from the world's big
Why modern men are losing their testosterone
Research has shown that men today have less testosterone than they used to. What's happening?
- Several studies have confirmed that testosterone counts in men are lower than what they used to be just a few decades ago.
- While most men still have perfectly healthy testosterone levels, its reduction puts men at risk for many negative health outcomes.
- The cause of this drop in testosterone isn't entirely clear, but evidence suggests that it is a multifaceted result of modern, industrialized life.
Remember Frank Sinatra's swagger, John Wayne's quiet confidence, and Burt Reynold's impressive mustache? They were icons of masculinity for a lot of people, and many folks today point to those icons when bemoaning a perceived loss of masculinity in our society.
Well, Frank Sinatra had a violent temper, John Wayne was a racist, Burt Reynolds was a womanizer, and they all drank way too much. Our values have changed more than the storied qualities of "manliness." Despite this, there is something to the argument that men used to be more manly back in the day.
A study on a large sample of American men found that the average testosterone level has been dropping by as much as 1 percent per year. Testosterone levels lower naturally with age, but this study found that a 65-year-old man in 1987 had about 17 percent more testosterone than a 65- year-old man in 2004. This wasn't just limited to Americans either; a Danish study found similar results. Anecdotally, sex counselor Ian Kerner told CNN that he's noticed "an increasing number of young guys are complaining of sexual concerns, such as diminished libido and erectile problems, more commonly seen in older men."
How bad is this?
It's not a disaster. Most men today still have perfectly healthy levels of testosterone even if it is dropping year to year. But if testosterone levels get too low, then we start to see a slew of bad effects.
Testosterone promotes attention, memory, spatial reasoning, and energy — essentially, it makes you sharper — and, of course, it increases libido and muscle mass. When Testosterone counts get too low, men can begin to feel fatigued, lose sexual interest, gain weight, and lose muscle mass. In addition, there is a link between low testosterone levels and depression.
There's also a wide association between low testosterone levels and disease. One study, published in the spring, found that people with a testosterone deficiency (defined as less than 300 nanograms of testosterone per deciliter) were at greater risk for obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and other diseases. It's important to note that this is correlational data; it's very difficult to definitively prove that low testosterone causes these negative outcomes. But the odds are that doing the activities that keep your testosterone levels up will also help prevent these very undesirable conditions.
As testosterone levels decrease with age or in response to medical conditions, some people choose to receive testosterone therapy and inject what their body fails to produce.
Flickr user Linden Tea
What's the cause?
Unfortunately, the reason why testosterone counts keep dropping over the years isn't clear, but there are some likely candidates. One surprising possibility is that people smoke fewer cigarettes now. Even though everything else it does is terrible for you, smoking actually raises testosterone levels. And back in Frank Sinatra's day, smoking was the norm, not the exception. But please, don't light up to make yourself manlier. It's a bad idea.
Our rising rates of obesity, too, are probably contributing. Between 1999 and 2016, obesity in American adults increased by nearly 10 percent. Obesity and testosterone create something of a vicious cycle: obese men tend to have lower testosterone , and men with lower testosterone tend to become obese. This happens because fat cells metabolize testosterone and convert it into estrogen. In addition, obese people have lower levels of SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin), which transports sex hormones like testosterone through the blood.
However, the most likely candidate is pollution. Research has shown that chemicals that are commonly found in medicine and pesticides inhibit testosterone. These chemicals are seeping into our water, contributing to fertility problems in fish. The researchers also speculate that this same mechanism is occurring in humans as well.
In addition, research on Native American tribes found that higher levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs; a component in industrial coolants, as a plasticizer, and in many other applications) in the males' systems was associated with lower testosterone counts. We've known that PCBs are toxic for years, but the chemical lasts for a very long time. Other chemicals, like bisphenol A (BPA; a plastic) and triclosan (an antibacterial agent) have been shown to disrupt the human hormone system, either by mimicking estrogen or blocking the activity of testosterone. Once chemicals such as these get into the environment and enter the food chain, they are very difficult to remove.
Industrial pollutants have a myriad of negative effects on our health, one of which can is the blocking of testosterone in the body.
(Photo by ROMEO GACAD/AFP/Getty Images)
What can be done?
Good news: The things that are lowering men's testosterone levels may be complicated, but combating this issue is simple and probably what you would have guessed anyways. Eat a healthy diet, exercise more, and get a good night's sleep. If you really want to go the extra mile, avoid eating or drinking from plastic containers. Finally, get political: When environmental regulation goes out the window, so too does your health. Contrary to the stereotype, becoming a treehugger might be the best way to save your masculinity.
- Higher testosterone leads to higher purchase of status symbols in men ›
- Testosterone Study Doesn't Prove Men Are "Meant" To Do Childcare ... ›
- Study: Guys with more testosterone don't like "sophisticated" music ›
- A history of beards reclaiming threatened masculinity - Big Think ›
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>
What are the implications of all this?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="ceXv4XLv" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="3b407f5aa043eeb84f2b7ff82f97dc35"> <div id="botr_ceXv4XLv_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/ceXv4XLv-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>Firstly, it shows that direct investments in children in a variety of areas generate very high MVPFs. Likewise, the above chart shows that a large number of the programs considered pay for themselves, particularly ones that "invest in human capital" by promoting education, health, or similar things. While programs that focus on adults tend to have lower MVPF values, this isn't a hard and fast rule.</p><p>It also shows us that very many programs don't "pay for themselves" or even go below an MVPF of one. However, this study and its authors do not suggest that we abolish programs like disability payments just because they don't turn a profit.</p><p>Different motivations exist behind various programs, and just because something doesn't pay for itself isn't a definitive reason to abolish it. The returns on investment for a welfare program are diverse and often challenging to reckon in terms of money gained or lost. The point of this study was merely to provide a comprehensive review of a wide range of programs from a single perspective, one of dollars and cents. </p><p>The authors suggest that this study can be used as a starting point for further analysis of other programs not necessarily related to welfare. </p><p>It can be difficult to measure the success or failure of a government program with how many metrics you have to choose from and how many different stakeholders there are fighting for their metric to be used. This study provides us a comprehensive look through one possible lens at how some of our largest welfare programs are doing. </p><p>As America debates whether we should expand or contract our welfare state, the findings of this study offer an essential insight into how much we spend and how much we gain from these programs. </p>
Finding a balance between job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle is not easy.
- When most of your life is spent doing one thing, it matters if that thing is unfulfilling or if it makes you unhappy. According to research, most people are not thrilled with their jobs. However, there are ways to find purpose in your work and to reduce the negative impact that the daily grind has on your mental health.
- "The evidence is that about 70 percent of people are not engaged in what they do all day long, and about 18 percent of people are repulsed," London Business School professor Dan Cable says, calling the current state of work unhappiness an epidemic. In this video, he and other big thinkers consider what it means to find meaning in your work, discuss the parts of the brain that fuel creativity, and share strategies for reassessing your relationship to your job.
- Author James Citrin offers a career triangle model that sees work as a balance of three forces: job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle. While it is possible to have all three, Citrin says that they are not always possible at the same time, especially not early on in your career.