My balls are 50% micro plastic!
post
Now measure just the group doing regular exercise and avoiding junk food.
I tend to agree with your sentiment here.
What is the increase in obese/overweight men now vs. 50 years ago?
Exercise daily with 4 days of lifting, free test levels were a third of what they should be.
Found the dude who thinks his testosterone is high. 🤪
Uh... but that's actually how this works...
Found the dude who thinks his testosterone is high. 🤪
Sensing just a bit of projected insecurity here.
You sense incorrectly. You sense only yourself.
Oh very convincing. I wonder if you're really trying to convince me or just yourself. So then... you're denying known medical science? Not sure which explanation for your comment is sillier.
Do you think you’re winning? Do you think there is a trophy to win? You might have the most testosterone of anyone on earth. Makes sense. Science. Word. Statement. Source.
I can't tell if you're asking for a source on the claim that physical activity and diet impact testosterone levels, but here:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4706091/
My conspiracy theory is that declining birthrates aren't actually caused just by personal choices and trends like women becoming more educated. My conspiracy theory is that global birth rates are actually plummeting due to industrial pollution, and it's being blamed on individual actions and choices rather than the actual environmental problems at the root of it.
And the general destruction of the middle class. My parents were teen parents and while it was tough, they could afford it. I can't afford a kid at all, and I've worked my ass off.
But yeah, stress, depression, fear, anger, chemical and hormonal imbalances, climate change, fascism, overworked and underpaid bs, attacks on bodily autonomy, surveillance and tracking, the death of 3rd places, the poverty of free time, unaffordable housing, unaffordable transportation, hours-long commutes, staggering wealth inequality, state violence, white nationalists endless wars, etc... I don't blame anybody for putting off or entirely deciding against having children
Just like climate change. It's happening because you didn't recycle that can, not because of the hundreds of open cut mines approved by bribed politicians.
I could see this being true, my personal conspiracy theory follows yours but is plastics specifically. In 50 years we'll look back on the age of plastic the same way we look back at leaded gas or asbestos.
There's the whole endocrine inhibitor plastic contamination of literally everything thing.
But surely a hormone blocking compound being present in all foods, ground water, soil, oceans and atmosphere wouldn't be related to this.
That's the thing. I know that it's usually said that women's education is the best predictor of declining birth rates, but I can imagine women's education rates being highly correlated with levels of endocrine disruptive chemical exposure. When countries adopt modern cultural norms, they also tend to start using a lot more plastic and other artificial materials.
Iirc, some plastics can act similar to estrogen... so your theory probably holds more truth than you like.
Yea I agree we know bpa and other chemicals mimic estrogen when metabolized. Interesting that having a lot less children might be the only way to save our planet from total destruction. Ironic
Could also be epigenetic effects that we currently do not well understand.
Turns out that you actually can and do sort of pass on the cumulative effects of what has happened to you before you reproduce. And this does seem to include testosterone production.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11010-025-05366-0
Now that's paywalled, but the abstract seems to me to indicate that at least broadly... this is probably part of the puzzle.
Stress, your metabolic state due to your diet (of ultra processed foods), environmental pollutants, things like that... may significantly contribute to how much T your offspring are gonna be making.
I often wonder if there is an epigenetic marker carried along that says "THERE ARE 8 BILLION OF US NOW. LET'S TONE THAT DOWN A LITTLE OK"
Well maybe not epigenetic, but look up the so called 'Mouse Utopia Experiment'.
Basically, when you entirely remove the ability of social mammals to feel like they are actively doing something to succeed in that society... social dynamics invert and social instincts basically now work in an ultimately destructive way.
The mice become territorial despite there being enough resources for all of them.
Extreme mating selection pressure basically causes incels, weaker mice that aren't allowed to mate, that stronger male mice just basically attack for sport.
Then you get looksmaxxers, 'the beautiful ones', some of the incel male mice switch to just preening themselves all the time, never breed, but never try to, so they don't get attacked.
Female mice stop caring for their children, become more polyamorous.
More male become gay or bi. Sometimes consensually, sometimes not, as part of an assault.
As more generations come into being, they learn the behaviors of their parents, of the mice in their environment, and thus basically stop acting like 'normal' mice.
... this all results in an extremely hostile social dynamic that ultimately leads to basically what would be called a slew of mental/behavioral disorders compared to your Gen 0 starter mice, and this leads to population collapse. Tons of unneccessary aggression, way way lower birth rates.
So ... in a situation of abundance, in a species that is evolutionarily hardwired to compete for dominance over scarce resources, thus creating a kind of hierarchy... well the instincts for that do not go away, despite them not actually being needed, strictly speaking.
And those instincts are what causes the population to... correct its overshoot, sort of, but in a catastrophic way.
I would posit that this is not perfectly analagous to humans... but broadly similar.
Theoretically, we have the sentience and sapience to truly realize that we have outgrown some of our instincts, and intentionally replace them with better ones.
In practice?
... TBD, I guess.
Like, imagine trying to explain the concept of a parasocial relationship a human nowadays may have with a streamer, or a massive super fan or brand loyalist to whatever company... try to explain that to a person from 1810.
You could explain it to them. People from 200 years ago are not 'stupider' than people now.
But they would still likely find the entire thing completely insane.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. The reduction in testosterone and sperm count are related to environmental factors. The average sperm count goes to 0 by 2045. I'm not sure why we're not talking about this more.
This is an interesting theory, you would need to find birthrates matching the industrial pollution rate, which my guess is it doesn't totally. I'm sure it's a measure of multiple factors where a big one is teenagers are having less sex and first sexual encounter is later. https://opa.hhs.gov/adolescent-health/adolescent-sexual-and-reproductive-health/data-and-statistics-on-adolescent-sexual-and-reproductive-health (Look at figure 1)
Don’t forget pervasive lead poisoning, it fucks up the baby basically day one by fucking up the neural crest.
can they get testosterone treatment or are they banning hrt and gender affirming care?
I see plenty of gender affirming care when I drive. There are big trucks everywhere
That's what so ridiculous about the trans debate, people are gonna get mad I'm wearing a dress when there are people out there tearing it up in giant trucks, revving motorcycles you can hear from MILES away, and I'm the problem? grow up, really
I was diagnosed with low testosterone a few years back. I told my doctor that I had no interest in having pimples and chasing girls when I was well into my 50s. Always had man boobs anyhow.
HRT and gender affirming care is only being banned from trans people not cis. Cis kids are allowed to go on puberty blockers and trans kids are not for example.
Nope. Most of those bans are blanket bans. They're banning contraceptives and other birth control methods from state to state. This is targeting Trans kids, but it doesn't require a child to identify trans, it just straight up bans it.
Because their base doesn't know the difference between a 13 yo trans kid, and a 13 yo cis kid with a hormonal imbalance.
in the article, likely Obesity and air pollution. Solution? (mine) banning cars adding bicycles and walkable cities. We'll not do that so
butthole stunning, ball and vagian maxxing it is /s
Possibly yet another crime against humanity corporations are just allowed to commit without consequences.
Strange. Does this affect the flavor?
It's fine, we don't need it, stop identifying yourself or defining your manhood based on a chemical.
Forget manhood or being a man. Testosterone has more effects than making people angry or horny. It can influence general mood, energy levels, weight and muscle control, and that's just the stuff off the top of my head. Women have, and need, some levels of testosterone, and men need some levels of estrogen. End point, we do in fact need testosterone.
Men have estrogen?
We have some. We don't need double.
Do you have any sort of medical training that would qualify you to say that?
I'm not the one giving out information, positioning myself as a source worthy of being listened to, but since you asked, yes. Do you understand the Socratic method? It should be assumed I'm a layman, if the other user has some sort of training or experience I'm certainly open to any information they might have.
What medical training do you have?
Extensive, I wonder how much the other poster has. I bet not enough or they wouldn't say dumb shit like "you have enough you don't need more" without running some blood tests, or at least giving a window of normal levels.
What about you? What's your medical background?
Considering testosterone's affect on aggression it might be a good thing to take it down a notch.
There is no proven connection between testosterone and aggression (assuming you weren't just making a joke, of course); https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018506X19304519, https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-aging-and-longevity/testosterone--what-it-does-and-doesnt-do, https://www.numan.com/low-testosterone/symptoms/is-there-a-link-between-testosterone-and-aggression.
Something I found interesting from https://www.hims.com/blog/does-testosterone-make-you-angry (but didn't really want to list as a source given it's from an inherently biased company; though, to be fair, it cites all its sources for the info. listed therein) was
Sometimes, testosterone’s reputation may function as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In one study, men who believed they had received testosterone became angrier and more aggressive during a task — even if they’d only received a placebo. Their expectations about how testosterone “should” make them feel seemed to drive their reactions more so than the hormone itself.
A similar experiment with women found the same result, but in reverse. Those who actually received testosterone (but weren’t told so) behaved more fairly and cooperatively in a bargaining game, while those who merely believed they had taken it (but had not) acted more selfishly and aggressive.
Rising levels of obesity and diabetes are expected to play a part, but the team behind the work suggest that environmental factors such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals – which can be found in various household items – and global heating could also be factors in the apparent striking decline.
Capitalism strikes again
endocrine-disrupting chemicals
that bullshit junk science just refuses to die.
global heating
That makes no sense.
ok everyone, go home! the armchair chemist/environmental scientist has spoken!
nothing to see here.
Having pleasantly cool nuts is good for your sperm production. I guess it probably does something similar for testosterone production.
That doesn't make sense to me. The difference would be noticeable depending on the country you live or season you are in.
Yeah, it was from a list of factors that contribute to an overall decrease. That doesn't mean that it affects everyone in the world, just that it is part of the reason for some of the decrease.
Given that the study was done on data that started at 1972, how do we know that testosterone levels weren’t just really high in the 70s?
Is it not published yet?
PS: Here it is: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/41/Supplement_1/deag083.202/8727608




all 16 comments