Joined: 17 Sep 2006 Posts: 489 Location: A Wonderful World
Posted: Tue May 30, 2017 6:32 pm Post subject:
Here is some results.
At the start of this thread in 2014 I was a 'fat fuck' eating and drinking pretty much what I wanted, listening to the same old shit music, watching shit TV and was interested in footy and sports and 'distracting' shit.
I got to 103 KG.
Along came Fintan with that audio.
Hit with a few realisations like buying size 38 inch clothing, struggling to bend over to do up my shoelaces, and wondering why I couldnt see my dick because of this poxy big fat guts....I decided to try some stuff.
I did but I still liked cider and chocolate and chips and pizza.
Was kidding myself.
Anyway......August last year I revisited this thread. I was 98 KG.
I was listening to a lot of alternative views on life and heard one sentence that changed everything.
In the last 9 months I have shed nearly 20 kilos and am down to an awesome feeling mighty fine weight of 80 KGs. I'm 6 foot 1, so I have no gut and feel terrific.
The sentence that changed me.
"Get your mind right and your body will follow". Brilliant.
The dude went on and said - "you are an adult, use your fucking adult mind....you know what is good and isnt good for you, so stop justifying and rationalizing to yourself why you eat, drink and do what you do".
That was GOLD.
Out went ciders, shit food, sugar, carbs and the poisoning of the mind with banal, anal, fucked up bullshit.
I got into 'nutri bullet' goodness with strawberries, watermelon, oranges, apples, pineapple and mango.
Ate heaps of nuts and made awesome salads from fresh vegetables. Still had protein like chicken and red meat.
Would have a 'bullet' drink in the mid morning and then not eat till later in the afternoon.
This sort of 'fasting' was a key for me as well.
Exercised by pulling weeds out of my front lawn while listening to other peoples views on the fucked up planet we are living on at the moment.
Just got myself into a good head space and didnt make excuses.
And I have rolled on from there. Feel brilliant but also have realised the world we live in is run by crazy fuckers!
Anyway. Knowing what I know now, I can eat whatever I want, but heres the rub. You dont. Because it tastes like shit and your mind goes 'bugger off' we dont need that crap!
I do now have lots of lemon/apple cider vinegar/honey and ginger drinks.
Alcohol wise, I have Stolichnaya salted caramel vodka with sparkling mineral water and its sublime!
You know the funny part though?
So many people ask me what diet I used to lose my weight?
When I tell them "you just need to grow the fuck up and stop making excuses why you need to eat so much and eat so much shit, they straight away start justifying and rationalizing why they can't!!"
Weird world we live in.
Anyways, I dont get too distacted by the distractions anymore.
I do my thing and be the best I can.
Thanks again to Fintan and the BFN'ers for your help.
This site has always been a good way to put your mind on another level.
U.S. researchers find Roundup chemical in water, air
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - Significant levels of the world's most-used herbicide have been detected in air and water samples from two U.S. farm states, government scientists said on Wednesday, in groundbreaking research on the active ingredient in Monsanto Co's Roundup.
"It is out there in significant levels. It is out there consistently," said Paul Capel, environmental chemist and head of the agricultural chemicals team at the U.S. Geological Survey Office, part of the U.S. Department of Interior.....
Capel said glyphosate, the key ingredient in "Roundup" herbicide, was found in every stream sample examined in Mississippi in a two-year period and in most air samples taken. Tests were also done in Iowa.
"So people are exposed to it through inhalation," said Capel.
The research did not look at the impact of the glyphosate in the air and water; the purpose was purely to determine exposure.
IT'S RAINING ROUNDUP - Glyphosate weedkiller is a global toxin.
Even organic food is contaminated. You are peeing it out daily.
It's in breast milk. It's now the key cause of disease.
"Somewhere between 2030 and 2045 — a mere 13 to 28 years from now
— autism is projected to affect 1 in 3 children. At that point, it will be
impossible to maintain human productivity in any given sector. Society
as we know it will collapse. "
Below is the motherlode information on declining human health
and how to protect yourself in an industrial food environment.
Dr. Zach Bush being interviewed by Dr. Mercola:
Below is a highlights transcript. But there's no substitute
for watching the whole video above. Jaw-dropping stuff.
How Soil Microbes and Intercellular Communication Affects Human Health
April 09, 2017 • 255,099 views
By Dr. Mercola
Your health is in large part determined by the health of the soil in which your food is grown. In this interview, Dr. Zach Bush delves into the many reasons why this is so.
Bush, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology and metabolism, and hospice and palliative care has done some fascinating and innovative research in this area and is one of the brightest physicians I have ever met.
He began his career as a conventional cancer researcher funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
When his funding dried up following the 2008-2010 recession, Bush transitioned into nutrition, eventually coming to understand how chronic inflammation and loss of intercellular communication is at the core of all disease, and why so many of our foods have lost their medicinal value.
His science team's work has contributed to the new science of micro-RNA, the result of all that "junk" DNA in your body (accounting for more than 90 percent of the DNA sequences in your genome).
As it turns out, this "junk" DNA and the resulting micro-RNA play an absolutely crucial role in regulating the 25,000 genes that actually make the proteins that build your body. The micro-RNA function as "on/off" switches for the genes. Depending on the micro-RNA input, a single gene can code for any of more than 200 protein products.
What's more, 30 percent of the micro-RNA switches that regulate genes' production of proteins do not have a human source — they're from the bacteria and fungi obtained from your food and environment. Truly, this interview is one you will not want to miss! So, sit back, have a listen and prepare to be blown away.
The Road From Cancer Research to Nutrition
During his endocrinology and metabolism fellowship, Bush was managing diabetes, autoimmune disorders, metabolic disorders and infertility in his clinic; in his research role at the University of Virginia, he focused on cellular biology research, looking at novel mechanisms by which cancer cells can kill themselves.
It's a commonly held view that cancer involves a battle between your immune system and the cancer cells; however, Bush's research demonstrated the critical role of cancer-cell suicide in the body's management of cancer.
The redox (reduction and oxidation) communication molecules are the foundation of this important response system.
As long as there's sufficient cell-to-cell communication, the cancer cells should recognize that they're damaged beyond the point of repair and commit suicide, a process called apoptosis, or programmed cell death.
So why does that process fail in so many people? And beyond cancer, why are so many people struggling with so many chronic illnesses?
"We were seeing this explosion of type 2 diabetes, obesity, metabolic collapse, cardiovascular disease and, of course, cancer … It ended up being patients that [changed] my 17 years of intense academic training in cellular biology. I started thinking … there's got to be a better mechanism by which to [treat] this …
[In] clinic … I was using more and more pharmaceutical drugs to tackle [diabetes]. [But] it doesn't take long to realize there are huge downsides to the pharmaceutical approach. There are huge limitations to efficacy. There's enormous toxicity …
[P]atients were looking great on paper — blood sugars would come down — but they were getting worse clinically. More edema, more weight gain, more fatigue, more depression. Every ounce of insulin I put them on was more disease. It was this Catch-22 situation.
It was my patients that started to help me out of that box that was … starting to get me very depressed. It was really these root-cause questions my patients were asking that I felt incredibly unequipped to answer …
Ultimately, they had an intuitive knowledge that … food must have something to do with it. I kept sending them to the diabetes educators who would teach them a low-carb diet. It turns out that type 2 diabetes is not caused by carbohydrates."
Disease Is Loss of Cell-to-Cell Communication
Bush realized something was terribly wrong with the dietary recommendations his patients were receiving when they kept getting worse despite being fully compliant with the diet.
One of the first tip-offs that something was wrong with the patient education system was when he realized that hotdogs were listed as an acceptable staple diabetic food in the nutrition material they were receiving from the dieticians at the university.
"I had these patients that were eating, [for] breakfast, lunch and dinner, hotdogs with no buns," he says. "They thought they were now on a healthy diet because they were eating no carbs. This was the first red flag … That hotdogs are even on anybody's list of nutritious foods is somewhat dumbfounding.
That it could somehow be interpreted as the only food they should be eating was truly amazing. Those were some of the foundational cracks. But I felt profoundly unprepared to start to enter into that diet or nutrition conversation because I had no training in it …
Our [medical] education is so slanted away from lifestyle and … toward pharmaceutical management of chronic disease. Then, really, the blinders came off."
In a nutshell, Bush discovered that the process occurring in necrotic tissue, such as that of a diabetic ulcer, behaved almost identically to cancer cells viewed under a microscope.
"I said, 'My gosh. There's no such thing as diabetic ulcers. There's no such thing as cancer. There's no such thing as disease. There's only a loss of cell-cell communication,'" he says. "There's only a loss and isolation … that leads to this broken state … That was a huge transformational moment."
The truth Bush discovered can be likened to the analogy of light and dark — you cannot have both in the same place. If you shine a light in the darkness, darkness disappears. Health is like the light, and if you have health, you're just not going to be sick.
The Chemoprotective Intelligence in Soil
Bush left academia in 2010 to enter the world of nutrition. He opened a plant-based nutrition clinic to reach out to one of the poorest counties in Virginia, figuring if he could make a difference here, the same principles could be applied anywhere.
"I was just pounding my patients with the best nutrients I could find in the garden and helping them learn how to grow food. Frustratingly, there was a good 40, 50 percent of them that weren't responding in the right direction.
There was this amazing miracle happening to the 40 percent of them where conditions of decades were just melting away under the force of nutrition. But then there was this huge percentage that no matter how much nutrition we tried to bring to the plate, they were getting worse, not better."
He began questioning the science on nutrients' impact on mitochondrial metabolism. Then, a colleague named William Vitalis brought in a 90-page white paper on soil science, which led to another breakthrough in thinking.
"Around page 40, there's this big picture of a molecule sitting there that stopped me in my tracks … The blinders came down for a moment and I said, 'That looks a lot like the chemotherapy I used to be making. What is that doing in soil?' That was the moment we started turning our attention to the possibility that there was intelligence in the soil," Bush says.
One factor contributing to our rising cancer burden is the fact we've been using industrial farming practices for close to a century — practices that decimate the soil by disturbing and killing the microbes therein. We've essentially undermined public health from the roots up. If you don't have healthy soil, you can't grow healthy foods because the necessary micronutrients aren't there. As a result, even if you think you're eating some of the healthiest foods available, you're going to be deficient in micronutrients.
As noted by Bush, plant health correlates to and parallels human health. One of the very first things that happens when a plant is lacking in nutrients is that it will be attacked by pests. The same phenomenon occurs in your body. Conventional farming addresses this problem with chemical pesticides. In humans, we address it with antibiotics. However, both lead to resistance, and the more drug-resistant these microbes get, the worse the disease gets.
How Glyphosate Has Decimated the Medicinal Value of Food
In 1976, glyphosate was introduced. This is the active ingredient in a vast majority of weed killers on the market today, including Roundup®. However, this chemical does not selectively kill weeds. Any plant sprayed with this chemical will die — which is why Monsanto and other pesticide producers came up with the idea of creating herbicide-resistant plants through genetic engineering.
"It's worthwhile noting why it kills plants," Bush says. "Glyphosate blocks an enzyme pathway … called the shikimate pathway. These enzymes are responsible for making some of the most important compounds in food [including] ringed carbon structures, such as tryptophan, that are the backbone of hormones.
If you take away tryptophan from the plant chain or the plant kingdom by killing this pathway in bacteria and plants, the plant cannot make these essential signaling molecules … It wipes out about four to six of the essential amino acids, which are the building blocks for all proteins in your body … There are only 26 amino acids. You take away four to six of those [and] you just lost a huge percentage of biology.
But that's just the beginning of the problem that we're talking about in nutrition. This is, I really believe, the answer to why we were feeding all these healthy foods to our patients [yet] not seeing health benefits: There's a family of compounds called alkaloids … [When you] remove the alkaloids from food, what you see is the disease burst we have going on across so many organ systems in our bodies.
There's a family of [alkaloids] that are anti-parasitic … [others] are antidiabetic … anticancer … antihypertensive … anti-mood disorder … antiasthma, anti-eczema type of compounds. You go through the list of alkaloids and [realize that if you add a] chemical to our food chain that wipes out the production of [alkaloids] …
we [lose] the medicinal quality of food that has existed for thousands of years … [By using glyphosate] we robbed the soil and the plant from the ability to make these essential medicinal [compounds]."
According to Monsanto, glyphosate cannot affect human health because humans do not have the shikimate pathway. However, human gut bacteria do, as do soil bacteria and plants. Moreover, the human body cannot make its own alkaloids and essential amino acids. You must get these compounds from plant foods that feed off bacteria in the soil.
Glyphosate Is a Major Health Threat
Glyphosate also disrupts intercellular communication, which is at the heart of virtually all disease. To understand this, you first need to understand that bacteria, fungi and other microbes work in concert — there are relationships at play where certain ones help keep others in check. Unfortunately, since the discovery of penicillin we've essentially waged war against bacteria, with antibiotics often considered cure-alls by doctors and patients alike.
An estimated 7.7 million pounds of antibiotics are prescribed to Americans every year, equaling over 800 prescriptions for every 1,000 individuals. Since the 1960s, antibiotics have also been added to animal feed to promote faster weight gain. An estimated 300 milligrams of antibiotics are used for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of beef produced, totaling nearly 30 million pounds per year.
In addition, farmers also use 5 billion pounds (over 2 billion kilograms) of glyphosate per year, worldwide, making glyphosate weed killers the most prevalent antibiotic on the planet.
In fact, that was part of the original glyphosate patent, stating its function to kill soil bacteria. So, antibiotics are used in medicine, meat production and on plant crops. By using glyphosate on our crops, neither the soil nor the plants can produce the medicinal alkaloids or any of the essential amino acids your body requires, and this appears to be a major part of why more than half of Americans are chronically ill.
"Glyphosate … is an organophosphate. [It is] called glyphosate because its backbone is glycine, which is one of the most essential amino acids that's extremely rich in your extracellular matrix … Your extracellular matrix, your neurons and many tissues rely on glycine as an amino acid building block. Glyphosate is glycine with a phosphate tagged on the end of it, and an amine, which is a carbon oxygen compound, on the other …
Organophosphate molecules are a toxin that tragically is water soluble. For a biochemist, this is … Dante's hell opening up … Because if you have a water-soluble toxin … it's now infiltrated every sector of the water cycle … 75 percent of the rainfall [is] contaminated with glyphosate …
As consumers, we are waking up to reality … We're eating organic food … Yet, if it rained on [that] crop, you've got glyphosate contamination. [The] whole ecosystem is contaminated with a chemical that is an antibiotic."
Based on environmental levels, typical glyphosate exposure through diet is thought to be anywhere from 1 part per million (ppm) up to 40 ppm, depending on the food or water source, with an average intake per human in the 5-50 mg of glyphosate per day. Testing has revealed that women's breast milk can contain 760 to 1,600 times the amount of glyphosate allowed in European water systems, even if the mother is trying to avoid glyphosate contamination.
This is a true testament to how pernicious this chemical has become. When you combine glyphosate-contaminated breast milk with the sterile C-section birth, which prevents the infant from being properly exposed to its mother's microbiome, you have a perfect recipe for health disaster.
How Glyphosate Promotes Whole-Body Toxicity
Bush's team discovered bacterial communication molecules in soil in 2012. As they began to study the effects of this communication network in the human gut environment, they realized glyphosate's toxicity is closely linked to the lack of bacteria. This discovery brought many pieces of the puzzle together. As explained by Bush, the toxic effects of glyphosate in the human environment are directly tied to damage to specific protein structures in the gut and other membranes in the body.
"This protein is called tight junctions. It has multiple constituents, multiple little proteins that make up these large Velcro-like proteins that hook together and attach one microscopic cell to the next cell. [Starting] at your sinuses and [going] all the way to the rectum, you have a vast amount of cells that make up a single cohesive carpet or membrane or shield from the outside world — ideally.
That membrane … is your frontline of defense … It is a single-cell layer thick … The "Velcro" is loosened appropriately by biology to allow big macromolecules to come in and then it tightens up right behind. That is managed by a little protein we make in our body called zonulin. Zonulin is produced appropriately by molecules that need to get through the membrane. It touches the membrane [and] the gut epithelium makes zonulin. The zonulin opens up the tight junction …
Zonulin is the critical modulator of this permeability of the gut membrane. If zonulin starts to get overproduced and you can't check its production, it … leads to damage in the gut epithelium … All the gates open and everything it was supposed to keep out [in the intestines] is let in [to the bloodstream].
It turns out that zonulin is triggered very potently by glyphosate. What a sad story. Monsanto and other companies have been telling us, 'It's safe. You eat it and you'll pee it out at the same rate.' [But] that's really bad news. Because [to eliminate glyphosate it has] to not cross just the gut membrane, it has to cross the membrane of the hepatocyte, the liver cells; go from one bloodstream to the other [and] all the blood vessels are tied together with tight junctions.
Now you go to the blood-brain barrier — tied together with tight junctions. When that starts to leak, your brain's exposed. Then you get to the kidney, the critical organ for detox … It starts leaking. You can no longer build gradients to pull toxin out of the body … [Your] body just became a sponge for toxins and you live in a toxic world. This is how we have [the] disease rates we do today."
To Reverse Disease Rates, We Must Eliminate Glyphosate
One of the diseases heavily influenced by this gut permeability is autism. If the current trajectory continues, somewhere between 2030 and 2045 — a mere 13 to 28 years from now — autism is projected to affect 1 in 3 children. At that point, it will be impossible to maintain human productivity in any given sector. Society as we know it will collapse.
"There is no time for us to wait for legislation," Bush says. "If we don't band together and hurry up to get this message out there — that we have to stop spraying glyphosate right now — we're doomed." On the other end of the age spectrum we have Alzheimer's disease claiming our seniors at ever-growing rates — and that's if they live long enough to not die from cancer first.
"In my clinic, I see this almost on a monthly basis now … sarcomas in the bones or chronic bone marrow cancers. All these things that used to happen in 70, 80 or 90-year-old people are now happening in 5-year-old children, 3-year-old children. Not to mention the brain tumor epidemic that we have going on in children," Bush says.
Today, 1 in 2 adults also struggle with mental health problems. In 1900, that ratio was 1 in 100. All of these disease statistics and more correlate with dramatic changes to our food, specifically the loss of nutrients and medicinal qualities of our foods.
"Now, let's paint this all back to an amazing story of communication," Bush says. "What we found in 2012 is a bacterial communication molecule. There's a lot of complex biochemistry, but I want to boil this down to a nutshell. The word "redox" means reduction and oxidation … [R]eduction is the donation of an electron to an environment. Oxidation is the tearing away or removal of an electron. The most common oxidation you're used to seeing ... is rust … It's starting to erode itself …
Osteoarthritis, that's the rusting of a joint. Cardiovascular disease [is] the rusting of the vascular tree … What we discovered in 2012 was a redox molecule potential in soil made by bacteria. This was earth-shattering because all my cancer research had been on mitochondria.
Mitochondria look a lot like bacteria, but they're about 1,000 times smaller. They live inside your cells … Your neurons can have 3,000 mitochondria in a single nerve. The average across the whole body is about 200 mitochondria per human cell …
When mitochondria digest your food, they make balanced signaling of redox molecules. It's those redox molecules I was studying [when I said], 'Wow. We can use this communication network to empower a cancer cell to induce apoptosis' … Mitochondria rule the cancer cell if they make enough redox molecules. If they can get high enough oxidative stress in there, the cell will kill itself.
Fast-forward to 2012. What is that molecule in soil? Why is there redox potential in the soil? And then of course, bacteria don't have mitochondria. Only multicellular organisms … have mitochondria because we can't break down nutrients from the food by ourselves. We need the mitochondria to do that … Bacteria don't have mitochondria; therefore, they don't have all that redox signaling.
How do they balance an ecosystem of 40,000 species if they can't talk? The blow-my-mind moment of 2012 was, 'They are talking.' The bacteria are in communication. They know what balance looks like. They know how to change the system. To our shock, amazement and joy — I'm so glad to tell you this is all going to end on a good note, or at least an opportunity for us as humans to heal — … our bacterial communication network … [is] the antidote to glyphosate …"
Introducing a New View of Biology Where 'Junk' DNA Hold the Key to Health
For the first time, Bush and his team were studying human biology in the context of a fluid, fluent, robust bacterial communication system. They had never seen human cells in that environment under a microscope before, and it changed everything they believed about apoptosis, protein synthesis, genomics and more. As noted by Bush, "We never took into account the possibility that an ecosystem of fungi and bacteria could be dictating human cellular behavior in health."
Scientists have already concluded that environment is king when it comes to genetic expression. A single gene is now recognized to be able to make 200 different proteins depending on its environment. This was a total paradigm shift and really bad news for those banking on personalized medicine in the 90s, because this meant the genome is a warehouse of options waiting to respond to the environment; the human genes themselves are not determining the outcome of the biology.
If you calculate the possibility of one gene creating 200 outcomes and multiply that by 25,000 genes that code for proteins, there are many millions of potential health outcomes for your body — all based on the environment you provide. Now, the next generation of epigenetics is micro-RNA.
"In a classic move in science, we, as scientists, took a look at the genome and said, 'We only have 25,000 genes … that code for 200,000 proteins … We're only a little less than twice as complicated as the fruit fly when it comes to genes … But the stunning reality is that 90 percent of the DNA doesn't code for a gene that's going to code for protein — over 90 percent!
We just called that junk DNA … Well, in the last five years, it's become obvious that the junk DNA is doing something. Not surprisingly, it's the junk DNA that's actually regulating the 25,000 genes that actually make protein[s]. How does it do that? Each little strip of junk DNA makes a micro-RNA that's never going to code for protein. Instead, the micro-RNA functions as a switch. It now goes into the bloodstream and into other cells to turn on and off gene behavior.
The stunning reality of your ecosystem and human health is that 15 percent of the on and off switches in your bloodstream are not from you. They're from the bacteria in your gut and the bacteria you breathe. Another 15 percent are from the fungi in your environment. Thirty percent of the on and off switches that are determining what gene is going to code for what protein … [have] no human source …
What does this mean for us as humans? We have got to get back in touch with our ecosystem. We have got to get a complicated ecosystem back. We have got to stop taking antibiotics, for sure. We need to stop eating and spraying antibiotics all over our food and soil.
We have to stop disrespecting this normal balance of ecosystem. We need to start getting back outside … We have to make our workspaces look different. We have to really get people back out and inject ecosystem back into their day-to-day lives."
Bush has authored a book titled "Gut Biome," which is expected to be published this summer. If this interview has whet your appetite for more, do keep your eyes peeled for the release of that book. What we covered here is a mere fraction of the information Bush and his team have uncovered.
While the scope of the problems we face are beyond what most of us can even imagine, with this new understanding new solutions become apparent and, with that, new hope.
"What we see in the clinic is that as soon as you put this bacteria [in] communication, we're back into play," Bush says. "We outsourced our food. We outsourced our nutrition … I think we are responsible, each of us in a small way, for what Monsanto and the chemical companies became, because we stopped doing it ourselves.
We need to take back that control. How much power is that? We should be super empowered as consumers to say, 'With a little bit of collaboration, with a little bit of discussion, we can change everything.' That's what we'll do."
Gyphosate is a commonly used nonselective herbicide that inhibits plant growth through interference with the production of essential aromatic amino acids. In vivo studies in mammals with radiolabeled glyphosate have shown that 34% of radioactivity was associated with intestinal tissue 2 h after oral administration. The aim of our research was to investigate the transport, binding, and toxicity of glyphosate to the cultured human intestinal epithelial cell line, Caco‐2, and the rat small intestinal crypt‐derived cell line, ileum epithelial cells‐18 (IEC‐18 ). An in vitro analysis of the transport kinetics of [14C]‐glyphosate showed that 4 h after exposure, approximately 8% of radiolabeled glyphosate moved through the Caco‐2 monolayer in a dose‐dependent manner. Binding of glyphosate to cells was saturable and approximately 4 × 1011 binding sites/cell were estimated from bound [14C]. Exposure of Caco‐2 cells to ≥10 mg/ml glyphosate reduced transmembrane electrical resistance (TEER) by 82 to 96% and increased permeability to [3H]‐mannitol, indicating that paracellular permeability increased in glyphosate‐treated cells. At 10‐mg/ml glyphosate, both IEC‐18 and Caco‐2 cells showed disruption in the actin cytoskeleton. In Caco‐2 cells, significant lactate dehydrogenase leakage was observed when cells were exposed to 15 mg/ml of glyphosate. These data indicate that at doses >10 mg/ml, glyphosate significantly disrupts the barrier properties of cultured intestinal cells.
Sperm counts in the West plunge by 60% in 40 years
as ‘modern life’ damages men’s health
Ian Johnston Science Correspondent @montaukian
Tuesday 25 July 2017
Sperm counts have plunged by nearly 60 per cent in just 40 years among
men living in the West, according to a major review of scientific studies
that suggests the modern world is causing serious damage to men’s
Pesticides, hormone-disrupting chemicals, diet, stress, smoking and
obesity have all been “plausibly associated” with the problem, which is
associated with a range of other illnesses such as testicular cancer and
a generally increased mortality rate.
The researchers who carried out the review said the rate of decline had
showed no sign of “levelling off” in recent years.
The same trend was not seen in other parts of the world such as South America, Africa and Asia, although the scientists said fewer studies had been carried out there.
Writing in the journal Human Reproduction Update, the researchers – from Israel, the US, Denmark, Brazil and Spain – said total sperm count had fallen by 59.3 per cent between 1971 and 2011 in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. Sperm concentration fell by 52.4 per cent.
Chemicals linked to lowering sperm count include some used to make plastics more flexible and flame retardants used in furniture. These can enter the food chain after they are taken in by plants or eaten by animals.
A diet high in alcohol, caffeine, processed meat, soy and potatoes may also have an adverse effect on male fertility.
Aside from the obvious implications for reproduction, the researchers said the declines were consistent with reported trends in testicular cancer, the number of children born with one or both testicles missing, the onset of male puberty and total testosterone levels.
“The public health implications are even wider. Recent studies have shown that poor sperm count is associated with overall morbidity and mortality,” they added.
They called for urgent work to find out the reasons behind the decline, noting a few possible candidates.
“While the current study is not designed to provide direct information on the causes of the observed declines, sperm count has been plausibly associated with multiple environmental and lifestyle influences, both prenatally and in adult life,” the scientists said.
“In particular, endocrine disruption from chemical exposures or maternal smoking during critical windows of male reproductive development may play a role in prenatal life, while lifestyle changes and exposure to pesticides may play a role in adult life.
“Thus, a decline in sperm count might be considered as a ‘canary in the coal mine’ for male health across the lifespan. Our report of a continuing and robust decline should, therefore, trigger research into its causes, aiming for prevention.”
One of the team, Professor Shanna Swan, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said falling sperm counts had been “of great concern” since they were first noticed about 25 years ago.
She added: “This definitive study shows, for the first time, that this decline is strong and continuing.
“The fact that the decline is seen in Western countries strongly suggests that chemicals in commerce are playing a causal role in this trend.”.....
Professor Richard Sharpe, of Edinburgh University, said the “well-designed and statistically rigorous study” appeared to show that the decrease was “real beyond any reasonable doubt”.
“As the authors point out, the continuous nature of the decline is of as much concern as the decline itself, given that we still do not know what lifestyle, dietary or chemical exposures might have caused this decrease,” he said.
“Research efforts to identify these causes need to be redoubled and to be non-presumptive as to cause.”
Professor Sharpe said that across Northern Europe today more than 15 per cent of young men had a sperm count low enough to “impair their fertility”.
“And, as the present study indicates, this is likely to get worse rather than better as we move forwards in time,” he warned.
He added that this effect, when combined with the trend for women to have a baby in their thirties, created a “double whammy for couple fertility in modern Western societies”.
“Therefore, looking ahead, I can only conclude that couple infertility is set to increase. Hopefully, this new study will serve as a wake-up call for health and research authorities as well as for the public, and for young people in particular,” Professor Sharpe said.
By the way, as the article notes, the downward slide in sperm count(SC)
shows no sign of slowing up. Falling 1.4% per year for the last 40 or so.
So what's causing the cratering of western male's sperm counts?
There's so many potential candidates for the culprit, that probably
a better question is what ISN'T causing this crash in male fertility.
I say that because if life expectancy is linked to sperm count, then the
same basic factors that are causing ill health may underlie the fall.
What is so different about South America, South Africa and Asia as compared
to the West which might explain their escape from the sperm count fall??
It not as if those areas are paragons of nutrition or environment quality?
That is one damn interesting question.
To answer it we need to get some handle of known causation.
This NYPOST article is a good overview - albeit with some wrong turns:
Hey, guys — here’s why your sperm count is plummeting
By Jane Ridley and Doree Lewak July 31, 2017
Could we be facing the sperm apocalypse?
A frightening new study has revealed that sperm counts in men in Western countries have dropped by more than 50 percent in less than 40 years....
Environment and lifestyle are believed to play an important part in the equation. Here, experts share their thoughts on what else might be behind the plummeting levels — and what New York men can do about it.
You’re a party animal
Too much smoking, drinking or recreational drug use is going to put off a potential wife — and not just because it keeps you out late.
“Tobacco affects motility and shape of the sperm,” says Dr. Kenan Omurtag, a reproductive endocrinologist and reproductive specialist in St. Louis. His conclusions are in line with a 2016 study, published in BJU International, which showed that smokers’ DNA and sperm were damaged in ways that reduce the chances of fertilization.
Omurtag also says that marijuana and opioid use affect sperm production. “They effectively disrupt how the brain talks to the testicles,” he says.
Alcohol, the most accessible vice of the bunch, isn’t innocent. A study in the journal BMJ Open found that consuming five units of booze a week could affect sperm quality.
Your Netflix binges
Lying on your couch watching back-to-back episodes of “Game of Thrones” won’t do you any favors in the baby-making game.
“Lifestyle in 2017 is not the same as it was in 1967,” reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist Dr. Brian Levine, practice director at CCRM New York, says. “We’re a lot more sedentary.”
Urologist and fertility specialist Dr. Jamin Brahmbhatt, of Orlando, Fla. — who has seen a sharp decline in overall sperm counts and quality of sperm in his patients over the four years he has been in practice — agrees.
“If you’re not getting 150 minutes of moderate exercise every week,” he says, “sperm counts will decline.”
According to a March 2012 study, obesity is one of the key culprits of low sperm production.
Researchers at Ambroise Paré University Hospital in Paris found that among obese men, 32.4 percent had a low sperm count and 6.9 percent had no viable sperm.
Your spin-class obsession
“Exercise is a good way to boost fertility but extreme exercise is not,” says Levine. “When you are starving the body or you’re in survival mode, sperm production is going to be hampered.”
Spinning can be especially ruinous. “You are on a bicycle seat and you are compressing the testicles,” Levine says.
The temperature generated during tough workouts (or workouts in a crowded, heated studio) could also “affect sperm production,” says Levine. “The optimum temperature for the testicles to produce sperm is two to three degrees below body heat, which explains why the male reproductive organs are found outside of the body.”
Your muscle mania
Extra testosterone production might sound like a positive thing for improving your sperm count, but that’s not always the case.
Dr. Cappy Rothman, co-founder of leading US sperm bank California Cryoban, says testosterone supplements and performance enhancers will diminish sperm counts. “Anabolic steroids interfere with the hormone signals that are needed to produce sperm,” says Rothman. “If a man takes [them] for an extended length of time, he’ll wind up with no sperm.”
Meanwhile, Upper East Side urologist Dr. David Shusterman says: “Any screw-up in your hormone levels … the semen value goes down.”
Your skinny jeans
Another heat-inducing process is wearing confining pants and undies, which hold the scrotum close to the body.
According to professor Allan Pacey, who specializes in fertility at the University of Sheffield in the UK, a recent study of 2,500 British men found that wearing tight underwear was the “single biggest risk” factor for fertility, even more than smoking or alcohol consumption.
UK gynecologist Dr. Gillian Lockwood was quoted in the Telegraph saying that the modern penchant for close-fitting undergarments went against thousands of years of human practice.
“If you imagine during the evolutionary time, our chaps would have been strolling across the savannah with a bit of bearskin tied around their middles, otherwise going commando,” she said.
Your stressful job
“Men who feel stressed are more likely to have lower concentrations of sperm in their ejaculate, and the sperm they have are more likely to be misshapen or have impaired motility,” writes Pam Factor-Litvak, Ph.D., associate professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, in a 2014 study. “These deficits could be associated with fertility problems.”
A hellish commute may also be related to declining sperm counts. “In a big city, traffic can cause stress,” says Brahmbhatt. “New Yorkers are stressed out — that’s why I live in Orlando!”
“The hot topic in the male reproductive community right now is the role of phthalates, which are mainly used as plasticizers [substances added to plastics to increase their flexibility] in stuff like hair gel,” says Levine. “We know with near-certainty that these phthalates interfere with the endocrine system in rats, monkeys and, of course, humans. We are using many more phthalates now than we used to.”
Some phthalates that are still used in the US are currently banned in Europe.
Your takeout addiction
“Sperm is losing its quality based on what we’re eating,” says Shusterman, noting that genetically modified and hormone-laden meats — including farmed fish — are problematic.
“The optimum thing to do would be to go vegetarian, but that’s not feasible for everyone,” he says, suggesting that anyone sticking with meat should look for grass-fed beef and organic chicken.
“Most Americans are still eating processed, fast food. Diets high in fat and cholesterol lead to men being fatter — and that leads to decreased sperm counts,” says Brahmbhatt.
That's a fluffy article, which doesn't bring us much closer to any answer.
For example there's simply not enough people smoking weed or taking
steroids for those to be the cause of mass declines in sperm counts.
And stress in South America is hardly vastly lower than in Michigan.
But obesity levels do stand out a one key and well researched cause.
And tight underwear is a surprising stand-out contributory cause.
However, that's still not enough to solely explain the relentless decline.
We need to identify one or more major factors which would not
be affecting populations outside of US, Europe and Australia/NZ.
Temporal trends in sperm count:
a systematic review and meta-regression analysis
Hagai Levine Niels Jørgensen Anderson Martino-Andrade Jaime Mendiola Dan Weksler-Derri Irina Mindlis Rachel Pinotti Shanna H. Swan
Reported declines in sperm counts remain controversial today and recent trends are unknown. A definitive meta-analysis is critical given the predictive value of sperm count for fertility, morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
To provide a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of recent trends in sperm counts as measured by sperm concentration (SC) and total sperm count (TSC), and their modification by fertility and geographic group.
PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for English language studies of human SC published in 1981–2013. Following a predefined protocol 7518 abstracts were screened and 2510 full articles reporting primary data on SC were reviewed. A total of 244 estimates of SC and TSC from 185 studies of 42 935 men who provided semen samples in 1973–2011 were extracted for meta-regression analysis, as well as information on years of sample collection and covariates [fertility group (‘Unselected by fertility’ versus ‘Fertile’), geographic group (‘Western’, including North America, Europe Australia and New Zealand versus ‘Other’, including South America, Asia and Africa), age, ejaculation abstinence time, semen collection method, method of measuring SC and semen volume, exclusion criteria and indicators of completeness of covariate data]. The slopes of SC and TSC were estimated as functions of sample collection year using both simple linear regression and weighted meta-regression models and the latter were adjusted for pre-determined covariates and modification by fertility and geographic group. Assumptions were examined using multiple sensitivity analyses and nonlinear models.
SC declined significantly between 1973 and 2011 (slope in unadjusted simple regression models −0.70 million/ml/year; 95% CI: −0.72 to −0.69; P < 0.001; slope in adjusted meta-regression models = −0.64; −1.06 to −0.22; P = 0.003). The slopes in the meta-regression model were modified by fertility (P for interaction = 0.064) and geographic group (P for interaction = 0.027). There was a significant decline in SC between 1973 and 2011 among Unselected Western (−1.38; −2.02 to −0.74; P < 0.001) and among Fertile Western (−0.68; −1.31 to −0.05; P = 0.033), while no significant trends were seen among Unselected Other and Fertile Other. Among Unselected Western studies, the mean SC declined, on average, 1.4% per year with an overall decline of 52.4% between 1973 and 2011. Trends for TSC and SC were similar, with a steep decline among Unselected Western (−5.33 million/year, −7.56 to −3.11; P < 0.001), corresponding to an average decline in mean TSC of 1.6% per year and overall decline of 59.3%. Results changed minimally in multiple sensitivity analyses, and there was no statistical support for the use of a nonlinear model. In a model restricted to data post-1995, the slope both for SC and TSC among Unselected Western was similar to that for the entire period (−2.06 million/ml, −3.38 to −0.74; P = 0.004 and −8.12 million, −13.73 to −2.51, P = 0.006, respectively).
This comprehensive meta-regression analysis reports a significant decline in sperm counts (as measured by SC and TSC) between 1973 and 2011, driven by a 50–60% decline among men unselected by fertility from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Because of the significant public health implications of these results, research on the causes of this continuing decline is urgently needed.
"You must decrease the number of children you have to ensure that we can hope and the planet will survive". .20 years later
"You aren't having enough children so of course we need to import millions of people, in fact there should be no limit"!
This is planned eugenics through and through, the only way of turning Europe into a complete hellish police state is do is create chaos and civil war and the easiest way of doing that is to create violent confrontations between races and more importantly clashes of culture and religion.
Meanwhile tipping the balance away from the established populations by killing fertility incrementally.
The question is how do you stay away from the wifi, the pesticides, the GM, the chemicals, the fluoride, the BPA?
Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 2458 Location: The Canadian shield
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:38 pm Post subject:
Here, in central Quebec, we have had the wettest spring/summer in memory. No forest fires to speak of as it has been quite cool as well. _________________ The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Now there are sure to be subtlties in all this, and it's not really quite so
simple, but this data is certainly enough to give pause for thought.
Skeptics may well say that smoking for example might be a big driver
of low sperm count, but the point is that they smoke in the developing
world just like here in the west.
What we were looking for was factors that are DIFFERENT in developing
versus developed which might explain our cratering sperm counts over
the last 40 years. btw: That period of time mirrors the huge growth in
the dwarf wheat variety we westerners now consume in volume.
(Caveat: rising consumption of wheat may also be a marker for a whole
host of western industrial and dietary issues which are keyco-factors.)
Anyway, would you like another biscuit while you tell me
all about how you and your partner can't conceive a baby? _________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum