Where is all our sperm gone?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I think this is worthy of a thread. I don't have any answers or an 'angle' on the problem that men in the West have lost so much sperm.

We definitely need to fix it though. Is this a trend where it'll go even lower? It's a serious issue anyway.

Sperm counts in the West plunge by 60pc in 40 years as 'modern life' damages men's health

This is only happening in western countries, so you have to ask what differences are there between western cultures and other cultures.

Obesity in the West is through the roof, so maybe its as simple that as jeans sizes go up,sperm counts go down.

Stress in adult men is off the charts, so maybe thats the link.

Maybe sperm count is an overall indicator of the health of the male population. Instead of getting worried about sperm counts alone, we need to start doing something about the stress levels, and the obesity.

silverharp

first question is does it matter? there is a city quantity in every ejaculation, does it matter it its only half a city worth? has a quality decline been shown?

ancapailldorcha

silverharp wrote: »

first question is does it matter? there is a city quantity in every ejaculation, does it matter it its only half a city worth? has a quality decline been shown?

When you factor in things like people waiting until later to have children then there is almost certainly a cumulative effect.

Richard Hillman

Are men becoming more feminine? Is there a correlation between the decreased masculinity of males and lowering sperm counts.

Sperm counts are down in the western world where masculinity is frowned upon but remaining at similar levels in less socially "developed" lands.

All of this social engineering comes at a cost.

Wibbs

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Are men becoming more feminine? Is there a correlation between the decreased masculinity of males and lowering sperm counts.

It might be a factor. Though I suspect it's more likely environmental rather than cultural. For a start masculinity of the type that springs to most modern western minds is cultural and varies over time to quite a degree. Things we eat, things we have contact with that interrupt normal hormonal stuff. Pseudo oestrogens, dioxins and the like.

It could be as a result of something we're not looking at or for. Something like men's levels of testosterone can vary in the oddest fashion. EG men holding babies in their arms drops it. Men living with fertile women drops it. Not sleeping enough and soundly drops it. Stress lowers it. Beer lowers it, wine less so. Likely the hops in beer. One theory why the church backed the various beer laws in the past that added hops was an effort to reduce licentiousness in drinkers. Veganism seems to raise it, vegetarianism seems to lower it, with meat eaters in the middle(some have suggested it's because vegans avoid all animal foods, which are more likely to contain artificial hormones and other toxins and likely tinned/processed foods and the like).

Could a changing view on masculinity affect it? No doubt it could. For example if a man was stressed by that change.

It's unlikely to be one thing affecting fertility, rather a suite of things. That's of course if the research is solid.

jsms88

Carrying mobile phones in our pockets, almost literally right beside our testicles, certainly isn't helping either.

4068ac1elhodqr

jsms88 wrote: »

Carrying mobile phones in our pockets, almost literally right beside our testicles, certainly isn't helping either.

Agree, knew a fella in an office that carried two mobiles back in the early 00's (upper SAR levels) in both pockets, one for work and one for leisure. Heard not long after leaving that had some signifiCant health issues in that department.

Mobile (2.4Ghz) is also the same frequency favoured by your (higher wattage) microwave oven for making popcorn packets pop within two mins.

Coincidentally those packets (and many others) likely have their interior covered in that nasty 'disputer': bisphenol a (BPA). Tins of sweetcorn is nearly always plastered in this (the white plastic stuff on the inside).

jsms88

Rohan Acidic Pumpkin wrote: »

Agree, knew a fella in an office that carried two mobiles back in the early 00's (upper SAR levels) in both pockets, one for work and one for leisure. Heard not long after leaving that had some signifiCant health issues in that department.

Mobile (2.4Ghz) is also the same frequency favoured by your (higher wattage) microwave oven for making popcorn packets pop within two mins

It's scary to think about the damage we could be doing to ourselves, and particularly to as important a part of ourselves as this.

And it's all just out of convenience, we couldn't be bothered finding another way of carrying our phone.

I'm as guilty as the next guy. Thanks though. The image of my bits exploding like popcorn in a microwave might cop me on!! :-D

H3llR4iser

Wibbs wrote: »

It might be a factor. Though I suspect it's more likely environmental rather than cultural. For a start masculinity of the type that springs to most modern western minds is cultural and varies over time to quite a degree. Things we eat, things we have contact with that interrupt normal hormonal stuff. Pseudo oestrogens, dioxins and the like.

It could be as a result of something we're not looking at or for. Something like men's levels of testosterone can vary in the oddest fashion. EG men holding babies in their arms drops it. Men living with fertile women drops it. Not sleeping enough and soundly drops it. Stress lowers it. Beer lowers it, wine less so. Likely the hops in beer. One theory why the church backed the various beer laws in the past that added hops was an effort to reduce licentiousness in drinkers. Veganism seems to raise it, vegetarianism seems to lower it, with meat eaters in the middle(some have suggested it's because vegans avoid all animal foods, which are more likely to contain artificial hormones and other toxins and likely tinned/processed foods and the like).

Could a changing view on masculinity affect it? No doubt it could. For example if a man was stressed by that change.

It's unlikely to be one thing affecting fertility, rather a suite of things. That's of course if the research is solid.

All points agreeable, with probably stress and tiredness being the biggest suspects.

I would also like to point out that, while there's a problem with "obesity", the West also sees a high level of pressure on male looks, which is often brushed under the carpet with the excuse that "women have it worse".

As a result, plenty of men over-exert themselves with gruesome training programmes, on top of daily work/chores/annoyances, whilst - perhaps more importantly from the perspective of sperm count - pumping all sort of weird chemicals into their bodies to get "big" and "lean". I regularly see kids as young as 14/15 "lifting" in the gym; 20 years old students spending their allowance in "integrators" and "protein shakes", and plenty of folks taking all sort of crap "muscle juice", as they call it. Being super-active, sporty and muscular is in fashion now, but all of that can't be very healthy for anyone.

I'd really like to see a breakdown in age brackets for the data.

Resist ZOG

Yes I think the current fitness cult is detrimental to both men and women. I feel sorry for young men killing themselves to achieve a model physique which is unrealistic for the average man. Most of these guys would be better off improving their social skills.

Having said that weightlifting is very beneficial for men for a number of reasons including a boost in testosterone.

Estrogen in the water supply and xenoestrogens in plastics is what needs to be looked at.

Resist ZOG

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Are men becoming more feminine? Is there a correlation between the decreased masculinity of males and lowering sperm counts.

Sperm counts are down in the western world where masculinity is frowned upon but remaining at similar levels in less socially "developed" lands.

All of this social engineering comes at a cost.

No doubt there is a connection. Can you imagine being a young white man and being told, day in day out, that the core of your being, your masculinity, is harmful? That your basic needs and wants as a man are harmful to society?

Physically and mentally that must take a toll.

kev_s88

excessive masturbation maybe?

jsms88

Resist ZOG wrote: »

Yes I think the current fitness cult is detrimental to both men and women. I feel sorry for young men killing themselves to achieve a model physique which is unrealistic for the average man.

Yea, it's a major thing these days. There's as much appearance pressure on guys to be big and muscly ("shredded" or "ripped" as they call it) as there is on girls to be beautiful or whatever.

They're downing protein and lifting weights in their early teens, which are both harmful at that age. But the way it's gone, it's a case of get a 6-pack at all costs.

All of that has to be screwing with testosterone levels etc.

Wibbs

From what I recall lifting heavy things increases testosterone, but like everything moderation is the key and too often the while gym thing can become obsessive. And because it's seen as a healthy pursuit it can be an obsession that goes under the radar.

Resist ZOG wrote:

No doubt there is a connection. Can you imagine being a young white man and being told, day in day out, that the core of your being, your masculinity, is harmful? That your basic needs and wants as a man are harmful to society?

Physically and mentally that must take a toll.

Not just white lads either. Look at how Black lads are often regarded by some in the US as the embodiment of aggressive masculinity.

But yeah I can see how that would affect youngfellas in particular. At that stage where they're trying to work out who they are. As a society we need to reinforce in these young guys that so long as you're not being a prick, be who you want to be. Give them the support to be the men they want to be and give them the confidence to sack up and ignore the background hiss of the mealy mouthed and yep the dafter end of "feminism" and that dafter end is getting far too mainstream in the media.

As an aside and concerning the media... Earlier today and for my many sins I caught a snippet of that TV3 Loose Women ripoff. In it one of the loud cacklers(which hardly narrows it down) went on a shrill rant about how as a woman she was soooo disadvantaged and rattled off ChickThink™ "facts", not a single one of which was on speaking terms with accuracy or reality, while the other cacklers nodded in agreement. I'd bet at least one of them knew she was talking crap, but that's the narrative and you don't go against the narrative.

Now in real life the majority don't believe the half of this nonsense, but that nonsense is insidious and people are very easily swayed and led to believe "accepted wisdom". Especially if it's constantly repeated.

Jurgen Klopp

Very well could be as simple as some new sort of additive in foods

An interesting one I read was components of the female pill getting into the water supply, any idea how exactly it would seep in to drinking water?

Then again would you say most people drink bottle water? Something off the plastics used for water bottles and milk cartons could be it

However the above poster mentioned simply lack of exercise and being fat. That could be a good one IMO. When you think about it even in Ireland a **** ton of work was still done by hand widespread until the 1960s keeping men and women to be fair extremely fit especially

gctest50

recycling sewerage water, it just builds up :

"Essentially, instead of allowing wastewater that has been treated in sewage works to go back into the river and flow into the sea, the company proposes to put that water upstream, where it would mix with river water and go into a drinking-water treatment works"

.

affects the fishys :


The hormone ethinyl-estradiol (EE2) is an active substance in many birth control pills which affects aquatic organisms when released as waste into the water. In her thesis, Lina Nikoleris studies how fish are affected by EE2.


http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/oestrogen-in-birth-control-pills-has-a-negative-impact-on-fish


.

gctest50

Maybe the beer thing too :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16772450

The prenylflavonoid isoxanthohumol from hops (Humulus lupulus L.) is activated into the potent phytoestrogen 8-prenylnaringenin in the human intestine.



Because 8-PN concentrations in beers are generally low, its health effects after moderate beer consumption were considered negligible.

However, human intestinal microbiota may activate up to 4 mg/L isoxanthohumol (IX) in beer into 8-PN.

Depending on interindividual differences in the intestinal transformation potential, this conversion could easily increase the 8-PN exposure 10-fold :eek: upon beer consumption.


These data show that intestinal conversion of IX upon moderate beer consumption can lead to 8-PN exposure values that might fall within the range of human biological activity.

Wibbs

gctest50 wrote: »

recycling sewerage water, it just builds up :


.

affects the fishys :

I;ve read about the pill thing for years now Gc, but have also read that the concentrations are extremely low and that other hormonal type stuff in our environment is way higher.

Maybe the beer thing too :

Even outside of that hops itself has been tagged as a major pseudo oestrogen. Though again it can be more complex than that as in women it may have slightly anti oestrogen effects.

Running in BroScience™ mode for a second, I've personally noted a.. well... noticeable effect, of drinking beer compared to wine. Beer = brewers droop, god I'm soooo sorry. Yes it does matter dammit >-</Wine = c'mere to me, it's not my phone in my pocket I am indeed pleased to see you.

H3llR4iser

Wibbs wrote: »

From what I recall lifting heavy things increases testosterone, but like everything moderation is the key and too often the while gym thing can become obsessive. And because it's seen as a healthy pursuit it can be an obsession that goes under the radar.

It indeed does - however after years of being around gyms, I've grown an intense love-hate relationship with them; Not to mention a great level of mistrust towards PTs/ instructors.

In the end, exercise is something only a small subset of people actually enjoy, for all the others it actually adds stress - about the exercise itself, about feeling tired, wrecked and with parts of your body in constant pain, about results or lack thereof.

I've known lads going to the gym like 6 times a week for 2 hours each session - that's more than some professional athletes train.

The biggest issue however has to be is the associated chemical crap - protein shakes, "muscle juice" (fancy way to label steroids, basically), integrators of dubious source. I mean, we got to a level where a feckin' water bottle is now called an "hydrator", ffs...

4068ac1elhodqr

Hydrators (Water bottles) are fine as long as they're 'bisphenol a plastic' free, glass vacum ones are the best, as they clean better for re-use.
Muscle Juice (Protein shakes) are fine as long as they're from grass-fed whey, without artificial flavours, additives, sweeteners or preservatives.

Many breakfast cereals are not great however:

A landmark new study has unveiled the worst nightmare for cereal lovers - eating a bowl each morning could make you obese.
Not only are certain varieties full of sugar, but they contain a common additive that could well be a 'gender-bending chemical'.

Evidence has shown such compounds to wreak havoc on animals' waistlines, but until now, the effects on humans had yet to be accurately revealed. Butylhydroxytoluene (E321), often added to protect nutrients, was one of three endocrine disruptors tested by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center researchers.

Best to have 'local organic eggs' for breakfast (but not the EU factory ones).

ancapailldorcha

H3llR4iser wrote: »

It indeed does - however after years of being around gyms, I've grown an intense love-hate relationship with them; Not to mention a great level of mistrust towards PTs/ instructors.

In the end, exercise is something only a small subset of people actually enjoy, for all the others it actually adds stress - about the exercise itself, about feeling tired, wrecked and with parts of your body in constant pain, about results or lack thereof.

I've known lads going to the gym like 6 times a week for 2 hours each session - that's more than some professional athletes train.

The biggest issue however has to be is the associated chemical crap - protein shakes, "muscle juice" (fancy way to label steroids, basically), integrators of dubious source. I mean, we got to a level where a feckin' water bottle is now called an "hydrator", ffs...

I managed to get myself to the gym fairly regularly when I was younger. It did help me but it ultimately felt like work so I ended up lapsing and packing it in which is a shame.

I've heard that Protein shakes aren't great for the Kidneys but I think they're fairly innocuous. I'd be much more concerned about steroids which by nature are designed to mess about with your body's very carefully honed growth regulatory system.

Rohan Acidic Pumpkin wrote: »

Many breakfast cereals are not great however:

A landmark new study has unveiled the worst nightmare for cereal lovers - eating a bowl each morning could make you obese.
Not only are certain varieties full of sugar, but they contain a common additive that could well be a 'gender-bending chemical'.

Evidence has shown such compounds to wreak havoc on animals' waistlines, but until now, the effects on humans had yet to be accurately revealed. Butylhydroxytoluene (E321), often added to protect nutrients, was one of three endocrine disruptors tested by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center researchers.

Best to have 'local organic eggs' for breakfast (but not the EU factory ones).

Daily Mail "Science". I think we're safe for now.

4068ac1elhodqr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Daily Mail "Science". I think we're safe for now.

I hear this a lot about the most read online newspaper in the world.
Perhaps much much smaller, selective, left-biased, media-outlets are 'always' 'instantly' somehow more accurate?

Surprising the Guardian etc don't sell more newspapers or have better viewership in such case :pac:

They only relayed the data from the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, not just quotes from their office water dispenser chats.

ancapailldorcha

Rohan Acidic Pumpkin wrote: »

I hear this a lot about the most read online newspaper in the world, perhaps much much smaller, selective, left-biased, media-outlets are 'always' 'instantly' somehow more accurate?

The fact that you need to resort to this sort of lazy strawman just discredits your point to be honest. The Bible is one of the most read books in the world but that doesn't make it true.

4068ac1elhodqr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The fact that you need to resort to this sort of lazy strawman just discredits your point to be honest.

Or the fact you 'dismiss the sender (ignoring the source)', discredits you via your own media preference/prejudice?

ancapailldorcha

Rohan Acidic Pumpkin wrote: »

Or the fact you 'dismiss the sender (ignoring the source)', discredits you via your own media preference/prejudice?

Why not post the original study then instead of sensationalism from a tabloid rag?

4068ac1elhodqr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why not post the original study then instead of sensationalism from a tabloid rag?

Why not read the article before dismissing it?

ancapailldorcha

Rohan Acidic Pumpkin wrote: »

Why not read the article before dismissing it?

Because it's in a rag which continually claims that miracle cures for Dementia and Cancer are imminent. It's as unscientific as a publication can be.

If you can link the original study, I'd love to have a look at it but that article is blatant sensationalism.

4068ac1elhodqr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Because it's in a rag which continually claims that miracle cures for Dementia and Cancer are imminent. It's as unscientific as a publication can be.

If you can link the original study, I'd love to have a look at it but that article is blatant sensationalism.

It's a newspaper, like the Guardian (which only has 1/10th the readership), and not a science magazine. Progress on dementia and cancer care should also not be denied. Doubt you read the article or where the study came from, and are again simply resorting to instant dismissal, which is frankly, rather lazy.

ancapailldorcha

Rohan Acidic Pumpkin wrote: »

It's a newspaper, like the Guardian (which only has 1/10th the readership), and not a science magazine. Progress on dementia and cancer care should also not be denied. Doubt you read the article or where the study came from, and are again simply resorting to instant dismissal, which is frankly, rather lazy.

No, it isn't. It's lazy to refuse to post the original study. I suspect that there's a high probability that it doesn't make the sort of sensationalist claims you're so desperate to parrot. Simply put, you have no evidence whatsoever so this claim can be dismissed for the tripe that it is. If you disagree, please post the original study.

masculinist

Gypsies , Travellers , Muslims and people from working class areas are constantly referred to as having more kids than the average citizens. Is their sperm ok ?

Now, I dont see many of them shopping at Donnybrook Fair or my local organic farmers market. I have however seen most of them coming out of Iceland, Tesco or a fast food joint. So if theres allegedly something wrong with the food which affects sperm or fertility, how come it has apparently bypassed these groups ?

4068ac1elhodqr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's lazy to refuse to post the original study. I suspect that there's a high probability that it doesn't make the sort of sensationalist claims you're so desperate to parrot. Simply put, you have no evidence whatsoever so this claim can be dismissed for the tripe that it is. If you disagree, please post the original study.

Plenty of articles support the claim, as opposed to 'suspicions and probabilities' established from what appears simply to be pre-determined media bias.

From an actual science magazine
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bha-and-bht-a-case-for-fresh/

BHA (Butylhydroxytoluene) ...for dry foods like cereal the FDA has set limits for each food type. When the FDA actually set limits, time to be concerned.

National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program concludes that BHA can be “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

The European Commission has placed BHA as a category 1 potential endocrine disruptor based on 'evidence' that it 'interferes with hormone function' in at least one living organism.

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

It indeed does - however after years of being around gyms, I've grown an intense love-hate relationship with them; Not to mention a great level of mistrust towards PTs/ instructors.

In the end, exercise is something only a small subset of people actually enjoy, for all the others it actually adds stress - about the exercise itself, about feeling tired, wrecked and with parts of your body in constant pain, about results or lack thereof.

I've known lads going to the gym like 6 times a week for 2 hours each session - that's more than some professional athletes train.

The biggest issue however has to be is the associated chemical crap - protein shakes, "muscle juice" (fancy way to label steroids, basically), integrators of dubious source. I mean, we got to a level where a feckin' water bottle is now called an "hydrator", ffs...

I always find it disgusting to consider that in the same world in which children are forced to live as adults due to the poverty they are born into, there are realms of mentally disaffected western men trying to make themselves feel better by self-indulgently obsessing over their physiques and image, going to gym the whole time, eating lots of high-protein food that takes lots of energy to produce and going around in the kinds of clothes and hairstyles which 15 years ago they would have looked on with contempt. And then sharing images of themselves on social media as if others want to see them.

One thing is for sure about the lower sperm count thing - something is causing it, and the sooner we all eliminate that socially-conditioned impulse to label as a "conspiracy theory" any hypothesis that involves stuff like raised estrogen from hops, birth control pills or whatever, the sooner we can figure it out and put it right.

^ on reflection, a vitriolic post but it is something that I have noticed hugely in recent times, men being way way way more conscious of their appearance, fitness, musclature etc. than 10, 15, 20 years ago and my immediate instincts are a) this is a bad thing and b) what are the ultimate causes for this. It becomes a postiive feedback loop - the more other men seem to be fixated on their physiques, the worse other men feel about their physiques, and the more inclined they are to become obsessed with improving them etc.

H3llR4iser

Deleted User wrote: »

^ on reflection, a vitriolic post but it is something that I have noticed hugely in recent times, men being way way way more conscious of their appearance, fitness, musclature etc. than 10, 15, 20 years ago and my immediate instincts are a) this is a bad thing and b) what are the ultimate causes for this. It becomes a postiive feedback loop - the more other men seem to be fixated on their physiques, the worse other men feel about their physiques, and the more inclined they are to become obsessed with improving them etc.

Well, all it takes is to go watch some movies from the '80s - almost nobody had any visible muscle, and we're talking about sex-symbol actors; Stallone in Rambo was considered extraordinary, today a lot of people would say he's just "skinny" (as in, low body fat to show skin "ripped" around muscles).

There was a funny realization of this on Top Gear, when Matt Leblanc was a guest for the first time - they showed a clip of his much smaller self in "Friends", and Clarkson commented "back when nobody had any muscle tone!".

Many times I've stated how the pressure on "male looks" gets unjustifiably brushed under the carpet with the excuse that "women have it worse". We're going to be in a fairly bad place, if we keep going the same way...

silverharp

at the same time though how many men do you actually come across that are so ripped you actually notice? its a very small number. Most guys do sports/activities which are more cardio, soccer, jogging, cycling etc. careful not to watch too much jersey shore

H3llR4iser

silverharp wrote: »

at the same time though how many men do you actually come across that are so ripped you actually notice? its a very small number. Most guys do sports/activities which are more cardio, soccer, jogging, cycling etc. careful not to watch too much jersey shore

No Jersey Shore involved; You don't need to find people that are "ripped" to realize a good chunk of men 40 and younger "lift" - you just need to look around; It's not rare at all to find guys with fairly developed arms and shoulders (most skip legs day, but that's a different story ).

There's no comparison with even just 15 years ago, when somebody with a hint of a bicep would automatically be called "Mr. Clean" :P

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

No Jersey Shore involved; You don't need to find people that are "ripped" to realize a good chunk of men 40 and younger "lift" - you just need to look around; It's not rare at all to find guys with fairly developed arms and shoulders (most skip legs day, but that's a different story ).

There's no comparison with even just 15 years ago, when somebody with a hint of a bicep would automatically be called "Mr. Clean" :P

People used to look in awe at those who were exceptionally fit or strong - now people expect such fitness and strength of themselves and don't think of themselves as being anything special for having it (and technically nowadays they aren't). The bar has been raised all around and we have no choice but to take part in this arms race (no pun intended) just to be seen as normal, or don't take part in this arms race and be normal by the standards of 15 years ago, but inferior by the standards of the last 5 - 10 years. At least 15 years ago if you were extremely fit or athletic you stood out from the crowd and could acquire admiration for it - nowdays I don't even notice if another lad is ripped because it is so common.

marcus001

Male testosterone levels are also half of what they were in the 50s. I think this is down to the average man being overweight with a poor diet. I haven't had mine checked but I'm in fairly good shape and eat well so I might have blood work done and see how I stack up against my grandfathers generation.

marcus001

jsms88 wrote: »

Yea, it's a major thing these days. There's as much appearance pressure on guys to be big and muscly ("shredded" or "ripped" as they call it) as there is on girls to be beautiful or whatever.

They're downing protein and lifting weights in their early teens, which are both harmful at that age. But the way it's gone, it's a case of get a 6-pack at all costs.

All of that has to be screwing with testosterone levels etc.

Utter nonsense. Protein shakes is literally just whey, which is a dairy extract. Lifting weights is good for you. It makes you stronger. The earlier you start the better, really. All the stuff about weight lifting being bad for teens is pseudoscience, most if it is old recycled steroid myths like it "stunts your growth" etc.

Young men who are told not to lift weights are being done a disservice.

I do t think young lads feeling pressure to have muscles is as bad as beuty standards for women. Men fulfill male beauty standards by looking fit and healthy and by eating more not less. Women are pressured to starve themselves to drop dress sizes. Its not the same at all.

Blacktie.

marcus001 wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Protein shakes is literally just whey, which is a dairy extract. Lifting weights is good for you. It makes you stronger. The earlier you start the better, really. All the stuff about weight lifting being bad for teens is pseudoscience, most if it is old recycled steroid myths like it "stunts your growth" etc.

Young men who are told not to lift weights are being done a disservice.

I do t think young lads feeling pressure to have muscles is as bad as beuty standards for women. Men fulfill male beauty standards by looking fit and healthy and by eating more not less. Women are pressured to starve themselves to drop dress sizes. Its not the same at all.

In total agreement here. Someone above mentioning muscle juice as basically steroids is really showing their own ignorance on the topic of diet. It plays a huge role in hormone regulation and our high carb, high fat diet with a sedentary lifestlye has a huge impact.

4068ac1elhodqr

Blacktie. wrote: »

In total agreement here. Someone above mentioning muscle juice as basically steroids is really showing their own ignorance on the topic of diet. It plays a huge role in hormone regulation and our high carb, high fat diet with a sedentary lifestlye has a huge impact.

Agree also, Whey is usually considered as a 'waste product' during the milk making process, it contains no anabolics, just very very high isolated protein. Obviously a steady diet of 90% will tire out the internal organs.

Over-processing in the form of cessen and creatine is best used with caution, so too the use of any soya.

Lactose intolerant folks will opt for other sources: egg whites, rice, pea or hemp based protein shakes.

The unwise few that actually do go for high-risk artificial intravenous methods are easy to spot, they have mboobs.

Perhaps the best diet/lifestyle is that of the semi-nomadic caveman: animal fats and proteins. But also other omega fats from nuts, seeds, ancient grains with plenty of fish. Fruits(berries) and root vegetables also. Short periods of fasting may be useful, so too fresh air, structured water and climbing trees instead of climbing social media.

marcus001

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I managed to get myself to the gym fairly regularly when I was younger. It did help me but it ultimately felt like work so I ended up lapsing and packing it in which is a shame.

I've heard that Protein shakes aren't great for the Kidneys but I think they're fairly innocuous. I'd be much more concerned about steroids which by nature are designed to mess about with your body's very carefully honed growth regulatory system.



Daily Mail "Science". I think we're safe for now.

Again not true. This myth comes from a single piece of research which showed that high protein intake had negative effects on people who already had kidney problems. There's no peer reviewed research which shows this to be a problem for athletes or people otherwise healthy organs.

marcus001

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The fact that you need to resort to this sort of lazy strawman just discredits your point to be honest. The Bible is one of the most read books in the world but that doesn't make it true.

Rohan Acidic Pumpkin wrote: »

Or the fact you 'dismiss the sender (ignoring the source)', discredits you via your own media preference/prejudice?

Lads, a lot of these pissing contests would be solved if people would just read the damn link that was posted. The Daily Mail IS a rag but it's reporting on an actual study, so just click through to the study and don't start a pointless back and forth about sources.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why not post the original study then instead of sensationalism from a tabloid rag?

Why not just read the original study instead of starting a pointless argument?

ancapailldorcha

marcus001 wrote: »

Lads, a lot of these pissing contests would be solved if people would just read the damn link that was posted. The Daily Mail IS a rag but it's reporting on an actual study, so just click through to the study and don't start a pointless back and forth about sources.

I ended up reading it. It's the usual DM drivel. I didn't cite the study so I see no reason why I should bother trawling through the internet to substantiate someone else's point.

marcus001

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I ended up reading it. It's the usual DM drivel. I didn't cite the study so I see no reason why I should bother trawling through the internet to substantiate someone else's point.

Mind posting it here?

ancapailldorcha

marcus001 wrote: »

Mind posting it here?

I'll let the guy who made the claim do that. The Daily Mail link has already been posted.

marcus001

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'll let the guy who made the claim do that. The Daily Mail link has already been posted.

Don't be a dick I want to read it.

ancapailldorcha

marcus001 wrote: »

Don't be a dick I want to read it.

I don't know where it is, assuming that it even exists. You'll have to ask Accumulator who decided not to post it.

There's nearly a whole page on this one article now which was only ever peripherally related to the topic to begin with so I think I'm done with this.

Wibbs

marcus001 wrote: »

Don't be a dick

Take your own counsel and dial the snark back please.

4068ac1elhodqr

The article link to the DailyMail was posted on previous post, but here is the actual study anyway:
https://www.cedars-sinai.edu/About-Us/News/News-Releases-2017/Study-Shows-How-Food-Preservatives-May-Disrupt-Human-Hormones-and-Promote-Obesity.aspx\
There are plenty of other articles on this same compound study and including scientificamerican.com. It's also restricted by the FDA, the EC consider it 'hormone disruptive'.

That's one single preservative by the way, plenty of other agents are considered as hormone disruptive. 'Bisphenol a' is one most Western people come into contact on an almost daily basis. Everyday lotions and potions are full of plastic based chemicals. Even basic Soya isn't great. Then there is of course modern wifi and pocket phones on 2.4ghz, who knows what they do to your levels.

The side-issue was that: Some folks are happy to 'dismiss outright' a story in the most read on-line newspaper in the world, in favour of much, much smaller newspapers, perhaps these smaller newspapers suit their political or ideological beliefs much better. Hardly open-minded.