Men with low testosterone

[NoxApex(N/A)]

There's also the factor that, humans are products of their environments, just as all animals are.
Back in the times of the dinosaurs, there was once a snake with baby feet, and also the ancestor of the dragonfly, the Odonata, during that time period had a 3 ft body and a 6 ft wingspan. Gradually, as the Earth oxidized, it grew smaller and avians (birds) grew larger, whereas birds used to be smaller. Sssooo yeah, if it happened to other animals, it'll probably happen to us that environment will have an evolutionary effect.
Furthermore expanding on this, there is a people called the Sama-Bajau, sometimes called the "Sea Gypsies" or "Sea Nomads," who have hyper-evolved spleens as their culture for over a thousand years were mostly sea-faring people. They spear hunt underwater mostly holding their breath. That's just their culture. If you died under the water while hunting, well: you died under the water while hunting. So over time, their bodies evolutionarily evolved to have abnormal spleens and they're some of the best and most efficient swimmers on the planet being able to hold their breath to athletically-long lengths.
You've also got the factor that: At some point as civilization and society advanced, it eventually became that having kids was a bad financial investment or resource investment for men. It used to not be that way. It used to be that your legacy had benefits to it that justified the labor of the first 20 years of their existence. It's not like that anymore, which is tragic, tbh, and THAT'S probably part of the great depression that men have: It now costs more money to have children than it's actually worth in resources to men. It just should not be that way.

 

[CenotaphGirl]

There's also the factor that, humans are products of their environments, just as all animals are.
Back in the times of the dinosaurs, there was once a snake with baby feet, and also the ancestor of the dragonfly, the Odonata, during that time period had a 3 ft body and a 6 ft wingspan. Gradually, as the Earth oxidized, it grew smaller and avians (birds) grew larger, whereas birds used to be smaller. Sssooo yeah, if it happened to other animals, it'll probably happen to us that environment will have an evolutionary effect.
Furthermore expanding on this, there is a people called the Sama-Bajau, sometimes called the "Sea Gypsies" or "Sea Nomads," who have hyper-evolved spleens as their culture for over a thousand years were mostly sea-faring people. They spear hunt underwater mostly holding their breath. That's just their culture. If you died under the water while hunting, well: you died under the water while hunting. So over time, their bodies evolutionarily evolved to have abnormal spleens and they're some of the best and most efficient swimmers on the planet being able to hold their breath to athletically-long lengths.
You've also got the factor that: At some point as civilization and society advanced, it eventually became that having kids was a bad financial investment or resource investment for men. It used to not be that way. It used to be that your legacy had benefits to it that justified the labor of the first 20 years of their existence. It's not like that anymore, which is tragic, tbh, and THAT'S probably part of the great depression that men have: It now costs more money to have children than it's actually worth in resources to men. It just should not be that way.

Do you think the men dont need it then? They dont need all the testosterone they are missing in this environment ?

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

Do you think the men dont need it then? They dont need all the testosterone they are missing in this environment ?

What they need is a healthy amount of testosterone for themselves on an individual level. The reason why is too much testosterone and that's how you get crazy things like A Serbian Film. --Don't watch that, it's disgusting, but yeah, basically nobody wants that. It's the ugly truth of unmanaged and unhealthy amounts of testosterone.

 

[Unsigned]

What they need is a healthy amount of testosterone for themselves on an individual level. The reason why is too much testosterone and that's how you get crazy things like A Serbian Film. --Don't watch that, it's disgusting, but yeah, basically nobody wants that. It's the ugly truth of unmanaged and unhealthy amounts of testosterone.

Healthy amounts, IMO, would be the WW2/Silent generation here in the US.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

Healthy amounts, IMO, would be the WW2/Silent generation here in the US.

Enough to get work done, but not so much that the emotional irrationalities of it throw the operation. I can agree to that.
That's constructive thinking, which is good. When emotional irrationalities enter the equation it becomes destructive thinking instead, which is bad. Very, very bad. Putin is still in power in Russia, I mean, for a good example of how bad that can go.

 

[TropicalStarfish]

I highly doubt testosterone levels in men have significantly changed. What has changed is the size, scope, power, and profit that drug companies make these days, compared to the 1950's. heh. People get so worked up about trends; it's just multi-billion dollar con-artists looking for the next batch of suckers...

Just because a research paper is published, doesn't mean it isn't outright lying, or saying things in a confusing and round-about way. I've dug deep on one occasion. An article that made a bold claim, that people believed in. So, I followed the sources, read the paper, and found that it was being intentionally confusing, and misleading with numbers AND words. The claims didn't match the results; but by stating things a certain way, it wasn't actually a lie, just a quarter-truth under a specific and rare circumstance. In other words, nonsense. It was infuriating.

Tobacco companies will hire scientists to say what they want to be said. Oil companies will hire scientists to say what they want to be said. Drug companies will hire scientists to say what they want to be said. News companies will hire people to print what the government/corporations want them to print. People with agendas will work the angle that benefits their world view and agenda. And it goes all on down, to the consumer/voter, to control, manipulate, and influence them.

A good bit of it is all a con. If the information comes easy...



If there is any significant change; yeah you can get all worked up about plastics, soymilk, etc.. But the most likely culprit is sexual selection, epigenetics, adaptation, etc., if there is any culprit at all. Times of peace and times of war...

 

[CenotaphGirl]

I highly doubt testosterone levels in men have significantly changed. What has changed is the size, scope, power, and profit that drug companies make these days, compared to the 1950's. heh. People get so worked up about trends; it's just multi-billion dollar con-artists looking for the next batch of suckers...

Just because a research paper is published, doesn't mean it isn't outright lying, or saying things in a confusing and round-about way. I've dug deep on one occasion. An article that made a bold claim, that people believed in. So, I followed the sources, read the paper, and found that it was being intentionally confusing, and misleading with numbers AND words. The claims didn't match the results; but by stating things a certain way, it wasn't actually a lie, just a quarter-truth under a specific and rare circumstance. In other words, nonsense. It was infuriating.

Tobacco companies will hire scientists to say what they want to be said. Oil companies will hire scientists to say what they want to be said. Drug companies will hire scientists to say what they want to be said. News companies will hire people to print what the government/corporations want them to print. People with agendas will work the angle that benefits their world view and agenda. And it goes all on down, to the consumer/voter, to control, manipulate, and influence them.

A good bit of it is all a con. If the information comes easy...



If there is any significant change; yeah you can get all worked up about plastics, soymilk, etc.. But the most likely culprit is sexual selection, epigenetics, adaptation, etc., if there is any culprit at all. Times of peace and times of war...

The issue is though, the testosterone in men has been on a steady decline for years, and now just look at them. They get no help in that area and their ability to be selected has suffered.

I think a lot of people are blaming women but if we dramatically increased our testosterone levels… men wouldnt want us either.

Why is it they explore hormones on a profitable level but not for men and women who need correction. I hear some people explain they just have this “personality type” and I think I bet his testosterone is low and no one will correct it. However I agree that maybe its peace that has changed things.

 

[TropicalStarfish]

The issue is though, the testosterone in men has been on a steady decline for years, and now just look at them. They get no help in that area and their ability to be selected has suffered.

I think a lot of people are blaming women but if we dramatically increased our testosterone levels… men wouldnt want us either.

Why is it they explore hormones on a profitable level but not for men and women who need correction. I hear some people explain they just have this “personality type” and I think I bet his testosterone is low and no one will correct it. However I agree that maybe its peace that has changed things.

I didn't expect it to be this easy; but, here you go... I'm not convinced that "testosterone levels in men have been on a steady decline for years."


https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/92/1/196/2598434?login=false

(((To enhance comparability of age distributions across study waves and to allow for analyses of T concentrations by subjects’ birth cohorts, data were restricted to observations obtained on men of age 45–79 yr born between 1916 and 1945, inclusive. This yielded potential samples of 1399, 975, and 579 observations at T1, T2, and T3, respectively. Of these, we excluded all observations on the seven men who had T1 serum total T less than 100 ng/dl (3.5 nmol/liter), and two outlying observations with total T more than 1200 ng/dl (41.6 nmol/liter). One hundred twenty-six observations were excluded because they were taken on subjects who, before the relevant study wave, had a diagnosis of prostate cancer, for which treatment via hormone suppression therapy could not be ruled out. An additional 44 observations were excluded because subjects lacked complete health data. This yielded samples of 1374, 906, and 489 observations at T1, T2, and T3, respectively, totaling 2769 observations taken on 1532 men.)))

Let's extract the relevant numbers.

Study was performed on men between the ages of 45-79. (red flag already)
T1 sample group yielded 1374 results to be used from years 1987–89 .
T2 sample group yielded 906 results to be used from years 1995–97.
T3 sample group yielded 489 results to be used from years 2002–04. (We can confirm a correlation between [testosterone decline] and [sample size decline])

Now if you go on to the discussion portion, you'll see them dissect all the possible unaccounted for variables, yadda yadda, this, that, and the other, etc.. etc..

But what do we know with our common sense? Men's testosterone levels decrease with age. We know that. We also know at age 45, we are, 'over the hill.' So, it would be normal for their to be lower testosterone levels in men aged 45-79. (nice market segment to milk there as well , at least concerning Testosterone levels)

We also can observe that the T1 sample group was larger than the T2 sample group, and T2 sample group was larger than the T3 sample group. So, each consecutive sample group got smaller and smaller. The smaller the sample group, the less accurate the results will be.

And lastly, using common sense, we can observe that, if it is true, that Testosterone levels are declining, at a somewhat predictable rate, year over year, eventually they will reach zero. Common sense tells us, that doesn't make sense. The levels would have to flatten out somewhere, or rise back up, or fluctuate to some degree, studies would have to be more comprehensive, or the human male will become some new freak of nature, devoid of all traces of Testosterone.

----
This research paper was quite dense, and I'm not a scientist or statistician. But, even if we assume, despite the small sample sizes, and the age ranges taken from them, that there is a year over year testosterone decline in participants observed at the Endocrine Laboratory, University of Massachusetts Medical Center; what does that, 'really,' even mean?

1: Massachusetts is just one place in the world.
2: It could be a variety of things that cause these numbers to appear in the data, up to and including the studies themselves. If it's not the data itself, it could be lifestyle, health, fitness, environmental, etc.. etc..
----

So anyway, enough hot-air, from me. I just clicked through to the first cited research paper, from the first search result on the subject, which landed me here --> https://health.clevelandclinic.org/declining-testosterone-levels/ And basically what that article says is that, 'testosterone levels are on the decline, and we think it's related to lifestyle and health, so get your Testosterone levels checked and seek out your doctor if you experience any of a certain number of symptoms.'

And what do doctors commonly do? Prescribe medication. Who makes the medications? Very, very, very large, multinational conglomerates that charge big bucks for novel treatments. They just have to invent new problems every year, so they can sell their new patented solutions, for big bucks, until the patent runs out. Business as usual.

---
I've convinced myself anyway, lol. I'm not concerned. There may be the occasional rare disorder, that causes a person to have abnormally low levels of testosterone; but, on the whole, I doubt much has changed (except for the every-day joe and jane's life getting harder, with less opportunities, and more expensive housing, gas, automobiles, and children, etc. etc.).
---
I still say Research Paper Paywalls and Oxytocin are the more concerning subject matter. My brain is seizing up right now, so... Here's a manatee.

 

[sub5male]

My interpretation of the study, though, is that the men were not "cheating" per se, as the women almost certainly know he was other girlfriends but don't care because he is "high status" and someone they could brag about to their friends.


Nothing for nothing...I'm 6'1" ad around 175/180 lbs. Have exercised and been "fit and trim" my entire adult life.
What's more, I have a STEM degree and have been making a comfortable 6 figure income since I was in my late 20s (for 30 years).
I have NEVER ONCE had a female I consider attractive show so much as a microgram of attraction towards me.
So being tall is not the key to the kingdom.
I don't know what is, but it's not that. I'm living proof.

Being tall alone is not a guarantee because facial attractiveness is also a huge factor. All things considered though, being 6'1 is vastly superior to being 5'5 on every level.

 

[sub5male]

That's 63% of men in their 20s. Some of that is explained by women in their mid-late 20s dating guys in their 30s who are more financially stable and interested in settling down.

That could be-it could also be an indication that women in their 20's choose to have fun with the men they are actually attracted to and then choose less attractive, higher earning providers when they are ready to settle down. The fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce and that around 70% of the time women are the one's who intiate the divorce are also interesting stats.

 

[sub5male]

My point is they wont date them statistically, women with Aspergers too theres always someone on a lower end of the dating spectrum and it isnt fair, but it is how it is.

As for man sharing, I really wouldnt mind no. I think its a natural position (when I look at every other culture) but as a Christian im engaged to a man who sees that behaviour as sin thus I shall be his only burden

I think the fact that the physically disabled are being compared to short men proves how must distain women have for men under the average height.

As far as being engaged to a christian, many strong christians of both sexes have affairs so their proclaimed faith often has nothing to do with their actual actions.

 

[sub5male]

I can understand that, I wish certain features I have wasnt a complete turn off to the subset of men I prefer but alas…

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the subset of men you prefer are the top 1% who can afford to require near perfection from the women they choose to date. Btw, I find it very curious that you stated you are engaged but still seem to be pining for attention from 6'5 white men with blue eyes?

 

[Unsigned]

women in their 20's choose to have fun with the men they are actually attracted to and then choose less attractive, higher earning providers when they are ready to settle down.

It's really a bad situation.
To wife up a woman who was chasing "chads" for 15 years, then "settles" for a nice guy.
She'll always in her mind compare him to the chads, and start resenting him.
Leading to divorce settlements and child support.
It's a death trap for many guys.

 

[Cherubino]

don't worry ... nature always finds a way ... since it's all interconnected check for the number of spinsters and childless

 

[CenotaphGirl]

I think the fact that the physically disabled are being compared to short men proves how must distain women have for men under the average height.

As far as being engaged to a christian, many strong christians of both sexes have affairs so their proclaimed faith often has nothing to do with their actual actions.

I never compared being short to having a physical disability, I am saying they think they are better than them. I could end up in a wheelchair tomorrow so I dont consider it... looking down on anyone to bring women who are in wheelchairs into the discussion. You explain to me why mentioning that women in wheel chairs is showing distain for men under the average height? You do that and prove your distain for them.

Not untrue, but having an affair and being poly are different. My partner could fall pray to cheating on me due to lust or greed, however, in his rightful mind, he subscribes to not being poly and following the lords design.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the subset of men you prefer are the top 1% who can afford to require near perfection from the women they choose to date. Btw, I find it very curious that you stated you are engaged but still seem to be pining for attention from 6'5 white men with blue eyes?

I was actually describing my partner but that seems to have gone over your head lol , I dont need to pine for attention, short men I dont want... give me more than I know how to deal with

 

[CenotaphGirl]

I didn't expect it to be this easy; but, here you go... I'm not convinced that "testosterone levels in men have been on a steady decline for years."


https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/92/1/196/2598434?login=false

(((To enhance comparability of age distributions across study waves and to allow for analyses of T concentrations by subjects’ birth cohorts, data were restricted to observations obtained on men of age 45–79 yr born between 1916 and 1945, inclusive. This yielded potential samples of 1399, 975, and 579 observations at T1, T2, and T3, respectively. Of these, we excluded all observations on the seven men who had T1 serum total T less than 100 ng/dl (3.5 nmol/liter), and two outlying observations with total T more than 1200 ng/dl (41.6 nmol/liter). One hundred twenty-six observations were excluded because they were taken on subjects who, before the relevant study wave, had a diagnosis of prostate cancer, for which treatment via hormone suppression therapy could not be ruled out. An additional 44 observations were excluded because subjects lacked complete health data. This yielded samples of 1374, 906, and 489 observations at T1, T2, and T3, respectively, totaling 2769 observations taken on 1532 men.)))

Let's extract the relevant numbers.

Study was performed on men between the ages of 45-79. (red flag already)
T1 sample group yielded 1374 results to be used from years 1987–89 .
T2 sample group yielded 906 results to be used from years 1995–97.
T3 sample group yielded 489 results to be used from years 2002–04. (We can confirm a correlation between [testosterone decline] and [sample size decline])

Now if you go on to the discussion portion, you'll see them dissect all the possible unaccounted for variables, yadda yadda, this, that, and the other, etc.. etc..

But what do we know with our common sense? Men's testosterone levels decrease with age. We know that. We also know at age 45, we are, 'over the hill.' So, it would be normal for their to be lower testosterone levels in men aged 45-79. (nice market segment to milk there as well , at least concerning Testosterone levels)

We also can observe that the T1 sample group was larger than the T2 sample group, and T2 sample group was larger than the T3 sample group. So, each consecutive sample group got smaller and smaller. The smaller the sample group, the less accurate the results will be.

And lastly, using common sense, we can observe that, if it is true, that Testosterone levels are declining, at a somewhat predictable rate, year over year, eventually they will reach zero. Common sense tells us, that doesn't make sense. The levels would have to flatten out somewhere, or rise back up, or fluctuate to some degree, studies would have to be more comprehensive, or the human male will become some new freak of nature, devoid of all traces of Testosterone.

----
This research paper was quite dense, and I'm not a scientist or statistician. But, even if we assume, despite the small sample sizes, and the age ranges taken from them, that there is a year over year testosterone decline in participants observed at the Endocrine Laboratory, University of Massachusetts Medical Center; what does that, 'really,' even mean?

1: Massachusetts is just one place in the world.
2: It could be a variety of things that cause these numbers to appear in the data, up to and including the studies themselves. If it's not the data itself, it could be lifestyle, health, fitness, environmental, etc.. etc..
----

So anyway, enough hot-air, from me. I just clicked through to the first cited research paper, from the first search result on the subject, which landed me here --> https://health.clevelandclinic.org/declining-testosterone-levels/ And basically what that article says is that, 'testosterone levels are on the decline, and we think it's related to lifestyle and health, so get your Testosterone levels checked and seek out your doctor if you experience any of a certain number of symptoms.'

And what do doctors commonly do? Prescribe medication. Who makes the medications? Very, very, very large, multinational conglomerates that charge big bucks for novel treatments. They just have to invent new problems every year, so they can sell their new patented solutions, for big bucks, until the patent runs out. Business as usual.

---
I've convinced myself anyway, lol. I'm not concerned. There may be the occasional rare disorder, that causes a person to have abnormally low levels of testosterone; but, on the whole, I doubt much has changed (except for the every-day joe and jane's life getting harder, with less opportunities, and more expensive housing, gas, automobiles, and children, etc. etc.).
---
I still say Research Paper Paywalls and Oxytocin are the more concerning subject matter. My brain is seizing up right now, so... Here's a manatee.

I will deep dive on this, looks interesting, if men have their testosterone, I would be shocked. I think I have only met a handful of men I would consider having adequate testosterone levels from looks alone. However, I got my statistics from peer reviewed paper and research studies I didnt find many that disagree. sooo will have to take a look now.

 

[CenotaphGirl]

don't worry ... nature always finds a way ... since it's all interconnected check for the number of spinsters and childless

This is true too, a lot of young women are having early ovarian failure. I sometimes think wow, this must be by design maybe trops is right and this is all for big business

 

[abbynormal]

for what it's worth, my experience is one of steadily decreasing testosterone and muscle mass/mojo over the decades until a few years ago i basically had subclinical levels [<100 nanograms per deciliter] of T. i tried the patches for a while, they were like jump-starting a car but side fx were not something i was comfortable with enduring over the long term [severely itchy rash at the patch site, increased body odor/skin greasiness, 'roid rage]. so i went with nutraceuticals including Prime T [contains 3200 mg. D-Aspartic Acid which is the #1 best T booster aside from Androgen itself], muira puama 10:1 concentrate, maca 4;1 concentrate, testofen [fenugreek concentrate], l-citruline, pycnogenol [helps the l-citruline become bioavailable], panax ginseng and tongkat ali 200:1 concentrate. now my T levels are >500 ng/dl, and my muscles are back as well as my mojo. now if only i had an outlet for my mojo it is a significant expense to be sure, but having some of my youth back is basically priceless.

 

[CenotaphGirl]

for what it's worth, my experience is one of steadily decreasing testosterone and muscle mass/mojo over the decades until a few years ago i basically had subclinical levels [<100 nanograms per deciliter] of T. i tried the patches for a while, they were like jump-starting a car but side fx were not something i was comfortable with enduring over the long term [severely itchy rash at the patch site, increased body odor/skin greasiness, 'roid rage]. so i went with nutraceuticals including Prime T [contains 3200 mg. D-Aspartic Acid which is the #1 best T booster aside from Androgen itself], muira puama 10:1 concentrate, maca 4;1 concentrate, testofen [fenugreek concentrate], l-citruline, pycnogenol [helps the l-citruline become bioavailable], panax ginseng and tongkat ali 200:1 concentrate. now my T levels are >500 ng/dl, and my muscles are back as well as my mojo. now if only i had an outlet for my mojo it is a significant expense to be sure, but having some of my youth back is basically priceless.

Thats amazing and did you have to do this all on your own or did a doctor ever step in?

 

[abbynormal]

doc gave me the androgen but i discovered the rest via trial and error.