9 ms·

I was concerned about this, so I actually went to a fertility clinic myself and got a semen analysis. My sperm count came out low but "within range" and the mot

by Dig1t 4y ago

I was concerned about this, so I actually went to a fertility clinic myself and got a semen analysis. My sperm count came out low but "within range" and the motility was low and "out of range". I am a healthy normal guy, I exercise 6/7 days a week, am not obese, don't drink much, and eat pretty healthy generally. My low "in range" count would have been considered extremely low and out of range a generation ago. So anecdotally, I think that something is not right here. Read the book "Countdown". The author goes into great detail all of the reasons that modern life is putting downward pressure on sperm quality and quantity. The author, Dr. Swan, is a leading expert in the field. The book is really good, and pretty scary.

ralfd 4y ago
> Read the book "Countdown". The author goes into great detail all of the reasons that modern life is putting downward pressure on sperm quality and quantity. What reasons would apply to you?
- Dig1t 4y ago
  Endocrine disrupting chemicals (mostly phthalates), they are present in most food and bathroom packaging. Any plastic that is flexible. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-big-3-why-phthalates-should-be-restricted-or-banned-from-consumer-products/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-big-3-why-pht... "They’ve been shown to be anti-androgenic—in other words, they decrease testosterone. In studies with rats, it’s been shown that if you dose the pregnant mother, the offspring have defects of the male reproductive tract. There have also been studies in humans that have found anti-androgenic effects on development of the male reproductive tract." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-chemicals-may-harm-sperm-and-pregnancies-growing-evidence-shows/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-chemicals-... https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/phthalates-plastics-chemicals-research-analysis https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/phthala... There is a mountain of research on these chemicals. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873014/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873014/ "There was also a dose–response relationship between MBzP (the primary hydrolytic metabolite of BBzP) and below WHO reference value sperm concentration. In a recent follow-up study including these 168 men, plus an additional 295 men newly recruited into the study, Hauser et al. (2006) confirmed the associations between MBP and increased odds of below-reference sperm concentration and motility. "
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - femaleuprising 4y ago
      You make a excellent point, I agree that as a species we should collectively pursue this, as an option at least. I expect a successful artificial procreation attempt is on the horizon, a few decades away at most, as we already have stem cell technology that can do part of this, and in-vitro fertilization is a well-established technique. As a symbolic gesture, it would be wonderful to see a lesbian couple co-conceive with each others' genetic material, entirely eliminating males from the process. The really hard part will be perfecting and commodifying the process before hordes of angry men rebel at their sudden uselessness, and have such research banned and the labs destroyed.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      > The solution is simple This has got to be sarcasm. How is it simpler to completely replace sexual reproduction than it is to find another chemical that makes plastic more flexible? Seems like a case of 0 knowledge of chemistry or biology.
    - myshpa 4y ago
      Changing packaging is complicated, so we change the way we procreate? I must have missed the /s somewhere. I have better solution. Don't let market forces dictate everything. Optimizing for the price does not work everytime. Go back to inert/non-toxic materials (glass, paper, wax), or find new ones. Abolish poisons and plastics in our food chains.
      - beezlewax 4y ago
        This is the only way. Make it costly via legislation to produce harmful products. Hell make it illegal. We've see how quickly industry can adapt when forced to during covid. It's just that no one is forcing them to do anything.
    - 4y ago
bojan 4y ago
[flagged]
- Dig1t 4y ago
  It is scary because more people are becoming unable to have kids or the only way for them to have them is through IVF. There are still plenty of people out there who WANT kids. I don't have a problem with people deciding to take themselves out of the gene pool, that's their own choice to make.
- noduerme 4y ago
  Personally, I find it scary because of what else it implies may be getting scrambled in people's cells due to environmental contaminants.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
marcell 4y ago
I’m surprised by the eagerness to dismiss this trend, both in the above article and the discussion here. A lot of saying it’s not happening, and even if it is, it doesn’t matter. Like the saying goes, “It was a long time ago and it didn’t happen.” In reality, even if it’s possible to have kids with 50% lower sperm counts, that’s not really the point. That is a huge drop, and likely indicates other changes as well. Testosterone levels are way down over the last few generations. Is that related? What about rising rates of depression among young men [1]? Clearly something is going on here. [1] https://i.insider.com/5c927ddd4f07ae5d161a603f?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://i.insider.com/5c927ddd4f07ae5d161a603f?width=1000&fo...
- simiones 4y ago
  Per the article, there is really very little evidence that anything is happening at all with sperm counts. There is a good chance that there is no effect, that it's all measurement artifacts and/or localized changes.
- gambiting 4y ago
  >>Clearly something is going on here. That's the entire point of the article - that it's less clear than you might think. There are several reasons why the average sperm counts might be reported as lower than they were in the past, and it's not necessarily an indication of a society-wide problem.
- icare_1er 4y ago
  Can't help put make a comparison between that denial and denial of increasing temperature measurements on the planet....
- newaccount2021 4y ago
  [dead]
- NineStarPoint 4y ago
  It’s definitely a massive change, but it’s worth noting we don’t exactly have long term numbers on this. The first studies on sperm count are from 1929, and we started to see this issue in the 1970s. It could be that we’re seeing a drop down from a period where sperm counts were unnaturally high for some reason, as opposed to a lowering below baseline human levels. (Do I think that’s likely? No, probably we’re seeing the affect of one of the many chemicals that have been introduced over the last 100 years. But it’s always worth thinking through all possibilities)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wkat4242 4y ago
I don't think it's super scary. Our population can't continue growing at this rate forever so a natural stabilization would be very welcome.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > I don't think it's super scary. Our population can't continue growing at this rate forever so a natural stabilization would be very welcome. It can be quite scary - what's the minimum population count needed to sustain colony species? We depend on so much infrastructure to stay alive, and have so few survival skills I would guess that even quite a large population (few million) would die out if they were scattered throughout the world. Look at how the passenger pigeon went from the most numerous bird in North America to extinct in 10 years, purely because the minimum number to keep the colony alive was breached.
  - Tade0 4y ago
    We were doing fine as a species at 1.6bln in 1900. What happened next can only be described as explosive growth.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > We were doing fine as a species at 1.6bln in 1900. Maybe, but we were, as a species, a lot less specialised, and so individuals could succeed with smaller numbers. The other part you are missing is that we no longer have access to the low-hanging fruit in terms of natural resources. In 1900 we could subsist because we had a lot more natural resources simply lying around, or close to the surface. We used those up. We razed down countrysides, replaced with non-fertile concrete. We have almost nothing right now that cannot run on electricity, which requires experts in multiple fields to harvest and distribute. The majority of humans in 1900 were mostly self-sufficient, those who weren't starved to death. The majority of humans now are clearly nowhere near to self-sufficient if infrastructure starts to decay due to insufficient experts. Remember, I did not say it will be scary, I said it can be a scary thought.
  - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chewz 4y ago
> I am a healthy normal guy, But you are using nalgene BPA-free water bottles (7 in triangle), have PEX pipes at home, eat meals cooked in non-sticky pans and have soy added to your food... Out of your control... It is almost impossible to outrun our civilisation bent on self-destruction...
- flangola7 4y ago
  Non-stick pans are coated in Teflon, the same material used for many implants thanks to its inertness in the body. Soybeans have been cultivated since as early as 7000 BCE and been a staple crop for many civilizations for millennia. These are unlikely to have any unexpected or negative effects.
  - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
    Yes, Teflon is completely harmless, especially in non-stick cookware. To prove this, I routinely heat up my hernia-repair implants to several hundred degrees Fahrenheit, and I've suffered no ill effects whatsoever.
adamsmith143 4y ago
Nice of you to ignore the article which explains all the reasons why data indicating sperm counts are decreasing are flawed and likely not significant.
lejohnq 4y ago
Might be TMI, but I get my sperm tested frequently (partly because of this problem), and will say there is a lot of variability in my samples. A standard deviation of 48.29 for total motile, and a very low positive correlation with abstinence period (R^2 of 0.082). There isn’t a discernible pattern over time yet (I’m expecting as I age for my average to decrease but I haven’t seen that yet), and I haven’t made any significant diet changes. I think my hydration level is important but I haven’t tracked that in conjunction with my tests. Also because it takes 74 days [1] for spermatogenesis, any change you make in lifestyle has to be performed for a while before it potentially can affect your sperm. Alls that to say, I wouldn’t necessarily worry about one test being low. I’ve had some lows that initially worried me when I was first testing, and now it feels within expected variation. Though, the broader macro trend (or potential of a trend) is still concerning, so its worth it to me to keep an eye on it individually Reference: [1] https://www.givelegacy.com/what-is-sperm/ https://www.givelegacy.com/what-is-sperm/
- ghoogl 4y ago
  [dead]
patrulek 4y ago
> eat pretty healthy generally Im always suspicious when i see someone is eating clean/healthy etc.

by Dig1t 4y ago

ralfd 4y ago

> Read the book "Countdown". The author goes into great detail all of the reasons that modern life is putting downward pressure on sperm quality and quantity. What reasons would apply to you?

Dig1t 4y ago
Endocrine disrupting chemicals (mostly phthalates), they are present in most food and bathroom packaging. Any plastic that is flexible. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-big-3-why-phthalates-should-be-restricted-or-banned-from-consumer-products/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-big-3-why-pht... "They’ve been shown to be anti-androgenic—in other words, they decrease testosterone. In studies with rats, it’s been shown that if you dose the pregnant mother, the offspring have defects of the male reproductive tract. There have also been studies in humans that have found anti-androgenic effects on development of the male reproductive tract." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-chemicals-may-harm-sperm-and-pregnancies-growing-evidence-shows/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-chemicals-... https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/phthalates-plastics-chemicals-research-analysis https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/phthala... There is a mountain of research on these chemicals. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873014/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873014/ "There was also a dose–response relationship between MBzP (the primary hydrolytic metabolite of BBzP) and below WHO reference value sperm concentration. In a recent follow-up study including these 168 men, plus an additional 295 men newly recruited into the study, Hauser et al. (2006) confirmed the associations between MBP and increased odds of below-reference sperm concentration and motility. "
- midoridensha 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - femaleuprising 4y ago
    You make a excellent point, I agree that as a species we should collectively pursue this, as an option at least. I expect a successful artificial procreation attempt is on the horizon, a few decades away at most, as we already have stem cell technology that can do part of this, and in-vitro fertilization is a well-established technique. As a symbolic gesture, it would be wonderful to see a lesbian couple co-conceive with each others' genetic material, entirely eliminating males from the process. The really hard part will be perfecting and commodifying the process before hordes of angry men rebel at their sudden uselessness, and have such research banned and the labs destroyed.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    > The solution is simple This has got to be sarcasm. How is it simpler to completely replace sexual reproduction than it is to find another chemical that makes plastic more flexible? Seems like a case of 0 knowledge of chemistry or biology.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    Changing packaging is complicated, so we change the way we procreate? I must have missed the /s somewhere. I have better solution. Don't let market forces dictate everything. Optimizing for the price does not work everytime. Go back to inert/non-toxic materials (glass, paper, wax), or find new ones. Abolish poisons and plastics in our food chains.
    - beezlewax 4y ago
      This is the only way. Make it costly via legislation to produce harmful products. Hell make it illegal. We've see how quickly industry can adapt when forced to during covid. It's just that no one is forcing them to do anything.
  - 4y ago

bojan 4y ago

[flagged]

Dig1t 4y ago
It is scary because more people are becoming unable to have kids or the only way for them to have them is through IVF. There are still plenty of people out there who WANT kids. I don't have a problem with people deciding to take themselves out of the gene pool, that's their own choice to make.
noduerme 4y ago
Personally, I find it scary because of what else it implies may be getting scrambled in people's cells due to environmental contaminants.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

marcell 4y ago

I’m surprised by the eagerness to dismiss this trend, both in the above article and the discussion here. A lot of saying it’s not happening, and even if it is, it doesn’t matter. Like the saying goes, “It was a long time ago and it didn’t happen.” In reality, even if it’s possible to have kids with 50% lower sperm counts, that’s not really the point. That is a huge drop, and likely indicates other changes as well. Testosterone levels are way down over the last few generations. Is that related? What about rising rates of depression among young men [1]? Clearly something is going on here. [1] https://i.insider.com/5c927ddd4f07ae5d161a603f?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://i.insider.com/5c927ddd4f07ae5d161a603f?width=1000&fo...

simiones 4y ago
Per the article, there is really very little evidence that anything is happening at all with sperm counts. There is a good chance that there is no effect, that it's all measurement artifacts and/or localized changes.
gambiting 4y ago
>>Clearly something is going on here. That's the entire point of the article - that it's less clear than you might think. There are several reasons why the average sperm counts might be reported as lower than they were in the past, and it's not necessarily an indication of a society-wide problem.
icare_1er 4y ago
Can't help put make a comparison between that denial and denial of increasing temperature measurements on the planet....
newaccount2021 4y ago
[dead]
NineStarPoint 4y ago
It’s definitely a massive change, but it’s worth noting we don’t exactly have long term numbers on this. The first studies on sperm count are from 1929, and we started to see this issue in the 1970s. It could be that we’re seeing a drop down from a period where sperm counts were unnaturally high for some reason, as opposed to a lowering below baseline human levels. (Do I think that’s likely? No, probably we’re seeing the affect of one of the many chemicals that have been introduced over the last 100 years. But it’s always worth thinking through all possibilities)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

wkat4242 4y ago

I don't think it's super scary. Our population can't continue growing at this rate forever so a natural stabilization would be very welcome.

lelanthran 4y ago
> I don't think it's super scary. Our population can't continue growing at this rate forever so a natural stabilization would be very welcome. It can be quite scary - what's the minimum population count needed to sustain colony species? We depend on so much infrastructure to stay alive, and have so few survival skills I would guess that even quite a large population (few million) would die out if they were scattered throughout the world. Look at how the passenger pigeon went from the most numerous bird in North America to extinct in 10 years, purely because the minimum number to keep the colony alive was breached.
- Tade0 4y ago
  We were doing fine as a species at 1.6bln in 1900. What happened next can only be described as explosive growth.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > We were doing fine as a species at 1.6bln in 1900. Maybe, but we were, as a species, a lot less specialised, and so individuals could succeed with smaller numbers. The other part you are missing is that we no longer have access to the low-hanging fruit in terms of natural resources. In 1900 we could subsist because we had a lot more natural resources simply lying around, or close to the surface. We used those up. We razed down countrysides, replaced with non-fertile concrete. We have almost nothing right now that cannot run on electricity, which requires experts in multiple fields to harvest and distribute. The majority of humans in 1900 were mostly self-sufficient, those who weren't starved to death. The majority of humans now are clearly nowhere near to self-sufficient if infrastructure starts to decay due to insufficient experts. Remember, I did not say it will be scary, I said it can be a scary thought.
- 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

chewz 4y ago

> I am a healthy normal guy, But you are using nalgene BPA-free water bottles (7 in triangle), have PEX pipes at home, eat meals cooked in non-sticky pans and have soy added to your food... Out of your control... It is almost impossible to outrun our civilisation bent on self-destruction...

flangola7 4y ago
Non-stick pans are coated in Teflon, the same material used for many implants thanks to its inertness in the body. Soybeans have been cultivated since as early as 7000 BCE and been a staple crop for many civilizations for millennia. These are unlikely to have any unexpected or negative effects.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  Yes, Teflon is completely harmless, especially in non-stick cookware. To prove this, I routinely heat up my hernia-repair implants to several hundred degrees Fahrenheit, and I've suffered no ill effects whatsoever.

adamsmith143 4y ago

Nice of you to ignore the article which explains all the reasons why data indicating sperm counts are decreasing are flawed and likely not significant.

lejohnq 4y ago

Might be TMI, but I get my sperm tested frequently (partly because of this problem), and will say there is a lot of variability in my samples. A standard deviation of 48.29 for total motile, and a very low positive correlation with abstinence period (R^2 of 0.082). There isn’t a discernible pattern over time yet (I’m expecting as I age for my average to decrease but I haven’t seen that yet), and I haven’t made any significant diet changes. I think my hydration level is important but I haven’t tracked that in conjunction with my tests. Also because it takes 74 days [1] for spermatogenesis, any change you make in lifestyle has to be performed for a while before it potentially can affect your sperm. Alls that to say, I wouldn’t necessarily worry about one test being low. I’ve had some lows that initially worried me when I was first testing, and now it feels within expected variation. Though, the broader macro trend (or potential of a trend) is still concerning, so its worth it to me to keep an eye on it individually Reference: [1] https://www.givelegacy.com/what-is-sperm/ https://www.givelegacy.com/what-is-sperm/

ghoogl 4y ago
[dead]

patrulek 4y ago

> eat pretty healthy generally Im always suspicious when i see someone is eating clean/healthy etc.