5 ms·

Eating fast food linked to infertility

94 points by spking 9y ago

orand 9y ago
So just wait one generation, and problem solved? ;-)
- mysterypie 9y ago
  Jokes aside, you may be right that it's self correcting at the species level (though still bad at the individual level -- i.e., for those women who wanted to get pregnant). The first time I heard of Fisher's principle it blew my mind: If the male to female ratio gets imbalanced, it'll return to 1:1 after about 2 generations. The reasoning can be understood by logic alone (see the "basic explanation" in Wikipedia[1]), but there's also experimental evidence[2]. I think that the same argument should hold if the genetic component that makes you avoid fast food is an inherited property. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle [2] http://www.genetics.org/content/148/2/719 http://www.genetics.org/content/148/2/719
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tomhoward 9y ago
Which do we think is more likely? a) Choosing to eat too much junk food causes hormone imbalances that increase the chance of infertility; b) Hormone imbalances that increase the risk of infertility in women also tend to increase one's appetite for junk (AKA high-energy) foods. Having witnessed these problems up close, I'm going with (b). FWIW the actual substance of the article is this paragraph: Roughly 1 in 10 women of childbearing age have difficulty getting pregnant. Most of the time, it’s caused by problems with ovulation, often related to a hormone imbalance known as polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Some signs that a woman is not ovulating normally include irregular or absent menstrual periods. PCOS and other fertility-related hormonal issues are much more complex and deeply rooted than food choices, though they're not unrelated. The real issue is inflammation and auto-immunity, in which food intake is a factor but only one piece of the puzzle.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Why not both though? Ultimately, it is a runaway homeostasis, a vicious circle. We have only moderate evidence that dietary advice to stop eating highly energy dense nutrient poor foods is effective...
  - top_post 9y ago
    Soft tacos or hard shell tacos? Why not both!
- announcerman 9y ago
  I wonder if fast food is to blame for hormone imbalances in men as well, especially the problem of lower testosterone for westerners. Maybe not directly but due to the obesity excessive fast food calorie consumption causes?
  - collyw 9y ago
    I recommend 4chan for their advice, they are convinced it's soy and that eating raw onions is the solution. (Don't take that or anything else on 4chan too seriously though).
- sambe 9y ago
  The hormone speculation seems to come from the article itself, rather than the authors of the paper. In fact, you could be forgiven for reading the article and not finding anything of interest - no causal link, no mention of controlling for weight (already known to have an effect and very likely correlated with fast food consumption). However, the paper says: "All models are adjusted for maternal BMI, maternal age, socioeconomic index, recruitment site, ethnicity, polycystic ovary syndrome, previous miscarriage, smoking status, alcohol intake, multivitamin use prior to conception, frequency of sexual intercourse, paternal BMI, paternal age." Having controlled for BMI & alcohol at least makes it somewhat interesting, despite the need for patient recall.
- hycaria 9y ago
  Correlation is not cause.
jnwatson 9y ago
I’m curious whether the study accounted for the confounding variable of wealth. Wealthier women eat fast food less and have more access to fresh fruit. Wealthier women are more likely to exercise and be in general more healthy. In other words, without taking care of the data, this might just be saying that wealthy people are more fertile.
- philliphaydon 9y ago
  Problem of the West, not wealth, I think. In Asia fast food is often more expensive than fresh fruit or better meals.
  - amelius 9y ago
    I once heard a story about Asian people dressing up before going to McDonald's.
    - knicholes 9y ago
      In Japan ~5 years ago, I went to a McDonald's that was pretty dang fancy. Shockingly, and unrelated, people were smoking in the dining area. Weird.
- collyw 9y ago
  I struggle to believe that wealth is what is missing. You can eat healthily for very little money. It does however require time to cook / prepare, which maybe be tricky if you have two jobs.
  - calvinbhai 9y ago
    True. Time, more than money is wealth. Earning $50k per year working 20 hrs a week may be better than earning $95k working 60 hrs a week. I cook a lot, and love to cook at home, using fresh vegetables, lentils and legumes, constantly aware of the fact that it is such a luxury to be able to cook and eat at home. Fast food and pizzas are so cheap, for someone starved of time, it can be the only option, to make ends meet, in terms of time. I have been in that situation of living on fast food for more than a year, and have been grateful to be out of such poverty of time, which has slowly yielded benefits in health, and monetary wealth.
sleepychu 9y ago
>Another limitation is that researchers relied on dietary questionnaires women completed during prenatal visits that asked them to recall how they ate in the month before they conceived - a method that isn’t always accurate. Isn't always accurate? More like "Is always inaccurate" people are notoriously bad self reporters even when they're logging things day by day.
Someone 9y ago
”All models are adjusted for maternal BMI, maternal age, socioeconomic index, recruitment site, ethnicity, polycystic ovary syndrome, previous miscarriage, smoking status, alcohol intake, multivitamin use prior to conception, frequency of sexual intercourse, paternal BMI, paternal age.” It surprises me that, starting with only 5598 subjects, it is possible to control for 13 different factors and keep a signal, more so because a few of those have fairly strong correlation with fertility. Because of that, I would want to know whether adjusting the yes/no threshold values for those variables would affect the conclusion.
- mrfusion 9y ago
  I would have liked to see exercise level controlled for. Maybe a few other general health markers.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Correlation with maybe a small dose of cause. If you don't take care of yourself, the body isn't going to let you attempt to care for two.
overcast 9y ago
This sounds like a good example of natural selection.

94 points by spking 9y ago

orand 9y ago

So just wait one generation, and problem solved? ;-)

mysterypie 9y ago
Jokes aside, you may be right that it's self correcting at the species level (though still bad at the individual level -- i.e., for those women who wanted to get pregnant). The first time I heard of Fisher's principle it blew my mind: If the male to female ratio gets imbalanced, it'll return to 1:1 after about 2 generations. The reasoning can be understood by logic alone (see the "basic explanation" in Wikipedia[1]), but there's also experimental evidence[2]. I think that the same argument should hold if the genetic component that makes you avoid fast food is an inherited property. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle [2] http://www.genetics.org/content/148/2/719 http://www.genetics.org/content/148/2/719

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tomhoward 9y ago

Which do we think is more likely? a) Choosing to eat too much junk food causes hormone imbalances that increase the chance of infertility; b) Hormone imbalances that increase the risk of infertility in women also tend to increase one's appetite for junk (AKA high-energy) foods. Having witnessed these problems up close, I'm going with (b). FWIW the actual substance of the article is this paragraph: Roughly 1 in 10 women of childbearing age have difficulty getting pregnant. Most of the time, it’s caused by problems with ovulation, often related to a hormone imbalance known as polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Some signs that a woman is not ovulating normally include irregular or absent menstrual periods. PCOS and other fertility-related hormonal issues are much more complex and deeply rooted than food choices, though they're not unrelated. The real issue is inflammation and auto-immunity, in which food intake is a factor but only one piece of the puzzle.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Why not both though? Ultimately, it is a runaway homeostasis, a vicious circle. We have only moderate evidence that dietary advice to stop eating highly energy dense nutrient poor foods is effective...
- top_post 9y ago
  Soft tacos or hard shell tacos? Why not both!
announcerman 9y ago
I wonder if fast food is to blame for hormone imbalances in men as well, especially the problem of lower testosterone for westerners. Maybe not directly but due to the obesity excessive fast food calorie consumption causes?
- collyw 9y ago
  I recommend 4chan for their advice, they are convinced it's soy and that eating raw onions is the solution. (Don't take that or anything else on 4chan too seriously though).
sambe 9y ago
The hormone speculation seems to come from the article itself, rather than the authors of the paper. In fact, you could be forgiven for reading the article and not finding anything of interest - no causal link, no mention of controlling for weight (already known to have an effect and very likely correlated with fast food consumption). However, the paper says: "All models are adjusted for maternal BMI, maternal age, socioeconomic index, recruitment site, ethnicity, polycystic ovary syndrome, previous miscarriage, smoking status, alcohol intake, multivitamin use prior to conception, frequency of sexual intercourse, paternal BMI, paternal age." Having controlled for BMI & alcohol at least makes it somewhat interesting, despite the need for patient recall.
hycaria 9y ago
Correlation is not cause.

jnwatson 9y ago

I’m curious whether the study accounted for the confounding variable of wealth. Wealthier women eat fast food less and have more access to fresh fruit. Wealthier women are more likely to exercise and be in general more healthy. In other words, without taking care of the data, this might just be saying that wealthy people are more fertile.

philliphaydon 9y ago
Problem of the West, not wealth, I think. In Asia fast food is often more expensive than fresh fruit or better meals.
- amelius 9y ago
  I once heard a story about Asian people dressing up before going to McDonald's.
  - knicholes 9y ago
    In Japan ~5 years ago, I went to a McDonald's that was pretty dang fancy. Shockingly, and unrelated, people were smoking in the dining area. Weird.
collyw 9y ago
I struggle to believe that wealth is what is missing. You can eat healthily for very little money. It does however require time to cook / prepare, which maybe be tricky if you have two jobs.
- calvinbhai 9y ago
  True. Time, more than money is wealth. Earning $50k per year working 20 hrs a week may be better than earning $95k working 60 hrs a week. I cook a lot, and love to cook at home, using fresh vegetables, lentils and legumes, constantly aware of the fact that it is such a luxury to be able to cook and eat at home. Fast food and pizzas are so cheap, for someone starved of time, it can be the only option, to make ends meet, in terms of time. I have been in that situation of living on fast food for more than a year, and have been grateful to be out of such poverty of time, which has slowly yielded benefits in health, and monetary wealth.

sleepychu 9y ago

>Another limitation is that researchers relied on dietary questionnaires women completed during prenatal visits that asked them to recall how they ate in the month before they conceived - a method that isn’t always accurate. Isn't always accurate? More like "Is always inaccurate" people are notoriously bad self reporters even when they're logging things day by day.

Someone 9y ago

”All models are adjusted for maternal BMI, maternal age, socioeconomic index, recruitment site, ethnicity, polycystic ovary syndrome, previous miscarriage, smoking status, alcohol intake, multivitamin use prior to conception, frequency of sexual intercourse, paternal BMI, paternal age.” It surprises me that, starting with only 5598 subjects, it is possible to control for 13 different factors and keep a signal, more so because a few of those have fairly strong correlation with fertility. Because of that, I would want to know whether adjusting the yes/no threshold values for those variables would affect the conclusion.

mrfusion 9y ago
I would have liked to see exercise level controlled for. Maybe a few other general health markers.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Correlation with maybe a small dose of cause. If you don't take care of yourself, the body isn't going to let you attempt to care for two.

overcast 9y ago

This sounds like a good example of natural selection.