4 ms·

They didn't isolate possible confounding variables, father's health and mother's health, which I guess are more important than age, and probably also heavily co

They didn't isolate possible confounding variables, father's health and mother's health, which I guess are more important than age, and probably also heavily correlated. Also, as I understand it a lot of studies show that epigenetics has a larger effect than we previously thought. That means those two variables are even more likely to effect infant health. edit: removed "mother's age", since they do account for that > "“Studies have shown that advanced paternal age is associated with negative health behaviours such as smoking and frequent alcohol consumption, obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, and sub-fertility,”." > But Eisenberg stressed that the increased risks for individuals were small. After adjusting for the mother’s age and other factors such as education and whether she smoked, he found that children born to men aged 45 and over were born less than a day earlier on average, and weighed only 20g lighter (just over half an ounce) than those with younger fathers. It seems like there's a lot more data there that could be interesting showing how education, smoking, and age interact, but all we're not getting that out of this article. So that leads me to wonder, what agenda does this website have by publishing this clickbait title?

plusbryan 8y ago
> what agenda does this website have by publishing this clickbait title Contrarian positions will always attract clicks. Their agenda is eyeballs.
laurex 8y ago
Not exactly true AFAICT, though a valid criticism. "After adjustment for maternal age, infants born to fathers aged 45 years or older had 14% higher odds of premature birth (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.15), independent of gestational age, and 18% higher odds of seizures (1.18, 0.97 to 1.44) compared with infants of fathers aged 25 to 34 years. "
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I should preface this by saying that I spend a lot of time reviewing scientific papers for private sector firms searching for red flags. So certain issues in scientific papers become common enough that they, sort of, jump out at you right away. That's why, in fairness to HN user wufufufu, we should point out that they do NOT control for the age of the female. They only say that the male in the reproductive couple was aged X. (No indication as to the health of the female either.) In general, when a wholly biological effect is observed in human study populations, without reference to a preceding controlled study on, say, mice, your antennae go up. Now in the private sector, that means that the people I worked for would adjust or shuffle resources to account for the likelihood of partners or customers bringing successful legal actions. (Or, perhaps, cancel projects altogether.) But here all it means is that you probably can go ahead and have kids if you are thinking about it and are already over 35. Humans, (and several other animals), have been doing this for millennia. It's very likely not older people having kids that will eradicate us. (Or even lead to our decline, to be perfectly frank.)
  - dmurray 8y ago
    > That's why, in fairness to HN user wufufufu, we should point out that they do NOT control for the age of the female The article is so poorly written that one can't tell whether they controlled for it or not. The first, second and third paragraphs all list increased health problems or indicators of health problems without mentioning whether they control for the mother's age. The fifth paragraph gives some more figures (born a day earlier, weigh 20g less) which don't contradict the other paragraphs, and explicitly mentions controlling for the mother's age. If they didn't control for the mother's age (a huge effect and hugely correlated with the father's age) the study should never have been published or reported on. If they did control for it and found such insignificant differences, it should have been published, but not reported on. For my faith in research, I'm left hoping they did find some large effects after controlling for the mother's age but the Guardian has failed to communicate that.
User23 8y ago
Many people are deeply uncomfortable with the inequality between men and women when it comes to the range of reproductive years. The motivation here appears to be to imply that men should also feel bad for having children later in life.
- chongli 8y ago
  Well it's had the opposite effect on me. As a man in my mid 30s, in university as an undergrad for the first time, I hope to start a family before I'm 45. The data from this article, in stark contrast to the alarmist headline, has given me some reassurance. I can't think of any reason other than spite for a woman to wish birth defects and fertility problems on men she's never met, just for the crime of waiting longer to start a family. Life isn't fair to men and women in this case. We don't make it fair by hurting men, we do it by helping women.
amygdyl 8y ago
I think smoking has a unheeded effect on lower income smokers who sustain poorer diets. I have never been aware of any studies of smokers who sustain the heaviest habits and I grew up with 40 high tar cigarettes a day being I will guess easily ten percent of the society. My uncle and aunts silver wedding photography is occluded by smoke and visibility- it's not smogging of the undeveloped film, I grew up to be a professional photographer, - was just six feet. I experienced cravings for nicotine the first time that very night, escaping for air outdoors... Ny parents were old when I was born. They lived a combined 180 years. I have far more to say about the effects on my parents of losing their peer group and friends, just as I was growing up. Losing his big brother, his last confidante, destabilised my father, and traumatized my mom and me. Surely lower fertility can also explain late parenthood.. I have read other studies claiming that epigenetics conveys a ability to cope with stress from parents, if they survived exceptional stress in early life. I long lost my link for the paper, unfortunately. Maybe I just didn't look into the subject because anecdotally, I coped too well with stress and failed to avoid being stressed, until I found new perspectives.
meko 8y ago
Holy shit. I had an old dad, 52 when I was born. most of those listed conditions affect me or have affected me greatly in the past... My younger sibling is missing a chromosome, stuck as a permanent infant (mentally). This is both enlightening and extremely depressing.

plusbryan 8y ago

> what agenda does this website have by publishing this clickbait title Contrarian positions will always attract clicks. Their agenda is eyeballs.

laurex 8y ago

Not exactly true AFAICT, though a valid criticism. "After adjustment for maternal age, infants born to fathers aged 45 years or older had 14% higher odds of premature birth (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.15), independent of gestational age, and 18% higher odds of seizures (1.18, 0.97 to 1.44) compared with infants of fathers aged 25 to 34 years. "

bilbo0s 8y ago
I should preface this by saying that I spend a lot of time reviewing scientific papers for private sector firms searching for red flags. So certain issues in scientific papers become common enough that they, sort of, jump out at you right away. That's why, in fairness to HN user wufufufu, we should point out that they do NOT control for the age of the female. They only say that the male in the reproductive couple was aged X. (No indication as to the health of the female either.) In general, when a wholly biological effect is observed in human study populations, without reference to a preceding controlled study on, say, mice, your antennae go up. Now in the private sector, that means that the people I worked for would adjust or shuffle resources to account for the likelihood of partners or customers bringing successful legal actions. (Or, perhaps, cancel projects altogether.) But here all it means is that you probably can go ahead and have kids if you are thinking about it and are already over 35. Humans, (and several other animals), have been doing this for millennia. It's very likely not older people having kids that will eradicate us. (Or even lead to our decline, to be perfectly frank.)
- dmurray 8y ago
  > That's why, in fairness to HN user wufufufu, we should point out that they do NOT control for the age of the female The article is so poorly written that one can't tell whether they controlled for it or not. The first, second and third paragraphs all list increased health problems or indicators of health problems without mentioning whether they control for the mother's age. The fifth paragraph gives some more figures (born a day earlier, weigh 20g less) which don't contradict the other paragraphs, and explicitly mentions controlling for the mother's age. If they didn't control for the mother's age (a huge effect and hugely correlated with the father's age) the study should never have been published or reported on. If they did control for it and found such insignificant differences, it should have been published, but not reported on. For my faith in research, I'm left hoping they did find some large effects after controlling for the mother's age but the Guardian has failed to communicate that.

User23 8y ago

Many people are deeply uncomfortable with the inequality between men and women when it comes to the range of reproductive years. The motivation here appears to be to imply that men should also feel bad for having children later in life.

chongli 8y ago
Well it's had the opposite effect on me. As a man in my mid 30s, in university as an undergrad for the first time, I hope to start a family before I'm 45. The data from this article, in stark contrast to the alarmist headline, has given me some reassurance. I can't think of any reason other than spite for a woman to wish birth defects and fertility problems on men she's never met, just for the crime of waiting longer to start a family. Life isn't fair to men and women in this case. We don't make it fair by hurting men, we do it by helping women.

amygdyl 8y ago

I think smoking has a unheeded effect on lower income smokers who sustain poorer diets. I have never been aware of any studies of smokers who sustain the heaviest habits and I grew up with 40 high tar cigarettes a day being I will guess easily ten percent of the society. My uncle and aunts silver wedding photography is occluded by smoke and visibility- it's not smogging of the undeveloped film, I grew up to be a professional photographer, - was just six feet. I experienced cravings for nicotine the first time that very night, escaping for air outdoors... Ny parents were old when I was born. They lived a combined 180 years. I have far more to say about the effects on my parents of losing their peer group and friends, just as I was growing up. Losing his big brother, his last confidante, destabilised my father, and traumatized my mom and me. Surely lower fertility can also explain late parenthood.. I have read other studies claiming that epigenetics conveys a ability to cope with stress from parents, if they survived exceptional stress in early life. I long lost my link for the paper, unfortunately. Maybe I just didn't look into the subject because anecdotally, I coped too well with stress and failed to avoid being stressed, until I found new perspectives.

meko 8y ago

Holy shit. I had an old dad, 52 when I was born. most of those listed conditions affect me or have affected me greatly in the past... My younger sibling is missing a chromosome, stuck as a permanent infant (mentally). This is both enlightening and extremely depressing.