Before the reactions to the headline get too out of hand, the article says the study couldn’t rule out that obesity and diabetes might drive this change. Occam’s Razor leads me to lean on this more than any other exotic explanation.
Of course, PFAS and microplastics aren’t great for sperm health, but neither were leaded gasoline and DDT before they were curtailed.
Good point. Age and obesity are the strongest correlates with low testosterone. Increases in sedentary lifestyles probably aren't helpful either, but not clear if that is anything other than a proxy for obesity
I'm an obese american (lost 10% of my body weight in the last 7 months, so almost not obese anymore) who is 30+, but my testosterone has measured between 850 and 1400 in the last 7 months.
That probably helped with my weight loss, but I have a full head of hair still and am somewhat likely to keep it.
We'll likely spend longer measuring what the hormonal effects of PFAs and microplastics are than we'll have pfas and microplastics to deal with.
Which means, given GLP-1s, we should see a reversal in the next few years.
Random aside: is there a correlation between GLP-1 and vaccine acceptance? As in, given enough time, would one expect to see an obese, diseased, low-T population concentrating in on itself?
Testosterone is directly causally inverse to bodyfat in men (once above some very low baseline)
Fat directly converts testosterone to Estrogen via a process called aromatization.
Personally my Testosterone close to doubled when going from 25% bodyfat to 13%. I get blood tests regularly and can see the levels fluctuate pretty closely with fat levels
It would explain why fat people are more often than not bald anyway and why Styropyro has the most hair I've ever seen on a person regardless of his condition.
That's literally the main point of the article, the stand-first: "Exclusive: Researchers warn of ‘major crisis in male reproductive health’ partly driven by obesity and diabetes"
That’s not what the article primarily addresses though and the study itself didn’t control for obesity. They make note of it at the end to say that the obesity cause is in dispute but the bulk of the article is focused on other potential causes.
It’s like we need something more interesting than “people sit too much and eat too much”.
Because especially in this forum, obesity literally does not exist and if it does is never the person's fault but rather big food producing addictive meals / not walkable cities / exercise is bad for your joints / et cetera ...
Because it's too obvious. There needs to be some hidden, world encompassing conspiracy, so that people feel superior when they are one of the few enlightened ones that see through the matrix and start drinking raw milk to live like our testosterone pumped ancestors.
If you are a podcast host that gives hot takes on news headlines, which one are you going to choose?
Option one: obesity and weight problems. Statistically 77% of your audience is either overweight or obese because 77% of Americans are either overweight or obese.
Option two: feminism, microplastics, anime, or literally any other thing than option one.
Option three: “Three in four American men have a partial vasectomy now: Thanks, obesity!”
Poor headline writing around obesity is no excuse for deflective headline writing away from obesity!
Or if you prefer a different market’s take: “Corrupted food is feminizing men” and then diving into how Big Ag has a secret agenda to poison men everywhere and both political parties are in on it, as a way to introduce the issues of artificial sweeteners (HFCS, splenda, monkfruit, and others) would be stunningly effective. Yeah, it’s kinda exploitative, but when in Rome applies when it comes to public health messaging, and I’d rather that market learned to direct some of their rage at the corporations that deserve it while giving them a chance to decide for the better.
Point being, there’s no excuse for avoiding obesity in headlines if you want to write clickbait for an audience. And with #3 above, especially if you set “Thanks, obesity!” as the Subtitle that only shows up when you visit the page, as Vox and others do, then you can maximize clicks far better than either option #1 or #2 would.
“The solution that’s being promoted is that we give you testosterone,” he said. “But if you give a man testosterone, you switch off his sperm production. I’ve seen that in the clinic.”
As explained by https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/12/magazine/testosterone-mas..., "Supplementing with testosterone sends the message to the brain that testosterone is in oversupply, shutting down the testicles’ production of testosterone and sperm... The hormone is so incredibly effective at decreasing sperm counts that it is being tested as a possible male contraceptive."
It's becoming clear that it's not permanent. Discontinuing exogenous testosterone will lead to restarting your own body's production - it just takes a bit, and isn't fun to deal with.
Are you being sarcastic? That has been widely known by steroid users for decades, that's why many of them supplements with hCG in an attempt to preserve their natural production.
I was diagnosed with Secondary Hypogonadism few years ago.
After a series of tests, it was determined that my Testostrone levels well below normal.
My urologist prescribed HCG after I insisted that I wanted to have children someday. It has been a life changer and the best part is that my sperm count has doubled.
Unfortunately, HCG Mono will not treat all forms of Hypogonadism, some patients have to take Testosterone Cypionate which comes with serious side effects like hair loss, infertility, etc
HCG also shares some of those side effects but it saves your fertility and prevents Testicular atrophy.. Also it doesn't shut down your natural production albeit it does suppress LH receptors by default..
My point is this: if you suspect having Testostrone issues, don't randomly inject yourself with hormones.. go see a urologist and get a serious treatment.
There's a larger proportion of older males in the population now than there has been in most of history. Testosterone decreases as we age. The average is across _all_ males, even those outside of reproductive years. I assume if we controlled for outliers, that the results would be fairly comparable across time.
Per the article, they did at least try to control for age (it'd be a completely uninteresting result if they hadn't). The big concern is that they did _not_ control for obesity or diabetes.
One class of doctors thinks roughly 250 is enough for a middle aged guy - anything over shouldn’t be medically treated. Of course, the “men’s clinics” don’t rest until it’s over 1000...
With the standard range so wide (even after age adjustment), why isn’t it measured annually, like the CBC and others?
Sure, it’s easy to point at obesity, but statistical ranges completely fail the individual.
There are wide ranges but it's more about how you feel personally and what you've noticed over time. Some men have below average T but feel great and build serious muscle anyway.
The two sigma range is something like 300-900 with std being 150 and median 600. This is for what is labeled as healthy 18-39 men. It doesn't include obese men.
If you want to take something away from it, just get yourself measured a few times over a few years. Then later if you have issues that relate to low T or whatever you can flag it with your doctor. In my case, it was super important because I found out I am in the top 0.01% of (healthy) total T producers. If I had "low T" type symptoms and went to my doctor without that information - they'd be like, "no, your T is amazing actually."
Everyone has a different baseline. I only wish I started measuring before I was in my mid-30s because I feel my levels before were even more ridiculous.
Seems like a minor issue, since most men only utilize their sperm two or three times in their entire lives, if at all. Maybe men should be freezing sperm while they're young and virile.
America found the solution, put everyone on enhanced TRT and cash a shit load of bucks in the process :)
Others are trying to regulate pesticide, junk food (obesity, diabete). For instance nutriscore in Europe, also the recent change on pesticide allowed.
I'm not sure it will be enough, but at least they are attacking to the root cause. You're not just adding even more problem, like the increased cardiovascular event or erectile dysfunction with overdosed TRT.
Same for the semaglutides that everyone and their mother take in the usa, people wouldn't need them so much if they didn't eat absolute crap all the time.
We know that semaglutides have also side effects, and that rebound happen when you stop, but I guess it's better than just fixing the food lobby ?
I wonder how this correlates to Prostate Cancer. From what I heard, high testosterone can be one of the causes of Prostate Cancer. But that is over a long time.
So if levels are falling, is prostate cancer lowering a little bit ? But that will be hard to determine due to the advancement of Medical Treatment over the past 50 years.
> Rising levels of obesity and diabetes
Plastic Bottles also replaced glass starting in the early 70s too. I remember reading some type of plastic can leak estrogen into the food. So seems a lot of things happened of the past 50/60 years that will impact ones health negatively.
soy, cortisol, plastics, birth control remnants in the water and food supply, adipose tissue accelerating conversion of testosterone into estradiol, and compounds acting to keep free testosterone levels low and bound testosterone levels high. combine that with sedentary lifestyle, the demonization of red meat healthy fats and cholesterols (cholesterol is extremely close to testosterone and converts easily) and the systematic promotion of a plant based heavily processed diet can easily lead to this. the traditional diets of slaves and serfs was low meat & high grain to keep them weaker dumber and shorter in general. the lowered testosterone and will to fight and resist oppression was also a "feature, not a bug" as my llm likes to say every chance it gets.
the industrial revolution has been a disaster for the human race.
“Obesity and diabetes could easily account for all of this,”
Wither Ozempic? I've seen several friends and family members use it to great effect and thought it might sweep the nation. But I imagine most of the same barriers that keep people from eating better or moving more are also in play when trying to engage with any new habit.
Lift weights. Nobody lifts weights or does labor like they used to.
Endocrine function can still be normal despite obesity. There are plenty of fat guys with solid testosterone levels because they work with their hands all day.
I'm not saying that's all there is to health, far from it, but what kind of bubble does one have to live in to not see this counterexample? Do we just casually ignore them because they fit undesirable stereotypes of "toxic masculinity" or what? You don't have to become that guy just to lift weights.
> Nobody lifts weights or does labor like they used to.
I'm fairly sure _vastly_ more people lift weights today than in the 70s. At that point it was, well, not niche exactly, but you didn't have anything _remotely_ like the number of gyms around. Can't offhand find figures for back to then, but apparently it's up ~60% in just the last two decades.
I guess you missed the part about physical labor in my comment.
You're looking for an answer via a really poor proxy. Lifting weight is lifting weight. Gyms are more popular because of the lack of sensible alternatives for a comprehensive workout. Any data you find about them will also be biased towards the recent decades of office work and working from home. Is there any way to tell if gyms are even picking up the slack? My guess would be overall exercise is down, even for those who go to the gym regularly.
Can't help wondering to what extent the decline is directly and/or indirectly influenced by both the positive changes (eg increased women's rights and power) and the negative (presumption of masculine "toxicity" and fallibility) in socio-culture over the period surveyed.
Unsurprisingly, the authors didn’t name “women’s rights” or any other feminism-adjacent culture war issues as a cause of declining testosterone. They did name obesity and diabetes.
In other words, if you’re looking for a boogeyman, blame sedentary lifestyles and ultra processed foods.
... Wait, what would the mechanism of action be there?!
Like, if the choice of explanations is (a) obesity, and maybe some pesticide stuff, who knows, or (b) _witchcraft_, Occam's razor points a particular way.
of course the demonization and social shaming of traditionally "testosterone" involved social hierarchy, behavior, and hobbies is going to have a conditioning effect. im sure that also contributes to high cortisol in men which itself is a significant impediment to healthy testosterone levels
While I mostly agree with your statement there's evidence that testosterone is linked to social status and mental well being.
A 50% drop most likely has a multifactorial explanation, being told that some traditional male traits are bad (and thus lower well being or social status) or medicated away (see e.g the rise in ADHD and Autism diagnosis) might have some effect.
I'm not nearly knowledgable enough to give any reasonable estimate but it would not surprise me if it was higher than 0%.
Snow might have some effect on the height a mountain, but most people believe geological activity is more important than weather.
The relevant question isn’t whether something or another might have “some effect” it is how to reduce the main factors which we already know damage men’s sexual health. And spending time on the long tail of factors which may or may not be relevant is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room for addressing the factors we already know are most of the problem.
Of course, PFAS and microplastics aren’t great for sperm health, but neither were leaded gasoline and DDT before they were curtailed.
reply