• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Are we all being poisoned?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 22 October 2009 - 04:55 PM


The percentages over just two decades are HUGE.

A Population-Level Decline in Serum Testosterone Levels in American Men
Thomas G. Travison, Andre B. Araujo, Amy B. O'Donnell, Varant Kupelian and John B. McKinlay New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Massachusetts 02472

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Thomas G. Travison, Ph.D., New England Research Institutes, 9 Galen Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02472. E-mail: ttravison@neriscience.com.

Context: Age-specific estimates of mean testosterone (T) concentrations appear to vary by year of observation and by birth cohort, and estimates of longitudinal declines in T typically outstrip cross-sectional decreases. These observations motivate a hypothesis of a population-level decrease in T over calendar time, independent of chronological aging.

Objective: The goal of this study was to establish the magnitude of population-level changes in serum T concentrations and the degree to which they are explained by secular changes in relative weight and other factors.

Design: We describe a prospective cohort study of health and endocrine functioning in randomly selected men of age 45–79 yr. We provide three data collection waves: baseline (T1: 1987–1999) and two follow-ups (T2: 1995–1997, T3: 2002–2004).

Setting: This was an observational study of randomly selected men residing in greater Boston, Massachusetts.

Participants: Data obtained from 1374, 906, and 489 men at T1, T2, and T3, respectively, totaling 2769 observations taken on 1532 men.

Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were serum total T and calculated bioavailable T.

Results: We observe a substantial age-independent decline in T that does not appear to be attributable to observed changes in explanatory factors, including health and lifestyle characteristics such as smoking and obesity. The estimated population-level declines are greater in magnitude than the cross-sectional declines in T typically associated with age.

Conclusions: These results indicate that recent years have seen a substantial, and as yet unrecognized, age-independent population-level decrease in T in American men, potentially attributable to birth cohort differences or to health or environmental effects not captured in observed data.


From http://www.ourstolen...avisonetal.html

In one of the largest study of its kind, Travison et al. report a population-wide decline in Massachusetts's men’s testosterone levels during the last 20 years that is not related to normal aging or to health and lifestyle factors known to influence testosterone levels.

They found that testosterone concentrations dropped about 1.2% per year, or about 17% overall, from 1987 to 2004. The downward trend was seen in both the population and in individuals over time.

The decline is consistent with other long-term trends in male reproductive health, including decreases in sperm quality and increases in testicular cancer, hypospadias and cryptorchidism.

The strongest association was observed in same-aged men from different sampling years. For example, a 65-year-old in 2002 had lower testosterone levels than a 65-year-old in 1987.

Lower concentrations of testosterone can increase a man’s risk for age-related diseases, depression and infertility.

Also, the younger and older men in the study experienced similar hormone declines that dropped faster than would be predicted by normal aging.

Context: In men, the hormone testosterone guides behavior and reproduction. It controls growth and development of sex organs and other typically male characteristics, such as facial hair and a deep voice.

Normally, levels fluctuate from conception through puberty then level out during adulthood before declining as men age. Some chronic health problems typically seen in older adults, such as diabetes, depression and obesity, are associated with lower testosterone levels.

Recent studies have that found environmental impacts on testosterone levels. For example, testosterone levels were lower in US Air Force veterans exposed to dioxins while spraying Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, as well as in men exposed to phthalates at work.

What did they do?

Travison et al. used blood hormone data and personal information collected from men living in Boston, MA, as part of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study (MMAS). The MMAS examined men’s health and endocrine function. Data were gathered during three home visits from 1987-89 (T1), 1995-97 (T2), and 2002-04 (T3). Total testosterone (TT) and serum sex hormone-binding globulin were measured in the blood and available testosterone (BT) was calculated. The men self-reported such things as basic demographics, health status, and smoking and alcohol use.

In this study, Travison et al. analyzed data from 1,532 men (1,383, 955, and 568, respectively, from T1, T2 and T3) that met age and birth year requirements. Participants ranged from 45 to 79 years old and were born between 1916 and 1945. The researchers excluded high and low T levels, missing data, and unidentified prostate cancer treatment. Within the sample, they calculated and compared three separate but related associations among concentration, age, and time. They looked at changes in testosterone concentrations in the group of men at different years and ages associated with T1, T2, and T3; testosterone declines in individual men as they aged during the study; and testosterone concentrations of men of the same age but in different years (age-matched).

What did they find?

Travison et al. found strong evidence of a decline of more than 1% per year in men’s blood testosterone levels during the last two decades. The graph to the right shows average levels for each for men of different ages in each of the three measurement periods (T1-T3).

Dotted lines are 95% confidence bands. Adapted from Travison et al.

Posted Image

The first comparison to make is that within a cohort, older men tend to have lower testosterone levels. Compare, for example, 80 yr old men in T3 compared to 60 yr old men.

The crucial comparison to make is from one cohort to the next, comparing men of the same age. For example, 60 yr old men during the first measurement period (red line, 1987-1989) had total testosterone levels over 500 ng/dL. Men aged 60 yrs old in the third cohort (blue line, measured 2002-2004) had TT below 450 ng/dL. There is no overlap between the confidence bands of T1 vs T3: T3 (measured 2002-2004) is always lower than T1.

The trend holds regardless of the men’s age. Similar declines over the 17 years were seen in all ages of men in the study.

Travison et al. note that the decline within the cohorts related to age is less than the decrease observed across cohorts. For example, men aged 70 in T1 had TT only 6% less than men aged 45 in the same cohort. But 60 yr old men in T3 had TT concentration approximately 13% lower than men the same age in T1.

To illustrate this point another way, Travison et al. compared the average decline of testosterone levels in T1 vs T2 as a function of age, and then contrast that with differences in testosterone between men of the same age in T1 vs T2. Note that T1 and T2 were only separated by 9 years. The average declines in T1 and T2 per decade of life were 17 and 20 ng/mL, respectively. But 65 yr old men in T2 had total testosterone levels 50 ng/mL lower than those in T1, even though the samples were separated by less than a decade.

Travison et al. then estimated the decline over time, from the first cohort to the third, for men of the same age (what they called the age-matched decline). They found that testosterone declined by 1.2% per year (95% CI 1.0% to 1.4%).

Bioavailable testosterone (BT) also showed similar declines over time. The strongest associations again held for age-matched trends with declines of 1.3% per year (95% CI 1.7% - 1.1%).

None of the health and lifestyle factors examined were associated with either age-matched declines in either TT or BT: The age-matched declines remained essentially the same after controlling for chronic illness, general health, medications, smoking, body mass index, employment, marital status, and other indicators.

Finally, the trends held when analyzing the data in a number of different ways, including by interview date, study cohort, restricting to men of certain ages or birth cohorts, and considering incomplete versus complete data.

What does it mean?

Travison et al. find that testosterone levels declined in Massachusetts men by approximately 1.2% per year from the late 1980s through 2004, controlling for the age of the men and other possible confounding variables.

This study is important because of its large sample size and long duration. Few studies have looked directly at testosterone levels over time.

The results are surprisingly consistent with another set of long-term human epidemiology studies. Those studies also show a long-term decline in male reproductive functions, such as <a href="http://www.ourstolen....htm">decreased sperm health and increased infertility, which are highly associated with or controlled by testosterone and other androgen hormones. The rate of decline reported in this study is roughly comparable to the rate of decline of sperm count reported first by Carlson et al. in 1992 and then reanalyzed by Swan et al.in 2000.

In commentary accompanying Travison et al.'s study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Dr. Shalender Bhasin (Boston Medical Center) writes: The data in this study are "important because they provide independent support for the concerns raised earlier about the reproductive health of men." ... "it would be unwise to dismiss these reports as mere statistical aberrations because of the potential threat these trends-- if confirmed-- pose to the survival of the human race and other living residents of our planet."


Edit: fixed broken link

Edited by niner, 24 October 2009 - 04:40 AM.


#2 thestuffjunky

  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • -1
  • Location:kent ohio

Posted 24 October 2009 - 03:29 AM

poisoned? well, i know that calcium and fluoride is put into ALL water systems in america...

ideally, flouride should only be used like it is in a tube of toothpaste and not really so much ingested.

flouride turns into a plaque-like substance in short time in the body. hence why it is used to be a layer over the teeth before plaque build-up occurs

i would consider that poison...

#3 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 October 2009 - 04:08 AM

poisoned? well, i know that calcium and fluoride is put into ALL water systems in america...

And have been for the better part of a century, while it appears that the bulk of the testosterone change has been much more recent. Surely there must be some more data out there from the zillions of men who have had T tests over the years. I'd like to see some more of the time course on this, then reasonable hypotheses could be drawn regarding cause. Endocrine disruptors would have to be very high on the list. The smoking gun would be correlations between tissue levels of specific endocrine disruptors (or other chemicals) and T levels. Is it possible that earlier exposure to something resulted in later decline in T without the causative agent being present in measurable amounts? I suppose. It might also be due to watching Teletubbies, eating soy, and standing too close to the microwave while talking on a cell phone. And amalgam fillings.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,058 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 24 October 2009 - 02:23 PM

Niner, you mentioned soy, which is a estrogen analogue? Perhaps a small part of the equation? At the same time this is happening, women are hitting puberty much earlier, which has been linked by some to endocrine analogues in the diet.

#5 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:22 PM

Artificial hormones are used heavily in the production of meat and milk. Furthermore, as everyone has probably heard by now, many plastics leach a chemical called BPA which is known to be estrogenic.

As for the water, niner is very correct that fluoridation has been going on for a century whereas the declining levels of T are recent. I think it might have something to do with changes in diet as a result of increasing consumption of increasingly processed meat. Meat consumption has risen over these same years. We have also seen an increase in the consumption of fried, starchy foods. Both of these things are known to make you fat, which in turn screws up your hormones.

Our obesity problem and the declining testosterone problem are probably one and the same thing.

#6 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:51 PM

Our obesity problem and the declining testosterone problem are probably one and the same thing.


No, they claim they compensated for that.

#7 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:37 PM

Our obesity problem and the declining testosterone problem are probably one and the same thing.


No, they claim they compensated for that.


hrmmm interesting. BPA is supposed to have a minor effect and takes years to become significant. So I think it must be more than that.

They used to feed synthetic estrogen to cattle to increase their mass, but this practice was banned in the 70s, however there are a handful of other artificial hormones which are still used.

I also heard that we end up flushing down pharmaceuticals when we excrete them, and they show up in small amounts (a few parts per billion) in the water.

Other recent developments include GMOs and increased pesticide use. Check this out:

http://holyhormones....-modified-food/

I try to eat organic and vegetarian food, and I have noticed improvements in a range of health issues.... eosiniphilic esophagitis, hayfever, acne, etc.

For the record, I have low testosterone, and I am not fat. So if this study is correct, and there is some environmental factor, this issue is very important to me. (though my sexual performance, muscle mass, and estrogen levels all seem normal, so this might just be the way I was born)

Edited by progressive, 24 October 2009 - 09:42 PM.


#8 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 24 October 2009 - 11:55 PM

Experimental animal studies have demonstrated that exposure to some phthalates may be associated with altered endocrine function and adverse effects on male reproductive development and function, but human studies are limited. In the present study, urine and serum samples were collected from 425 men recruited through a US infertility clinic. Urinary concentrations of mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP), the hydrolytic metabolite of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), and other phthalate monoester metabolites were measured, along with serum levels of testosterone, estradiol, sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG), follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, inhibin B, and prolactin. Two oxidized urinary metabolites of DEHP were also measured in urine from 221 of the men. In multiple regression models adjusted for potential confounders, MEHP was inversely associated with testosterone, estradiol, and free androgen index (FAI). An interquartile range increase in MEHP was associated with 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], –6.8% to –0.5%) and 6.8% (95% CI, –11.2% to –2.4%) declines in testosterone and estradiol, respectively, relative to the population median hormone levels. There was limited evidence for effect modification of the inverse association between MEHP and FAI by the proportion of DEHP metabolites in the urine measured as MEHP (MEHP%), which is considered a phenotypic marker of less efficient metabolism of DEHP to its oxidized metabolites. Finally, the ratio of testosterone to estradiol was positively associated with MEHP (P = .07) and MEHP% (P = .007), suggesting potential relationships with aromatase suppression. In conclusion, these results suggest that urinary metabolites of DEHP are inversely associated with circulating steroid hormone levels in adult men. However, additional research is needed to confirm these findings.
http://www.andrology...stract/30/3/287

BACKGROUND: Phthalates impair rodent testicular function and have been associated with anti-androgenic effects in humans, including decreased testosterone levels. Low testosterone in adult human males has been associated with increased prevalence of obesity, insulin resistance, and diabetes. OBJECTIVES: Our objective in this study was to investigate phthalate exposure and its associations with abdominal obesity and insulin resistance. METHODS: Subjects were adult U.S. male participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2002. We modeled six phthalate metabolites with prevalent exposure and known or suspected antiandrogenic activity as predictors of waist circumference and log-transformed homeostatic model assessment (HOMA; a measure of insulin resistance) using multiple linear regression, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, fat and total calorie consumption, physical activity level, serum cotinine, and urine creatinine (model 1); and adjusted for model 1 covariates plus measures of renal and hepatic function (model 2). Metabolites were mono-butyl phthalates (MBP), mono-ethyl phthalate (MEP), mono-(2-ethyl)-hexyl phthalate (MEHP), mono-benzyl phthalate (MBzP), mono-(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl) phthalate (MEHHP), and mono-(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (MEOHP). RESULTS: In model 1, four metabolites were associated with increased waist circumference (MBzP, MEHHP, MEOHP, and MEP; p-values </= 0.013) and three with increased HOMA (MBP, MBzP, and MEP; p-values </= 0.011). When we also adjusted for renal and hepatic function, parameter estimates declined but all significant results remained so except HOMA-MBP. CONCLUSIONS: In this national cross-section of U.S. men, concentrations of several prevalent phthalate metabolites showed statistically significant correlations with abdominal obesity and insulin resistance. If confirmed by longitudinal studies, our findings would suggest that exposure to these phthalates may contribute to the population burden of obesity, insulin resistance, and related clinical disorders.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17589594

#9 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 25 October 2009 - 02:10 PM

What worries me is that this is just one obvious marker relating to one specific tissue.

I fear that people are being blinded by the term endocrine disruption. Sounds too delimited.

What if we call it a 20% organ failure?

What if multiple organs are failing to this extent?

#10 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 25 October 2009 - 10:59 PM

Christians want to reduce the amount of sexual activity in our species. Seems like they would welcome this trend.

#11 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 October 2009 - 11:02 PM

Thanks for the studies, Blue. Seems there are more problems with plastics that I was aware of. I'm happy I bought a stainless steel water bottle. As for microwaving my water for tea, I will use glass or ceramic from now on.

#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 11:13 PM

What worries me is that this is just one obvious marker relating to one specific tissue.

I fear that people are being blinded by the term endocrine disruption. Sounds too delimited.

What if we call it a 20% organ failure?

What if multiple organs are failing to this extent?

If other more critical organs experienced a 20% decline, you'd know about it. A 20% drop in T isn't noticeable for most people, until it makes the difference between being hypogonadal or not. On the other hand, a 20% loss of cardiac output would put quite a dent in things, I suspect. I don't mean to minimize the significance of the drop in T, I just think that other organs are not significantly compromised. (At least not in the early phases of T suppression.)

Edited by niner, 25 October 2009 - 11:25 PM.


#13 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 October 2009 - 01:52 PM

What if multiple organs are failing to this extent?

If other more critical organs experienced a 20% decline, you'd know about it.


Maybe we do. :)

I wonder if anyone has done a similar study for insulin levels.

Looking at people on the street, I suspect widespread disruption of pancreatic function.

I wish similar studies were available for adrenal function, neurotransmitters, pituitary products, and so on. I would be very surprised if the suspected systemic toxins mentioned already exclusively affected the gonads.

For life extensionists, this is pretty relevant. Any incremental advantages they might gain from supplements or CR are likely to be completely washed out by environmental toxicity effects if the latter are at 20%.

Edited by viveutvivas, 26 October 2009 - 01:54 PM.


#14 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 26 October 2009 - 06:32 PM

maybe men in the 80s did more steriods, and the few of them that ended up in that study skewed the average by 17%. Or the assay that was used in the 80s was 17% better or worse.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 26 October 2009 - 06:36 PM.


#15 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 26 October 2009 - 06:55 PM

maybe men in the 80s did more steriods...


Good for a laugh.

It's because people who grew up in the 30s or earlier (top line) ate more animal fat and less processed oil while growing up. In general a healthier diet.

Look at this graph:

from http://wholehealthso...pidemic_19.html

Stefan is actually discussing the heart disease epidemic.

Attached Files


Edited by rwac, 26 October 2009 - 07:01 PM.


#16 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 October 2009 - 07:52 PM

maybe men in the 80s did more steriods, and the few of them that ended up in that study skewed the average by 17%. Or the assay that was used in the 80s was 17% better or worse.


Probably not.

There are related studies at independent institutions showing declining mail fertility and increases in urogenital conditions that tend to support the study cited above.

#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 27 October 2009 - 06:39 AM

I wonder if anyone has done a similar study for insulin levels.

Looking at people on the street, I suspect widespread disruption of pancreatic function.

What leads you to suspect this? All the obesity? The increase in our national consumption of high fructose corn syrup has gone up during the same time frame that our consumption of animal fat has decreased, with about a ten-year offset. Our diet has seriously gone to hell during the same time that our T has dropped. I think that the drop in T is probably due to endocrine disruptors, and that is a serious problem. As far as the rest of our health is concerned, I think you first need to separate out the influence of our generally awful diet.

#18 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 27 October 2009 - 10:27 AM

Niner, you mentioned soy, which is a estrogen analogue? Perhaps a small part of the equation? At the same time this is happening, women are hitting puberty much earlier, which has been linked by some to endocrine analogues in the diet.


Exogenous estrogen administration would increase endogenous testosterone production. Perhaps men in the 80s consumed more estrogens :)

#19 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 27 October 2009 - 11:44 AM

Exogenous estrogen administration would increase endogenous testosterone production. Perhaps men in the 80s consumed more estrogens :)


No, exogenous estrogen will decrease endogenous testosterone thorugh HPTA (negative) feedback.

#20 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 08 November 2009 - 01:10 AM

Exogenous estrogen administration would increase endogenous testosterone production. Perhaps men in the 80s consumed more estrogens :|?


No, exogenous estrogen will decrease endogenous testosterone thorugh HPTA (negative) feedback.

Ah yes. You're absolutely right. I only considered the effect on the equilibrium around the aromatase enzyme.

I stand corrected

#21 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 November 2009 - 11:58 PM

maybe men in the 80s did more steriods...


Good for a laugh.

It's because people who grew up in the 30s or earlier (top line) ate more animal fat and less processed oil while growing up. In general a healthier diet.

Look at this graph:

from http://wholehealthso...pidemic_19.html

Stefan is actually discussing the heart disease epidemic.


The amount and composition of the fats, hormones, and toxins in meat have changed over the years as a result of changes in industrial farming processes (feeds, synthetic hormones, genetic engineering, etc) employed upon the animals. Also, meat consumption has not gone down, people are simply eating more birds and less cows. It is true we are also using more PUFAs as cooking oil and less animal fat. I have a feeling olive oil consumption is finally going up, slowly.

I think it is absolutely reckless on multiple levels to simply advocate animal products without any disclaimers. If one is inclined to eat meat, and not inclined to get fat and die, one needs to take certain precautions including ensuring organic and/or grass-fed sources, cuts with a healthy distribution of fatty acids (little palmitic acid, little omega-6, more omega-3, more lauric acid), proper cooking temperatures, proper marinades, and so forth.

Edited by progressive, 11 November 2009 - 12:20 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#22 shawn

  • Guest
  • 61 posts
  • -4

Posted 31 December 2009 - 11:32 PM

Nettle root is supposed to be good for men in that it makes the testosterone you produce more available for use.

Are we being poisoned?
Certainly.
There are lots of residues in the food chain that have never been in it before.
Plus the soil has not been properly cared for due to the modern chemical farming methods (coupled with the financial aspect) and so there is less trace elements which studies have showed we really do need after all.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users