Slashdot Mirror
Men Are Affected By the Biological Clock As Well, Researchers Find (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A new study reveals that a couple's chances of having a baby fall with the man's age, to the point that it can have a substantial impact on their ability to start a family. Laura Dodge, who led the research at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that couples should bear the findings in mind when planning a family. "When making this decision, they should also be considering the man's age," she said. Scientists have long known that a woman's chances of conceiving naturally drop sharply from the age of 35, but fertility research has focused so much on women that male factors are less well understood. To investigate the impact of a man's age on a couple's chances of having a baby, Dodge and her colleagues studied records of nearly 19,000 IVF treatment cycles in the Boston area between 2000 and 2014. The women were divided into four age bands: those under 30, 30-35 year-olds, 35-40 year-olds, and those aged 40-42. The men were divided into the same age brackets with an extra band for the over 42s. Some of the couples had received up to six cycles of IVF. Dodge then looked at how age affected couples' chances of having a live birth. As expected, women in the 40-42 age bracket had the lowest birth rates, and for these women the male partner's age had no impact. But for younger women the man's age mattered. Women aged under 30 with a male partner aged 30 to 35 had a 73% chance of a live birth after IVF. But that impressive success rate fell to 46% when the man was aged 40 to 42. Whether they can hear it or not, the biological clock ticks for men too.
Sooo, younger sperm donors are better, is the takeaway? I thought this was common knowledge.
Usually, a prospective mother will want to use her partner's sperm for IVF, and won't say "I'm gonna use someone else's sperm because you're old so the chances of success are lower, sorry honey." even if that means higher cost for more rounds of IVF. If a woman has a partner 10+ years older than her, chances are he's rich enough to afford those extra rounds.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Identifying the inequality is the first step in resolving any social injustice.
Since we know men and women are equal and that means exactly the same, time to move forward with adjusting society until both men and women reach peak fertility at the same age. I vote for 40.
>> women in the 40-42 age bracket had the lowest birth rates, and for these women the male partner's age had no impact.
>> Women aged under 30 with a male partner aged 30 to 35 had a 73% chance of a live birth after IVF.
>> that impressive success rate fell to 46% when the man was aged 40 to 42.
For men after 40 it means they have to go against the time and select much younger woman.
One more research confirming common knowledge.
Someone will cash in on this soon.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Have we factored in lifestyle into this as well?
Something tells me that men that do not smoke, don't indulge in alcohol often or at all and keep fit will have better results...(seems obvious right?)
The men I know at those later ages seem to have given up on a healthy lifestyle at least in terms of fitness. Also family stress factors in.
More data needed. Time to crowdfund a study on the subject?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Furthermore, given the assumption that most people have in that male age plays little role in fertility, why would their doctor then recommend IVF unless they already had some pre-existing fertility-related medical condition?
since vasectomy is banned around here I'd be happy, but I'm way too young to be happy about this
if only I was infertile
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/jul/07/health.children
Same article author in 2008
Also, surely this is common sense?
It has been known for a while , and is well studied , that fertility in men drop sharply at some point between 40 and 50. Abnormal spermatozoide, slow one, etc.... All known phenomenon - in fact also correlated to trisomie 21 incidence too. I fail to see what's so different with this result to the precedent ones.
We do. Too many of the ones we currently have aren't really worth anything.
Slashdot has been spamming my inbox with their headlines
Can someone tell me how to stop it?
Thanks !
Do you really think the imperative to procreate goes away if you or your partner are infertile through illness etc. at any age?
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
History has sterilized what would otherwise be natural human life. Throughout history, men who wear un-bifurcated garments have proven to be more virile and STAY fertile, no matter their age. Modern, tight-fitting underwear and pants, jeans, trousers etc impair male fertility by increasing the temperature inside the testicles by as much as 3.5 degrees Celsius. This not only slows sperm production, but it causes the testicles to produce substandard sperm which can not swim to fertilize an egg and produce normal embryos. Add in the thoroughly documented dramatic increase in testicular and prostate cancers men who wear pants have suffered since their invention and its a wonder anyone would do a scientific study and not mention this.
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads,
[Citation needed] - it does interest me : I've never seen such information before.
Also, unlike ovocytes which are stored longterm from birth onward (and thus can over time accumulate damage - even if they have mecanism to try to avoid it. That's also why women experience menopause once they run out of ovocytes), spermatozoon are constantly produced over the lifetime, they are all relatively fresh cells and are thus a little bit less likely to suffer from environmental damage (environmental toxic substance could still cause damage to the gonia cell producing them, but at least they are not siting cold, exposed to risks).
Thus I would expect that, for physic-chemical reasons, dad's age is a tiny bit less impacting than mom.
and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
In addition to criticism behind the "main" part of this sentence as mentioned by other in this thread,
I would add criticism to the "risk factor".
The same mantra as usual goes : " correlation doesn't necessarily means causation ".
There might be a mechanism (like the defect accumulated over time in dad's cell - albeit at a lower rate than mom's - could by random chance be a mutation that influence autism).
But there might also be a confounding factor (an independent factor that cause both of the observed manifestation)
And here there's clearly a well known one : high intellect.
- high intellect sometime borders on autistic spectrum, the same kind of gene that can influence a high IQ (attention to detail) might also push over to the pathology. (See studies about higher rate of autism in some regions like silicon valley).
- also these parents tend to do long academic studies and/or carrier, and thus tend to reproduce later in their life.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
have we stepped into a time machine or something? I thought it was common scientific knowledge that men also had biological clocks in that with age sperm numbers diminish and they slow down which directly affects the chances of a successful fertilization. this has been known for decades
My grandfather was capable of giving children even in his 70s.
Sperm are created continuously and that means lots of copying and therefore lots of chance to mutate into something not as effective or with a genetic defect to carry on in a viable organism.
Been known for decades.
And that's not a biological clock like a woman, who has one set of eggs and that's it, so the reproduction just stops because there's no more eggs (a simplification, but a broad gist of the reality). With a man, that degredation starts from day zero and continues until death, cos the boys keep coming.
Jimmy Saville.
Grover Cleveland, the only POTUS to serve 2 non-consecutive terms, was 49, and already President, when he married 21 year old Frances Folsom and was 54 when their 1st child was born and 66 for their fifth.
Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was also already in office and 51 when he married 22 year old Margaret Sinclair and 52 when their 1st son, current prime minister Justin Trudeau was born on Xmas Day of the same year, was 56 for the birth of their 3rd and 72 years old when he fathered his only daughter with Deborah Coyne, then aged 36
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Something must be done.
I didn't want any kids even at 18 years, the biological alarm already had gotten off, so I got myself snipped.
His 2nd wife Julia Gardiner was 24 & he 54 when they married and he was 55 & 70 respectively for the birth of their 1st and 7th kids.
Tyler remains the champion stud among presidents as he had previously fathered EIGHT children with Letitia Christian
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Grover Cleveland, the only POTUS to serve 2 non-consecutive terms, was 49, and already President, when he married 21 year old Frances Folsom and was 54 when their 1st child was born and 66 for their fifth.
I'm in my late 30s and feel like I'm too old to have any more kids. There's no way I want to be having kids now and not getting them out of the house until I'm probably in my 60's.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
According to the study, there is no knowledge of the reasons for IVF.
This literally proves the opposite of what they are saying.
You need to ask what is the rate of males over 40 that had fertility issues vs under 30?
I'd propose that it's likely males at late age looking for a family with a sub 30yo female are probably very likely (in comparison) the reason why the IVF program had been taken up, and therefore the lower rate of fertility for this cohort is not indicative of such a large difference towards male age related causes.
It would be a much more normal spread in the younger brackets (for the reason for the IVF treatment), because sub 30 yo rates of success without treatment in women are fairly good. Again, the number show this out with a massive reduction in the number of cases of sub 30yo women and over 40 men that exceeds the standard deviation of that groups relationship numbers.
So meaning if in the world there are 100 couple in that (40 male) bracket, with normally 8 women needing IVF and 4 of men over 40 needing IVF.
Compare that to say where 100 couple in the 40/40 bracket, with 60 women needing IVF and 4 men. here you can see that male rates have not changed with age, and as per the data, there is very little impact from an older male.
My girlfriend performed oral sex on my on my 42nd birthday. She commented that my semenal fluid didn't taste as "tingly" as every other time over the previous 12 years. An examination of her tongue with a microscope showed a lifeless wasteland covered with dead, old man sperm.
Thankfully we already had a family started before that fateful birthday.
We're there for the fun, not the Diaper changing and 18+ years of bs...
Like someone noted, this is another attempt at the 5th wave feminplainers to spout negative research in the interest of their cause. Like many have stated, we need less people in the world and everything goes against procreation since the law is stacked against fathers.
MGTOW is the only way.
...among IVF patients. Great. So we're talking about men who likely already have some kind of problem.
Rewrite: for men-with-problems, those problems are more significant with age. Again, big surprise.
I'd bet that older men, who want children, and can't seem to have children, experience more stress than younger men. Possibly due to the very simple fact that they've spent more time trying and more time failing.
The problem with this study is it was biased from the start. By starting with couples seeking IVF to begin with, your sample is people having difficulty conceiving, rather than a cross section of the general population.
The conclusion to this study should be: Of people with problems conceiving, IVF is less effective at helping couples where the man is over 40... There are plenty of examples of rich old shriveled bastards getting their 22 year old trophy wives pregnant with normal, healthy babies. And that is the other side to this coin. For women, not only does the pregnancy rate go down, but the risk of fetal genetic defect goes up exponentially after 35.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The LAST thing mankind needs is help with reproduction. What we need help with is ADOPTION, pity they don't make a pill for that.
I'd like to see a woman get pregnant at 72. Sorry sweetie.
By my mid-40's I gave up on the idea of becoming a daddy. Even if my swimmers could produce a viable baby, I'd be 70 when that child would be going off to college. It just wouldn't be fair to that child. The error rate on my swimmer's DNA code is likely too high to produce a viable baby let alone producing a viable adult. Unless my brother has more children to supplement his two daughters, my dad's male lineage is at an end. :-(
we're too broke to date let alone have kids and there's not much religious opposition to birth control left. Most still want to raise a family, but we're reasonable enough to know we can't afford to and even when we're not, well, there's that 'too broke to date' thing rearing it's head again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but I get what the story means.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I think it's trying to communicate with us.
While it is a generalization and doesn't apply to all women, it does apply to many women.
The inability to distinguish reality from fiction and the preferences of ridiculous romantic comedies (or romantic dramas, or anything "romantic" really) and the likes of Sex in the City etc... is ruining a lot of women. Where basically their expectations are set so high, and so one sided, that eventually even the most patient male is going to get pretty frustrated. It is the time old tale of the "princess" story but retold over and over again. From Cinderella, when they were a kid, from Pretty Woman years ago, to the latest 50 shades of grey etc... Always involve some poor woman getting swept off her feet by some prince or billionaire (millionaire is no good anymore apparently) for some arbitrary reason. Oh and now the billionaire is also somehow in his late twenties or early 30's and apparently also goes to the gym 5 times a week, but yet somehow finds the time (between earning billions, and working out so much) to spend every waking minute with the girl spoiling her with gifts and extravagant lifestyle. Anyway it is all so silly. I guess a normal, healthy relationship that is an equal partnership between two people that respect each other doesn't make for an entertaining story... but it would certainly give women something much more realistic (and better) to aspire to.
I know I've actually said "You know that is fiction right? That it isn't real?" to which the response is "But so much of it is so true...". Uh huh. And before someone tries to defend Sex in the City (which might be odd for Slashdot) in saying that some of the stories aren't like that, they also feature 4 women that just happen to be millionaires themselves apparently living in NYC, while doing seemingly no work, though one is a writer and another a lawyer... To which I would ask are you also a successful millionaire fashion writer in her 30's living in NYC, because if you're not, it doesn't really apply to you.
Then there is the whole body image thing, particularly in movies now. Every guy is ripped. "Why can't you look like that"? That is his job. He is getting paid millions of dollars to get a trainer and work out constantly for like a year for that brief 5 second spot on that movie. However if you go to the gym a lot, you're never spending any time with them because "you're always at the gym". Anyway, a general absence of reality in many cases, you literally can't win when a warped reality is against you.
Every few years Feminists squawk and this is recirculated... Just plain old fashioned BS as the "older" men in the study all had "older" wives... Men with 20 yo wives have healthy children - but then we can't be saying women have healthy children when they are younger... Can we... Facts are the anathema to liberalism...
These women are undergoing ivf so they already have fertility issues and you blame the problem on the man ? Lol. And what kind of study only looks at an age range of 40-42 ? This is a biased study to make feminists feel better about themselves
Young men don't mind giving it away. I've been to a lot of places where you can scoop it off the walls.