. Taking little steps might help: instead of using plastic tupperware, use glass; instead of buying beans in a can, buy dry beans; balcony garden? Sure! Even if some things are impossible to do, it's imo best to not pile on top of those problems issues that aren't impossible to solve.

Even dry beans come in a plastic bag...

If so, and while microplastics may still be an issue, leeching due to wet beans being in contact with the plastic lining of their cans is not. Along the same lines as my original general message: a bit at a time.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#482

Post by adrianN » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote: post #421

adrianN wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, labeling things does exactly nothing for consumers, because most of them don't have a Phd in endocrinology so they don't have the faintest idea what to do with the extra information. The most reasonable workaround is forcing producers to prove safety of the chemicals they use before using them.

> labeling things does exactly nothing for consumers, because most of them don't have a Phd in endocrinology They don't need to. We, as technologists and scientists, can develop solutions to make the decision process very easy, almost automatic. A smartphone app that reads a barcode and produces a color-coded safety value, from green to red, is all a consumer needs to shop safely. Or a website containing whitelists o…

Technology is not the solution to everything. Almost nobody wants to go to a store and consult their phone for every item they purchase and do a complex optimization problem involving safety, ecological footprint, socially responsible supply chains, the dozen other problems we want to burden "informed consumers" with, their personal valuation function and the purchase price.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#483

Post by pocketgrok » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

hojjat12000 wrote: post #473

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in men, there is a very clear mechanism. If you have excess body fat, your aromatase may be overexpressed, and if so, you will convert more of your testosterone to estradiol. This interacts with the hypothalamus' negative feedback loop, lowering your GnRH, (and therefore your LH/FSH) making you less fertile and lowering your testosterone until homeostasis is achieved.

I was recently watching a video on Doublespeak[0], one of the types of doublespeak is to bombard the audience with technical jargon which means you automatically win, unless they know more technical terms than you do! In your case, your comment does not mean anything to me (or probably 99% of the HN users). Instead of this, you could at least cite a reputable source for this claim, this would be 100 times more effect…

I get what you’re saying but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here at all. His main statement is that there’s an biological explanation which is perfectly comprehensible. Backing it with a link instead of stating the explanation himself may be preferable but that doesn’t mean he did it to shut anyone down or that it should have that affect.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#484

Post by ip26 » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

jonplackett wrote: post #47

As someone who has had to do IVF for our child and go through the challenge of figuring our what to do to try and improve sperm quality, I can tell you once you start looking into it, basically everything about modern life is bad for sperm. Heat, radiation, plastic, micro plastics, soya, tap water, Teflon, antibacterial soap, underpants, western diet. It’s a perfect storm. If you’re going though it though I offer a r…

To the many people arguing about mobile phone radiation - just move your phone to your back pocket & move on with your life. Your body will act as a shield. Will it matter? Maybe. Maybe not. Now go think about something else.

If you need something else to think about: non-antibacterial soap is better anyway, and a RO filter is less than $200.

Ok, NOW go do something else.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#485

Post by balls187 » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

Razengan wrote: post #286

jonplackett wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha. I unfortunately did take it a bit more seriously. There was a point where if someone offered me a biscuit with my decaf tea my inner monologue would say “if you eat that biscuit you might never have children”. It was at least in that way the easiest diet I ever went on. 100% motivation!

What's so wrong with never having children?

Nothing is wrong with not having children, if that is your choice.

If you want to start a family and are struggling to do so, that is very difficult to reconcile.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#486

Post by hojjat12000 » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #480

hojjat12000 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was recently watching a video on Doublespeak[0], one of the types of doublespeak is to bombard the audience with technical jargon which means you automatically win, unless they know more technical terms than you do! In your case, your comment does not mean anything to me (or probably 99% of the HN users). Instead of this, you could at least cite a reputable source for this claim, this would be 100 times more effect…

It's just bio terminology. I can't tell if it's correct biology but the words are neither nonsense nor obscure.

I did not say they are nonsense, or obscure. I said "technical jargon".

I said to most of the audience, this doesn't mean anything, and to those that this means something, they probably already know this anyways.

So, for the general public (non-biologists) you have to either explain it differently (at least don't use acronyms). or at least cite a reputable website so that we, normies, know you are not trolling!

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#487

Post by adrr » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

wonder_er wrote: post #378

tzone wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weight loss and proper exercise will probably deliver 99% of the improvements for 99% of the people. Stressing about heat, radiation, micro plastics, or other random stuff seems like extra stress for not that much benefit. Most people in Western world are either out of shape, or straight up obese. It makes sense that, that will have huge negative effects on fertility.

In some communities, weight gain is a down-stream effect of "metabolic syndrome", and the "solution" isn't to count calories or exercise more - it's to simply eat _differently_. Sugar is a particularly odious contributor to problems. Like OP, my wife and I also struggled with infertility for a few years (two miscarriages, years of doing everything "right", and not getting pregnant.) We're finally pregnant, and out of…

Curious on your age range. We also struggled with 3 miscarriages and most of our friends had the exact similar issues and had to conceive via IVF. There were more IVF babies than natural pregnancies in my group of friends. We were lucky and didn't need to resort IVF. We all waited till we were past 35 to have kids. Our fertility doctor said age makes a huge a difference and professionals are waiting till later in their life to have kids which makes it harder conceive with a healthy embryo.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#488

Post by emptyfile » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

hojjat12000 wrote: post #473

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in men, there is a very clear mechanism. If you have excess body fat, your aromatase may be overexpressed, and if so, you will convert more of your testosterone to estradiol. This interacts with the hypothalamus' negative feedback loop, lowering your GnRH, (and therefore your LH/FSH) making you less fertile and lowering your testosterone until homeostasis is achieved.

I was recently watching a video on Doublespeak[0], one of the types of doublespeak is to bombard the audience with technical jargon which means you automatically win, unless they know more technical terms than you do! In your case, your comment does not mean anything to me (or probably 99% of the HN users). Instead of this, you could at least cite a reputable source for this claim, this would be 100 times more effect…

If you're fat your testosterone will be low which is bad for a whole lot of reasons, including being infertile.

See, I understood it, and English isn't even my first language. Scary thought that 99% of users on this site are dumber then me.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#489

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #333

jonplackett wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, I was going for the nuclear option and biscuits have sugar in. Sugar makes you fat. Fat belly means less testosterone. This is part of the anti-western diet thing.

> Sugar makes you fat. Nonsense. Overeating makes you fat, not a specific carb. Having a biscuit with a few grams of sugar is not going to impact your health in a meaningful way if you're not overeating.

The type of calorie matters.

For example, the carbohydrates in fiber are not digestable, so those calories have effectively no impact on weight. Starches take longer to digest than simple sugars, so they result in less of an insulin response than the same quantity of simple sugars (meaning, if eating in excess, less starch is converted to fat).

And even when just looking at simple sugars, fructose and glucose are processed by completely different metabolic pathways. The 5% difference in fructose content in HFCS (along with the double-digit difference in the % of "free" fructose) results in a significantly higher insulin response than plain old sugar.

Indeed, if one eats a lot of sugar, as a result of insulin response, it is possible to get fatter even though one is eating at a net deficit and losing weight.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#490

Post by hojjat12000 » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:11 PM UTC

pocketgrok wrote: post #483

hojjat12000 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was recently watching a video on Doublespeak[0], one of the types of doublespeak is to bombard the audience with technical jargon which means you automatically win, unless they know more technical terms than you do! In your case, your comment does not mean anything to me (or probably 99% of the HN users). Instead of this, you could at least cite a reputable source for this claim, this would be 100 times more effect…

I get what you’re saying but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here at all. His main statement is that there’s an biological explanation which is perfectly comprehensible. Backing it with a link instead of stating the explanation himself may be preferable but that doesn’t mean he did it to shut anyone down or that it should have that affect.

I understand that and I really really want to believe them. But this biological explanation could be obvious (to a biologist) or could be heavily controversial (among biologists). A reputable source would be helpful for us the non-biologist to know that this is either common knowledge or this is the SOTA, recent breakthrough, or simply disputed theory. That's what I was trying to say. Cheers.