LinkedinLunatics

From the website:

The truth is that [the] whole project is (most of the time) quite inaccurate and error-prone, and often involves way too little data to really make a judgment, despite my best efforts. It also involves my amateur method of “age-adjusting” the results to be comparable. So this whole project is quite inaccurate and shouldn’t be used for serious conclusions. But if you understand the inaccuracies involved, you still may find it interesting.

You are right it just looks like they used Excel + curve fitting.

It's when your T levels regress, duh

if you ever feel down and redundant look at the degrees of freedom in this fit and feel better

No it’s just R^7 regression! Testosterone levels will be negative by next week!

Edit: and male bodies were approximately 2000% testosterone in the 1940s!

His tag says he beat testicular cancer and now he help

Def selling something

It's a terrible graph anyway. The outliers haven't been removed and I completely don't understand the line of best fit that's been drawn because it appears to be squiggly. How can it be squiggly, it's a line of best fit, it's an approximation. Oh and making some of the points green does not increase their validity.

That face when high testosterone turns out to be caused by lead in petrol.

However, both populations experience suboptimal access to energy, and consequently maintain minimal levels of body fat and low BMI

You are citing a malnourished population.

Previous studies of non-western populations have revealed inconsistent associations between men's testosterone levels and paternal or marital status. | Twenty-seven Hadza participants | Eighty Datoga participants

This is a comparitively small study, and one which contradicts other bodies of research.

As with male birds, it seems likely that testosterone facilitates reproductive effort in the form of male–male competition and mate-seeking behaviour, both of which interfere with effective paternal care.

Given the increasing social atomisation of the west (see:average age of fatherhood, number of children had, divorce rates), the hypothesis proposed by this paper implies testosterone levels in the west should be increasing not decreasing.

Look, I get the desire to debunk redpillers, but when we're talking about a worldwide trendline in basic biology you're going to need more research than this to do so. The Male infertility crisis is a genuine problem field experts are extremely worried about, hence the need for research and coverage by the mainstream (to stop snake oil salesmen being the main point of contact for this issue).

They love to pretend that they're experts at biology but fail to grasp that it's fucking complicated. More isn't always better with hormones.

Yeah, it would have looked better with just a straight line fit. And 2020 does seem "statistically different" than 1970.

Edit: to be clear though, if lower testosterone means I live longer and with more hair, I'm all for it! My kids seem to be normal enough.

My guess is that they want to show a bump after 9/11 when "men went to war for freedom" or some shit.

Nice try Larry David

Lots of stuff.

https://www.medichecks.com/blogs/testosterone/why-do-gen-z-and-millennial-men-have-lower-testosterone

Tld;r:

Obesity, Microplastics, Fewer smokers, Stress and mental health problems, Tighter underwear, Diabetes, Higher indoor temperatures

Worse health in general it seems. And it's not as low as the graph the person shared

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/declining-testosterone-levels

An aging population.

Well you see, testosterone levels rose when Regan was elected, 9/11 happened, and The Apprentice launched.

It's basically science.

(this post was satire, and I'm sorry if it made anyone vomit)