No link to the actual study. I need to know if they controlled for body fat and lifestyle.
It's well established that high body fat percentage is correlated with lower sex hormone production. Among other factors, this could be due to decreased bloodflow to the genitals.
It's not unreasonable to think maybe the people eating the junk food were simply fatter.
Another concern is whether they're getting adequate nutrients from other foods. There's a bit of substitution going on when a higher percentage of calories coming from junk food, but it's completely possible to eat McDonald's for lunch every day and still get 100% of your recommended vitamins, minerals and fiber from other meals.
About 2/3 of caloric intake is simply for energy... and excess will lead to weight gain. That said, there is a hormonal component that can dramatically effect how absorption works and lead to a higher or lower chance of metabolic syndrome. There's also a genetic factor as well in terms of what does and doesn't work well. Pretty much all foods have a portion of the population that reacts badly to them.
You're probably right that it's highly related to body fat. But I would suggest it's also highly correlated to sugar (particularly fructose) intake as well as other simple starches. There was a controlled study reported just the other day that showed that even maintaining a given weight, macro nutrient changes can dramatically effect metabolic syndrome and related issues.
Western diets are also high sugar. The fat isn't particularly high compared to say Paleo or other ancestral approaches. Though the quality/types/processing of the fats is pretty unnatural in a typical western diet.
Since it gated, here are the diet+sperm quality results:
From the responses to a dietary questionnaire, four types of diet were identified: a “Western” diet characterised by red meat, processed meat, fatty and sugary food and drink; a “prudent” diet comprising mainly chicken, fish, vegetables and fruit; a “Smørrebrød” diet cold processed meats, whole grains, mayonnaise, cold fish, condiments, and dairy; and a traditional vegetarian diet, involving lots of vegetables, soya milk and eggs.
Sperm health, as measured by concentration, volume and motility, was best in those following the prudent diet, followed by the vegetarian and then Smørrebrød diets, with those adhering to a western diet yielding the worse readings.
Can’t read the full article, but I assume that the result of the western diet isn’t necessarily ”devastatingly low” ferility, just lower than other diet groups.
I guess if a group wants to reduce population of developing countries, they can develop ultra cheap fast food, fast food subsidies and fast influencers who manipulate a large part of population into eating fast food and we save the planet? Just food for thoughts. Fast food VCs rescue planet from overpopulation.
Developed countries are already shrinking in population, that's why I specifically talk about developing countries.
We already know within the US that it doesn’t work though - the poorest with the worst diets (not on subsistence farming here, key point) have the most unplanned pregnancies which lead to lack of economic advancement in our current incentive structure.
The Gates Foundation is funding more education which tends to lead toward women and men setting career goals, potentially relocating, and thereby delaying childbearing to a later time. The primary exceptions here in developed countries are pretty much entirely religious (see: Duggars, most of Utah...).
Commercially produced fast food is also more expensive than cooking at home in developing countries because their marginal utility of labor is so low (much cheaper to cook at home and spend the time than to go work those hours instead). Government subsidies to make fast food nearly free don’t work that well when much of the population has no access to it either. This situation is somewhat inverted from America’s problem (healthier city dwellers that walk with fewer children, unhealthy rural population dependent upon cars that reproduce far more).
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on the individual's inclination to have kids, or perspective on world population growth. Could it mean less accidental kids?
For a while now I've wanted to save some sperm and get snipped. Seems like the best of both worlds - save your young HQ code while not worrying about accidental pregnancy!
Nobody is forcing people to eat fast food all the time. They are consenting by choosing it.
> For a while now I've wanted to save some sperm and get snipped. Seems like the best of both worlds - save your young HQ code while not worrying about accidental pregnancy!
If you get it all snipped, you won't have to worry about those nasty STD's, either.
It's well established that high body fat percentage is correlated with lower sex hormone production. Among other factors, this could be due to decreased bloodflow to the genitals.
It's not unreasonable to think maybe the people eating the junk food were simply fatter.
Another concern is whether they're getting adequate nutrients from other foods. There's a bit of substitution going on when a higher percentage of calories coming from junk food, but it's completely possible to eat McDonald's for lunch every day and still get 100% of your recommended vitamins, minerals and fiber from other meals.
This is just poor reporting.