12 ms·

Sperm counts are declining. Scientists have pinpointed the main causes

41 points by georgecmu 3y ago

friend_and_foe 3y ago
What a worthless article. Smoking, drinking, age all things everyone knew, and then "pollution." We clicked the link yo know what kind of pollution!
neets 3y ago
I wonder what the sperm count was like in Rat Park?
strken 3y ago
ACX had an interesting post about this: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/declining-sperm-count-much-more-than https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/declining-sperm-count-... It gave me the impression that there's not a consensus that sperm counts prior to 30 years ago have been declining steadily, let alone agreement on the overall causes. The Euronews article seems to be a write-up of one meta-analysis rather than an overview of the current state of knowledge.
- nequo 3y ago
  In their defense, a meta-analysis is supposed to be an overview of the current state of the literature.
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    During the last years I read a lot of meta-analysis of ivermectin and hidroxycloroquine. My conclusion is garbage in, garbage out. There are good meta-analysis and bad meta-analysis.
ofalkaed 3y ago
I keep seeing this and reports of decreased sexual drive and I always notice one environmental factor lacking from the studies, population. I go out to more rural areas and can't help but notice that people don't seem to have issues making babies in those areas, big families are quite common and most adults seem to have kids. Perhaps there is a biological factor and these things decrease in response to living in a high population area, increased pollution and high population density do go hand in hand. Anyone know if there have been any studies on this?
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  No, but having lived in less populated areas for most of my life, I’d say it is a common observation —- by the local population —- that there isn’t anything better to do in many rural places than reproduce.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    I'll add that a lot of people in rural places are uneducated when it comes to sex and are more likely to deny their own kids that education growing up so you predictably end up with more accidental pregnancies and younger parents in rural places
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      Is this based on any experience or research of yours or is it just the bias that it sounds like?
      - autoexec 3y ago
        It's based on abstinence only sex ed being more common in rural areas and also linked to higher rates of unplanned/teen pregnancies.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      There are a lot of smart people in rural areas. They may look dumb and speak slow, but get to know them and you eventually discover they have a PhD.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        It's not a question of being smart, it's about education. People in rural areas tend to have less education and are more likely to have inadequate sexual education (abstinence only sex ed programs for example) than people in urban environments.
jokoon 3y ago
Sometimes it becomes difficult to say that anarcho-primitivists have no good argument at all. I'm not for living in the forest and obviously, technology has a lot of benefits, but maybe technology should be used in moderation, when one can clearly demonstrate it has a lot of benefits and very little costs.
- dmwiens 3y ago
  Its been said[1] that the Amish are one of the few societies that are actually masters of their technology, because they take a deliberate approach to evaluating whether a technology supports their deeper values. Most of humans don't/won't/can't make the same stand that the Amish take. [1] https://calnewport.com/approach-technology-like-the-amish/ https://calnewport.com/approach-technology-like-the-amish/
  - pxc 3y ago
    > Most of humans don't/won't/can't make the same stand that the Amish take. And when they do, they are seen as zealots, or something somehow unattainable. See how many here talk about GNU, FSF, etc.
  - mydogcanpurr 3y ago
    The Amish exist because the government allows them to. If they didn't have a modern US military defending them, they could be easily conquered by almost any country. The point I'm trying to make is that technology is a bit like prisoner's dilemma. If you don't advance, you will be destroyed by those who do even though we might all be better off with less tech. As an example of this, consider CRISPR babies.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - 082349872349872 3y ago
      There were once non-pacifist Anabaptist sects as well as pacifist ones. The latter are still with us, but the former stopped existing centuries ago.
m463 3y ago
I suspect sitting is one factor. It is bad for prostate/nerve health. circulation. and by simply being incompatible with exercise. If you're older, try a standing desk and see if peeing and other things improve. (might take a few weeks)
- vore 3y ago
  Back this up with some actual research, please. Otherwise, we're just telling old wives' tales.
- pwarner 3y ago
  I can't prove this, but I think it may be related based on some personal experience. Everything seems better down there is I stand more
- XorNot 3y ago
  This literally does not matter if it doesn't effect fertility in a way which reduces the number of children you can father from the number desired. I'm deeply suspicious of sperm count research reporting in the media, because the reality is a whole lot of western masculinity culture (because that's what I'm familiar with) is utterly obsessed with penis-related metrics as a proxy for "worth as a human being" for men.
version_five 3y ago
The article isn't very good. It mentions some stuff and doesn't follow up on it (smoking - aren't smoking rates way down?) and alludes to the fact that they're talking about men over 40, saying quality decreases at that age, but it should hypothetically decrease later. All told I didn't learn much.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  Strongly declining in N America and Europe, but big elsewhere. Could still be impacting the global decline
- autoexec 3y ago
  > smoking - aren't smoking rates way down? This article just lists the major factors leading to low sperm counts that were seen by researchers who were reviewing a bunch of different studies. Smoking rates can be declining and still contribute to the problem. You can see the impact here: https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-01054-0/figures/3 https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-0...
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Smoking what? Tobacco? Weed? One is down, one is up.
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    How many Smoky bars or cloudy restaurants have you stepped into lately? Smoking all together is way down. Pollution is way down. The claims of the article don't make sense.
sagebird 3y ago
I only read the article, not the paper. I didn’t see stress mentioned. Perhaps it is difficult to define/measure or lack of consensus measures across studies?
quags 3y ago
Do we have a good amount of data for speed counts in the past? I have never had a count and I assume unless you are in a situation with fertility issues , are donating or part of this study a count has never been done.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
From the linked study (https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-01054-0 https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-0...): > We included 190 studies in our analysis. In the group of associated health conditions, varicocele (MD = 13.62%, CI: 9.39–17.84) and impaired glucose tolerance (MD = 13.75%, CI: 6.99–20.51) had the most significant increase in SDF. Among malignancies, testicular tumors had the highest impact, with a maximum of MD = 11.3% (CI: 7.84–14.76). Among infections, the overall effects of both Chlamydia and HPV were negligible. Of lifestyle factors, smoking had the most disruptive effect on SDF – an increase of 9.19% (CI: 4.33–14.06). Different periods of sexual abstinence did not show significant variations in SDF values. Age seemed to have a more drastic effect on SDF from age 50 onwards, with a mean difference of 12.58% (CI: 7.31–17.86). Pollution also had a detrimental effect – 9.68% (CI: 6.85–12.52).
iandanforth 3y ago
It's plastic, but it will take another 20 years before the lawsuits get any traction.
ipnon 3y ago
Their hypothesis that pollution, varicocele and insulin resistance are the main contributors seems sound because the first and the last have been increasing proportionally during the same time frame as the effect in question.
jhallenworld 3y ago
If it's pollution, which pollution? This study lists the likely suspects (scroll down for the table), but is not quantitative enough to show which have the highest impact. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807371/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807371/ My guess: it's lead from gasoline- we've contaminated all top-soil with it. The effects are going to be around for a long time.
- reocha 3y ago
  This wouldn't make sense, lead content in blood has been falling from about 15ug/dl in the 1970s to 1-2ug/dl in 2007[1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797860/
fauxpause_ 3y ago
How are there 27k studies?
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
Wasnt there a research article recently at top of HN, which concluded that the sperm count losses were directly related to office jobs and in particular....sitting?

41 points by georgecmu 3y ago

What a worthless article. Smoking, drinking, age all things everyone knew, and then "pollution." We clicked the link yo know what kind of pollution!

neets 3y ago

I wonder what the sperm count was like in Rat Park?

strken 3y ago

ACX had an interesting post about this: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/declining-sperm-count-much-more-than https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/declining-sperm-count-... It gave me the impression that there's not a consensus that sperm counts prior to 30 years ago have been declining steadily, let alone agreement on the overall causes. The Euronews article seems to be a write-up of one meta-analysis rather than an overview of the current state of knowledge.

nequo 3y ago
In their defense, a meta-analysis is supposed to be an overview of the current state of the literature.
- gus_massa 3y ago
  During the last years I read a lot of meta-analysis of ivermectin and hidroxycloroquine. My conclusion is garbage in, garbage out. There are good meta-analysis and bad meta-analysis.

ofalkaed 3y ago

I keep seeing this and reports of decreased sexual drive and I always notice one environmental factor lacking from the studies, population. I go out to more rural areas and can't help but notice that people don't seem to have issues making babies in those areas, big families are quite common and most adults seem to have kids. Perhaps there is a biological factor and these things decrease in response to living in a high population area, increased pollution and high population density do go hand in hand. Anyone know if there have been any studies on this?

marcus0x62 3y ago
No, but having lived in less populated areas for most of my life, I’d say it is a common observation —- by the local population —- that there isn’t anything better to do in many rural places than reproduce.
- autoexec 3y ago
  I'll add that a lot of people in rural places are uneducated when it comes to sex and are more likely to deny their own kids that education growing up so you predictably end up with more accidental pregnancies and younger parents in rural places
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    Is this based on any experience or research of yours or is it just the bias that it sounds like?
    - autoexec 3y ago
      It's based on abstinence only sex ed being more common in rural areas and also linked to higher rates of unplanned/teen pregnancies.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    There are a lot of smart people in rural areas. They may look dumb and speak slow, but get to know them and you eventually discover they have a PhD.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      It's not a question of being smart, it's about education. People in rural areas tend to have less education and are more likely to have inadequate sexual education (abstinence only sex ed programs for example) than people in urban environments.

jokoon 3y ago

Sometimes it becomes difficult to say that anarcho-primitivists have no good argument at all. I'm not for living in the forest and obviously, technology has a lot of benefits, but maybe technology should be used in moderation, when one can clearly demonstrate it has a lot of benefits and very little costs.

dmwiens 3y ago
Its been said[1] that the Amish are one of the few societies that are actually masters of their technology, because they take a deliberate approach to evaluating whether a technology supports their deeper values. Most of humans don't/won't/can't make the same stand that the Amish take. [1] https://calnewport.com/approach-technology-like-the-amish/ https://calnewport.com/approach-technology-like-the-amish/
- pxc 3y ago
  > Most of humans don't/won't/can't make the same stand that the Amish take. And when they do, they are seen as zealots, or something somehow unattainable. See how many here talk about GNU, FSF, etc.
- mydogcanpurr 3y ago
  The Amish exist because the government allows them to. If they didn't have a modern US military defending them, they could be easily conquered by almost any country. The point I'm trying to make is that technology is a bit like prisoner's dilemma. If you don't advance, you will be destroyed by those who do even though we might all be better off with less tech. As an example of this, consider CRISPR babies.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    There were once non-pacifist Anabaptist sects as well as pacifist ones. The latter are still with us, but the former stopped existing centuries ago.

m463 3y ago

I suspect sitting is one factor. It is bad for prostate/nerve health. circulation. and by simply being incompatible with exercise. If you're older, try a standing desk and see if peeing and other things improve. (might take a few weeks)

vore 3y ago
Back this up with some actual research, please. Otherwise, we're just telling old wives' tales.
pwarner 3y ago
I can't prove this, but I think it may be related based on some personal experience. Everything seems better down there is I stand more
XorNot 3y ago
This literally does not matter if it doesn't effect fertility in a way which reduces the number of children you can father from the number desired. I'm deeply suspicious of sperm count research reporting in the media, because the reality is a whole lot of western masculinity culture (because that's what I'm familiar with) is utterly obsessed with penis-related metrics as a proxy for "worth as a human being" for men.

version_five 3y ago

The article isn't very good. It mentions some stuff and doesn't follow up on it (smoking - aren't smoking rates way down?) and alludes to the fact that they're talking about men over 40, saying quality decreases at that age, but it should hypothetically decrease later. All told I didn't learn much.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
Strongly declining in N America and Europe, but big elsewhere. Could still be impacting the global decline
autoexec 3y ago
> smoking - aren't smoking rates way down? This article just lists the major factors leading to low sperm counts that were seen by researchers who were reviewing a bunch of different studies. Smoking rates can be declining and still contribute to the problem. You can see the impact here: https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-01054-0/figures/3 https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-0...
SoftTalker 3y ago
Smoking what? Tobacco? Weed? One is down, one is up.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  How many Smoky bars or cloudy restaurants have you stepped into lately? Smoking all together is way down. Pollution is way down. The claims of the article don't make sense.

sagebird 3y ago

I only read the article, not the paper. I didn’t see stress mentioned. Perhaps it is difficult to define/measure or lack of consensus measures across studies?

quags 3y ago

Do we have a good amount of data for speed counts in the past? I have never had a count and I assume unless you are in a situation with fertility issues , are donating or part of this study a count has never been done.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

From the linked study (https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-01054-0 https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-0...): > We included 190 studies in our analysis. In the group of associated health conditions, varicocele (MD = 13.62%, CI: 9.39–17.84) and impaired glucose tolerance (MD = 13.75%, CI: 6.99–20.51) had the most significant increase in SDF. Among malignancies, testicular tumors had the highest impact, with a maximum of MD = 11.3% (CI: 7.84–14.76). Among infections, the overall effects of both Chlamydia and HPV were negligible. Of lifestyle factors, smoking had the most disruptive effect on SDF – an increase of 9.19% (CI: 4.33–14.06). Different periods of sexual abstinence did not show significant variations in SDF values. Age seemed to have a more drastic effect on SDF from age 50 onwards, with a mean difference of 12.58% (CI: 7.31–17.86). Pollution also had a detrimental effect – 9.68% (CI: 6.85–12.52).

iandanforth 3y ago

It's plastic, but it will take another 20 years before the lawsuits get any traction.

ipnon 3y ago

Their hypothesis that pollution, varicocele and insulin resistance are the main contributors seems sound because the first and the last have been increasing proportionally during the same time frame as the effect in question.

jhallenworld 3y ago

If it's pollution, which pollution? This study lists the likely suspects (scroll down for the table), but is not quantitative enough to show which have the highest impact. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807371/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807371/ My guess: it's lead from gasoline- we've contaminated all top-soil with it. The effects are going to be around for a long time.

reocha 3y ago
This wouldn't make sense, lead content in blood has been falling from about 15ug/dl in the 1970s to 1-2ug/dl in 2007[1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797860/

fauxpause_ 3y ago

How are there 27k studies?

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago

Wasnt there a research article recently at top of HN, which concluded that the sperm count losses were directly related to office jobs and in particular....sitting?