5 ms·

Is there data that suggests testosterone would work as a male birth control?

doix 3y ago
Yes, exogenous testosterone will shut down the testicles and thus lower sperm production. Here's a random paper [0] but there's a lot of material out there. The hard part is balancing the sterilisation effect with other side effects whilst having good efficacy. And then there's also the problem of reversing the effects. I'm not on the pharmaceutical business, there's probably a good reason it doesn't exist yet. I just don't know if it's a legal/public perception thing regarding anabolic steroids, it's too hard to manage the side effects or if it's something else. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6305868/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6305868/
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  It shows 65% being infertile within 4 months and some hadn't become fertile again thereafter. Totally aside from side effects that seems to me to be useless.
  - anon291 3y ago
    It takes about four months for one sperm to form so really any male birth control short of a semen valve is going to have that latency. Is sex education that bad? Do people think it's made on demand?
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      The knowledge(?) that it takes 4 months for sperm to form is certainly not common knowledge. I've never heard it before. I haven't looked it up yet, but I'm definitely questioning whether this is even scientifically accepted
      - brnt 3y ago
        Talk to a fertility specialist sometime. You'll discover many new things that you hadnt heard of yet. It was a great example for me of mass ignorance. Tons of stuff, including this, are very well established, but since we live is such an individualized society where interactions with kids and parents are no longer something that happens at all ages continuously throughout life, and your similarly aged friends for the same reason neither, could it happen that such facts simply never pop up until somebody runs into them. In 30 years, you'll not believe established science about aging.
        moi2388 3y ago
        It’s actually between 60-70 days, which is 2–2,5 months.
        brnt 3y ago
        Plus, some personal variability. 3-4mo is a good amount to take into account, if you ever need to.
        moi2388 3y ago
        Variance generally goes both ways. If the true average is 2-2,5 months you should take that as average expected value, not 4 months. Following your logic it’s equally valid to claim 0 months lol
        brnt 3y ago
        No, thats not how calculating quantities with tolerances work. Lol.
        anon291 3y ago
        Without any further information, given what we know about sperm production (it's a physical process for which we're measuring time), the expected distribution is not normal (probably exponential or something). The claim that 'variance goes both ways' is wrong. Variance can only go one way. It can go one way mostly, or it can go bothways, or it can take a U shape. It all depends on the distribution of the events. If we take it to be a simple exponential distribution with mean 66 days, then lambda = 1/66. and variance is 4356 or a standard deviation of 66 days as well. In that case, by month 4, about 83% of men would be expected to have sperm in their semen. To delve deeper, what you're missing here is the idea of skewness and kurtosis. These are the 'higher moments' of the probability distribution function (natural extensions of mean, variance, etc). In particular, the skewness is where you're getting hung up. You assume in your first sentence that the skewness of every pdf is zero (i.e., it 'goes both ways'). That is not generally the case. In particular, the skewness of the 'time to first sperm' distribution must be very positive because it can never be below zero.
    - penjelly 3y ago
      the possibility of permanent infertility is a dealbreaker for me, even if its small.
      - pixelpoet 3y ago
        That's the desired effect for me, I'd have had a vasectomy already if it seemed safe enough. Pretty much 100% of the anecdotes you get are people saying it's nothing and they were powerlifting the next day, but then you look up the incidence of chronic ballache...
      - anon291 3y ago
        I think that would be a dealbreaker for most. My only purpose here was to point out that even if you had an on/off switch for sperm production, the latency between starting/stopping the treatment and seeing a cessation/initiation of sperm in the semen is going to be on the order of several months
michaelmrose 3y ago
There is a study that shows this effect months later for 65% of men some of which didn't get their fertility back as well as causing enlargement of the prostate. This was in men who would otherwise benefit from testosterone replacement not men with a healthy level of testosterone essentially juicing. It would not be tested explicitly for such because it is both bad at its job and has negative side effects well known from all the steroid users.

doix 3y ago

Yes, exogenous testosterone will shut down the testicles and thus lower sperm production. Here's a random paper [0] but there's a lot of material out there. The hard part is balancing the sterilisation effect with other side effects whilst having good efficacy. And then there's also the problem of reversing the effects. I'm not on the pharmaceutical business, there's probably a good reason it doesn't exist yet. I just don't know if it's a legal/public perception thing regarding anabolic steroids, it's too hard to manage the side effects or if it's something else. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6305868/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6305868/

michaelmrose 3y ago
It shows 65% being infertile within 4 months and some hadn't become fertile again thereafter. Totally aside from side effects that seems to me to be useless.
- anon291 3y ago
  It takes about four months for one sperm to form so really any male birth control short of a semen valve is going to have that latency. Is sex education that bad? Do people think it's made on demand?
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    The knowledge(?) that it takes 4 months for sperm to form is certainly not common knowledge. I've never heard it before. I haven't looked it up yet, but I'm definitely questioning whether this is even scientifically accepted
    - brnt 3y ago
      Talk to a fertility specialist sometime. You'll discover many new things that you hadnt heard of yet. It was a great example for me of mass ignorance. Tons of stuff, including this, are very well established, but since we live is such an individualized society where interactions with kids and parents are no longer something that happens at all ages continuously throughout life, and your similarly aged friends for the same reason neither, could it happen that such facts simply never pop up until somebody runs into them. In 30 years, you'll not believe established science about aging.
      - moi2388 3y ago
        It’s actually between 60-70 days, which is 2–2,5 months.
        brnt 3y ago
        Plus, some personal variability. 3-4mo is a good amount to take into account, if you ever need to.
        moi2388 3y ago
        Variance generally goes both ways. If the true average is 2-2,5 months you should take that as average expected value, not 4 months. Following your logic it’s equally valid to claim 0 months lol
        brnt 3y ago
        No, thats not how calculating quantities with tolerances work. Lol.
        anon291 3y ago
        Without any further information, given what we know about sperm production (it's a physical process for which we're measuring time), the expected distribution is not normal (probably exponential or something). The claim that 'variance goes both ways' is wrong. Variance can only go one way. It can go one way mostly, or it can go bothways, or it can take a U shape. It all depends on the distribution of the events. If we take it to be a simple exponential distribution with mean 66 days, then lambda = 1/66. and variance is 4356 or a standard deviation of 66 days as well. In that case, by month 4, about 83% of men would be expected to have sperm in their semen. To delve deeper, what you're missing here is the idea of skewness and kurtosis. These are the 'higher moments' of the probability distribution function (natural extensions of mean, variance, etc). In particular, the skewness is where you're getting hung up. You assume in your first sentence that the skewness of every pdf is zero (i.e., it 'goes both ways'). That is not generally the case. In particular, the skewness of the 'time to first sperm' distribution must be very positive because it can never be below zero.
  - penjelly 3y ago
    the possibility of permanent infertility is a dealbreaker for me, even if its small.
    - pixelpoet 3y ago
      That's the desired effect for me, I'd have had a vasectomy already if it seemed safe enough. Pretty much 100% of the anecdotes you get are people saying it's nothing and they were powerlifting the next day, but then you look up the incidence of chronic ballache...
    - anon291 3y ago
      I think that would be a dealbreaker for most. My only purpose here was to point out that even if you had an on/off switch for sperm production, the latency between starting/stopping the treatment and seeing a cessation/initiation of sperm in the semen is going to be on the order of several months

michaelmrose 3y ago

There is a study that shows this effect months later for 65% of men some of which didn't get their fertility back as well as causing enlargement of the prostate. This was in men who would otherwise benefit from testosterone replacement not men with a healthy level of testosterone essentially juicing. It would not be tested explicitly for such because it is both bad at its job and has negative side effects well known from all the steroid users.