The tone of this article may be slightly different than the rest. I hate when people make idiotic, rash judgments on things that they really do not understand.
People are dumb. There is nothing wrong with that, but when those dumb people discover some science, they then misinterpret the article and twist and turn it to fit a political agenda, all the while having absolutely no idea at all about the actual study nor knowing anything about the hormone testosterone! Due to this, you get some cringey articles from the alt-right because they are too ignorant to actually read something without their ideological blinders on.
The study I will be reviewing was on testosterone, which established new levels for nonobese American and European men. The problem is that the new levels are lower than the previous levels; uneducated and biased morons think that means that they (the government) are trying to feminize men and thus they—on their own—lowered testosterone levels themselves. …this is dumb. Like, really really dumb.
Over 9,000 nonobese American and European men were assayed for a harmonized normal range in males; Travison et al, (2017) used the results from a local assay which was sent to the CDC where “testosterone concentrations were measured using a higher order liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method.” Then, Travison et al (2017) used the results from both tests (the local sample and CDC sample) to create a ‘harmonized reference range’ which were then used to generate the age-specific reference ranges across the whole cohort. Using this method, they discovered that the range for testosterone for nonobese males aged 19-39 was between 264-916 ng/ml.
Now, people who don’t understand why this study was done (to see the range of testosterone in men to see the actual range) would say ‘aha! They are trying to lower testosterone and feminize men!”, like the retards Chateau Heartiste and ‘Zeiger‘ from the Daily Stormer. I won’t cover the article from Heartiste (because there’s nothing of substance there to talk about, just some inane drivel), so I’ll cover ‘Zeiger’s’ main points.
The feds have started a process to lower the official “standard” levels of testosterone in men, presumably in an effort to solve the grave “toxic masculinity” problem we’ve got going on here in America.
No. No one has ‘started a process to lower’ the levels of testosterone in America. You do not understand science, so why the hell are you talking about it?
The problem here is that it’s basically a hoax study.
….is this guy a retard? How is this a ‘hoax study’?
The blood samples were obtained not from healthy, athletic males, but from males who were already the subjects of other medical studies. In other words, they were largely composed of ordinary people who ate crappy standard diets, lived sedentary lifestyles, drank water loaded with chemicals, and who are exposed to a whole bunch of estrogen-mimicking chemicals.
….you mean the average man in America? You think they should control for weight, when the average man in America is obese/overweight? Why control for all of those variables when you’re attempting to see what the range is in a large cohort to get a better idea of what the actual range is in men so that they could better diagnose low testosterone and any other maladies involved with it? This study was done to establish the range for the average American and European male, not one who is athletic, low body fat, etc. You’d need to actually understand why the study was undertaken to get that, though.
Now, this new, much lower range of what is considered “normal” testosterone levels is becoming the standard pushed by the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and applied by the various private testing organizations.
You don’t even understand why this ‘new, much lower range’ is considered ‘normal’ and why it’s ‘becoming the standard pushed by the CDC’ and ‘applied by the various private testing corporations’. Because that is the new range for nonobese American and European males aged 19-39!
The old reference range comes from the Framingham Heart Study in which men aged 19-40 were assayed (Bhalin et al, 2011; assays were done in the morning after an overnight fast so I have no problem with this). ‘Zeiger’ writes:
The old standard was based on actual healthy males. Now they’ve dropped the standard to “non-obese.” As a rule, the fatter someone is, the lower their testosterone. This means that the broadening of the criteria for “healthy” to include men who are pretty fat, but short of “obese” will certainly lead to a lower average testosterone level.
Did you know that in the old reference sample (Bhalin et al, 2011), the average BMI of the whole cohort aged 19-39 was 25.2 (average age 32.7)? For men with an average age of 33.3, they had a BMI of 27.4 and men aged 40 had BMI 28 (see table 1; Bhalin et al, 2011). I don’t take BMI as a predictor of health (indeed men with a 27 BMI had a lower risk of mortality than men in other BMI categories), but it is a predictor of testosterone levels. ‘Lean males’ are not between BMI 25 and 28; unless they were testing some IFBB pros, which I know they did not. So they values were similar. He wouldn’t know that though because he’s clueless to the literature.
For one, it makes it a lot harder to get testosterone hormones prescribed to you by a doctor, since your T levels need to be absolutely rock bottom in order to be considered “deficient.”
No, retard. If you’re feeling lethargic, have low energy, low sex drive, etc, then you will be assayed and compared against the new harmonized values. If you’re teetering on the low-end of the normal range variation, then you will get some TRT (testosterone replacement therapy). You’ve never worked with people with low testosterone, so shut the fuck up.
In addition, if this process continues, you could start seeing men with healthy testosterone begin to be seen as “pathological” because their levels are “too high” compared with the new standard. So power-lifters who watch their diets could start being prescribed drugs to lower their T levels.
This is dumb. If I get prescribed drugs to lower my testosterone levels, I’ll be sure to let my readers know (I compete and watch my diet) and my levels are above average for my age.
All of this is based on an obviously flawed methodology.
No, it isn’t. You don’t understand the methodology because you don’t understand science and you don’t understand testosterone.
It’s a transparent push to feminize men and normalize being a low-T faggot.
Nice appeal to emotion at the end there. You don’t understand science so you don’t understand the methodology so this lets you use the new study to support your biases. I strongly recommend that you do some heavy reading into this because you don’t know shit about this matter.
Ten years ago, Travison et al (2007) observed that there was 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.” Testosterone levels have declined in America, independent of chronological aging. (See Nyante et al, 2007 for contrary view, they state that there is no decrease in testosterone, also see table 4 which shows that blacks had higher levels than whites, with whites having 5.28 ng/ml and blacks having 5.9 ng/ml for an 11 percent difference. Using previous NHANES data, Nyante et al, 2007 showed that the levels in whites were 5.38 while in blacks it was 5.28 for a .05 percent difference. Nevertheless, this is more evidence for the honor culture hypothesis (Mazur, 2016) which shows why low-income blacks have higher levels of testosterone than better-educated blacks of the same age range.)
Further, a substantial proportion of the intercohort variation was due to assay differences, i.e., saliva, blood, etc (Travison et al, 2017). Further, Travison et al (2017) tested men with BMIs less than 30, the same as Bhalin et al (2011) which was the old reference. But people need to read the actual studies cited to get the truth, and not just speak from emotion (ironic…) about something that they literally have no clue about. Also, read the LabCorp statement on this matter.
Yes, we do have a testosterone decline in the West, and no, it is not due to any nefarious plot to lower testosterone levels or feminize men; if people knew how to read scientific papers then I wouldn’t have to write this article in the tone that I did, but alas you can’t have everything you want in life.
I did write in the past that the testosterone decline in the West is the cause of our fertility problems (this article compliments the linked article), and to higher fertility rates in the West, testosterone levels must also be raised. People who have no idea about how and why studies are carried out shouldn’t talk about them. People who do not understand what they are talking about should not talk about them. Recall that I blasted Heartiste’s Big Food Shilling a few months back, and I also did the same last month rebutting the article that ‘Man ‘originated’ in Europe‘. These people clearly have no understanding of science and quickly latch on to anything that will affirm their worldviews without having the actual knowledge to assess what they are talking about.
I hope that Heartiste and Zeiger actually educate themselves on the matters they write about, because this is just embarrassing and shows no understanding of science or of the hormone testosterone. There is a lot of bullshit floating around out there, mostly from uneducated morons who don’t know a thing about what they are writing about, it just conforms to their worldview and they will thusly write about it all the while being ignorant to the reality of the matter. I wish ideologues would stop writing about things that are not educated in. Alas, I don’t think that will happen anytime soon because people have an agenda to push, science be damned (which is ironic because these same people get on the Left for doing the same. . .).
This is a serious problem, as I have noted before, so to change this, change diet to whole foods, get more exercise, stop drinking from plastic water bottles; you need to shape your own environment in order to have higher testosterone levels; I have extensively documented that testosterone increases or decreases based on a ton of environmental factors. That we are experiencing a large decline in testosterone here in the West shows that we are not as active, we are eating shitty food, and men are not being as dominant as they were in the past.
So yes, in two days time the testosterone reference range for men in America and Europe will be between 264 to 916 ng/ml, and no it is not due to them, this is the actual level in nonobese men. People need to stop the fear mongering bullshit and people need to stop talking about shit that they literally have no understanding of.
The Daily Stormer is a funny website:
… It’s hard to ascertain if that is a serious article or not. Surely some of the people there believe that shit. This is the same person who thinks that black Africans are genetically closer to bonobos than Europeans are, so I can’t tell if the article is a troll or not.
Why people talk about things they are literally clueless on, I’ll never understand…
Most of what they post is Satire, people kinda don’t get it.
I doubt that bonobo piece was satire. Just like I doubt this testosterone article was satire as well. People believe a lot of bullshit because they aren’t educated in areas and they have their huge biases guide what they believe in.
You do have a point. The right has a lot of people who are so absorbed in some odd philosophy, ideology or religion, that they try to make all empirical evidence fit with that outlook, instead of just starting with the data and interpreting it for what it actually shows. Brett Stevens, Andrew Anglin, Anonymous Conservative, Red Ice Radio, and most of the religious right have a strong tendency towards bending and often ignoring facts to fit some pre-conceived belief system. It benefits no one and only makes their political ideas look more ridiculous.
I like to see what they write about when things like this come out. It’s really entertaining to see the kinds of mental gymnastics that people go through to make things ‘fit’ their point. Like attempting to force a square peg into a round hold.
Bending and ignoring facts to fit a preconceived belief system is, suspiciously, what liberals do… You’re correct that it makes their political ideas look more ridiculous; why should someone follow a political ideology when the people who push it grossly misrepresent science? It’s mind boggling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re totally not getting the point. The case was made to the degeneracy of making non-healthy Men the Standard, which means a soft version of Fat acceptance.
You’re basically telling an unhealthy guy that he’s healthy now.
I get the point and I explained why the reference population changed and I also explained that the cohort in Travison et al (2017) was nonobese:
The harmonized normal range for testosterone in a non-obese population of European and American Men, 19-39 years, is 264-916 ng/dL.
The same goes for the old reference (Bhalin et al, 2011). The range was between 27 and 25 BMI. I totally get the point.
It is possible to be fat and healthy. Read this.
Rebutting Heartiste on the Twinkie Diet
And this comment chain.
Also read this on the evolutionary reasons behind the obesity epidemic.
An Evolutionary Look at Obesity
And read this to get an understanding of calories and the first law of thermodynamics (and how it is irrelevant to human physiology).
Misconceptions on Calories In and Calories Out
And before you spew the ‘a calorie is a calorie’ canard, know that it is a fallacy and that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Feinman and Fine, 2004).
Look, if a man at a young age has testosterone levels close to the lower range, he will get TRT. The purpose of the study was to see what the average was for men, so they can better treat hypogonadism and other maladies.
This wasn’t a satire piece. Of course he can always fall back to the old ‘It was a joke bro!’ but we all know that this was a 100 percent serious article.
These people have demonstrated no interest whatsoever in science but a substantial interest in politics. Not surprising they’d do this.
I’ve seen some other fresh new nonsense regarding microchimerism. Embryonic cells are known to split off and go particularly to the brain in women. So you get women found to have y chromosomal DNA floating around in their autopsies: it’s from their husband, or some other guy they got impregnated by.
Sometimes this happens without giving birth to a male child. The obvious answer is miscarriage, of which humans have a fairly high rate. Sometimes abortion.
Some non-scientists have decided that it must actually be because women absorb DNA from the sperm of every man they’ve ever slept with. Like, uh, how? Literally how? Sperm don’t survive all that long and can’t replicate, so if a woman has y chromosomes in her brain at the autopsy and it came from sperm, you’d be talking about a dissector with some pretty serious issues. It’s a massive leap away from reality as we know it and there’s no reason to think it’s the case, but if you’re biased enough, anything becomes real.
Yea, it’s kinda low-hanging fruit, but things like this need to be rebutted. He’ll probably say it was a troll post or whatever. But you know him and his followers believe what was written. It’s fear mongering bullshit.
I forget what it’s called when the fly carries some of the male. Y chromosome. That’s what started the whole “women carry the sperm of past men they’ve fucked”.
Exactly. People have their worldviews, then they see an article that kinda sorta fits their worldview, then they twist and distort it until it fits their worldview. It’s a joke.
People who don’t know anything about science or why things are done shouldn’t be talking about science.
you have no evidential basis for your assertion that no one is deliberately exacerbating the problem. Leftist food company executives have both the means and the motive to put unnecessary endocrine distruptors in food, because low T leads to leftism. At best you can be agnostic about the question of malicious intent.
Try reading this article on the sperm decline and see this is still being debated:
The pollutants implicated in this trend include a wide array of common herbicides, inseciticides, industrial chemicals, and breakdown products of materials ranging from plastics to dishwashing detergents. Some authorities think these chemicals act by mimicking estrogens by blocking the action of testosterone by binding to its receptors. Other scientists, however, question the data and feel the issue may be overstated. While the debate continues, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is screening thousands of industrial chemicals for endocrine effects.
I don’t disregard possible effects from endocrine disruptors that affect spermatogenesis and testosterone production but the evidence is scant.