
Men in committed, romantic relationships have lower testosterone - dataker
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13129483
======
jvanderbot
I have access to the article. This statement is key: "By increasing libido,
higher T may encourage mateseeking behavior."

Of course testosterone drops when you find a mate. You don't have to fight for
one any more.

They go on to show that it further decreases when you have children. Since
virility _is_ affected by T levels, it's a good hypothesis that having kids is
likely a trigger to reduce the risk-seeking behavior in males after children
are born.

It's kind of a "no duh" result in that light, and they sought to find evidence
that supports this hypothesis. However, they are clear to state that they
cannot address causation directly.

"High-T men may be less likely to enter stable, romantic relationships.
Additionally, affiliative interactions with a partner may decrease T levels,
in turn reducing mating effort. We also expect T variation within the group of
paired men to be consistent with variation in mating effort, although we are
not able to test this with our data set. For example, it may be that paired-
male T levels will be highest during times of sexual activity with a partner
(as suggested in Hirschenhauser et al., 2002) or that variation in the
strength of the pair bond might explain variance in T levels among paired
individuals. These are all topics for which longitudinal data would be of
great help in teasing apart cause and effect."

~~~
jacques_chester
The nice thing about "no duh" results is that, every once in a while,
something unexpected happens. And then, if you're lucky, a new glimpse of the
world happens.

~~~
jvanderbot
Science is built on layers and layers of dull data collection (like this one).
But yah, a no-duh result that doesn't come through is fun.

------
maj0rhn
The paper's flaw is that it doesn't look at other potential confounders. Here
is a simple, but important one: Is there a difference between the amount of
sleep that partnered and unpartnered people get? (My experience is lots less
sleep when partnered.) It's important because testosterone production depends
on pulsatile secretions of other hormones from the pituitary gland that occur
during sleep. So, getting less sleep means lower testosterone levels. Take
heed, start-up slaves! :-)

~~~
ashark
Less sleep, definitely, and maybe less time working out—relationships take up
lots of time, even if you're not with someone who's especially needy. Very
easy to let one's workout routine slip to avoid cutting in to other solo
activities too badly. Even worse if you add kids to the mix.

Less time hittin' the weights means lower T.

(obviously plenty of couples work out together and still get some exercise in
that way, but even then either or both of time and intensity could drop
compared with when single)

------
btilly
A lot of comments are missing a basic fact of how science works. In science we
have a theory, make predictions, then stress test them.

This is one study examining a theory which we have various lines of evidence
for. It is not supposed to prove the theory - just test one prediction. It is
not supposed to be the end of research on this topic. It is not supposed to be
final. Criticizing it for any of those things is a demonstration that you do
not understand how science is supposed to function.

For some of the background on this particular theory I highly recommend
reading [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-
self/2009...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-
self/200904/the-testosterone-curse-part-1) and the follow-up
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-
self/2009...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-
self/200905/the-testosterone-curse-part-2). (If you want to get to the point,
it is probably better to start with the follow-up.)

~~~
sdalfakj
> Criticizing it for any of those things is a demonstration that you do not
> understand how science is supposed to function.

Good luck criticizing science when you forbade yourself to criticize pretty
much all study shortcomings using those all-encompassing guidelines that all
point to a single conclusion, i.e. "Don't criticize me, I'm just a prediction
bro".

~~~
btilly
There are useful criticisms, and useless criticisms. It is easy to criticize
studies for not being what you want them to be, but the exercise is useless.
It is harder to criticize studies for failing to be what they are supposed to
be, but the exercise is far more useful.

Here are some valid criticisms of studies. It doesn't clearly state the
theory. It doesn't clearly state the prediction. It doesn't actually test what
it tries to test. It doesn't have references to where you can learn more about
the theory. It fails to refer to important evidence in the literature that it
should have. It doesn't describe the limitations of the design. It doesn't
have suggestions about how to better follow up on the result.

In the end a study is supposed to be one point in a grand logical argument
that eventually comes to a conclusion about said theory. It should be
criticized based whether it is a well-made point, not on whether it is a
complete argument.

------
spacko
It's odd that "low Testosterone levels" (as in "lower T levels compared to
...") is automatically considered to be something bad (by male readers). High
T-levels are connected with higher susceptibility to inflammation f.x.

~~~
fierycatnet
Low testosterone is pretty bad... fatigue, mental fog, low sex drive, weak
muscles, ED, etc. I have low test and it's not something that I consider
normal. The difference between low and high T is night and day. It greatly
affects the well being.

~~~
spacko
so all the husbands in the world have weak muscles and mental fog ... ? :D

that's why I wrote my comment precisely as I did. the article is not about low
T levels but comparatively low T levels (comparing to single guys)

~~~
fierycatnet
Nah, I wasn't making that link but I see what you meant now in your post.

------
Oblouk
I see no problem with the Wording of this study. Firstly the study is not
trying to go so far as to determine the reasons for such results. That is it
is not statinng the reason behind why ltrs have lower testosterone.

Instead it is seeking to determine "[...] whether being in such a relationship
(rather than being married) is the meaningful predictor of male testosterone
levels."

Emphasis on meaningful predictor.

------
agumonkey
Anecdotal question: there's an area, around occipital and cerebellum where
romantic memories or grief activate pain, and arousal become impossible. As if
having someone there forbids the sexual system to function.

------
ThomPete
New dating service idea. Testosterone tester.

~~~
notThatBad
Women kind of have one of these. They're able to identify males with high
testosterone by looking at them and being near them.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/mens-smell-
testoste...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/mens-smell-testosterone-
attractive-to-women-study_n_3110182.html)

[http://healthmad.com/mens-health/women-can-smell-
testosteron...](http://healthmad.com/mens-health/women-can-smell-
testosterone/)

------
discardorama
(Sample of 1). I think my personal experience would seem to indicate so. I've
been in a committed relationship for 2 years. But sometimes the wife travels,
and I hang out with my single friends, going to bars, flirting with chicks,
etc. And I find that I'm a lot more 'affectionate' after this episode. Could
it be that I miss the wife so much? I have noticed a difference between when I
do the bar scene, and when I don't.

~~~
spacko
I second this ... I actually even encourage my gf to flirt with other men - it
keeps you mentally fresh and vital

------
Pinwheeler
Let's not forget: Correlation != Causation.

Does being in a relationship lower your testosterone?

Or are women(assuming the men in study were heterosexual, not sure on that,
either) more interested in entering into LTRs with men with lower testosterone
levels?

Edit: Also, was this controlled for age?

~~~
seccess
Or, are men with naturally lower testosterone levels more likely to stay in a
single LTR?

~~~
Pinwheeler
ooh, also a possibility!

------
coralreef
Makes sense. Those who are hungry must hunt. Those whose appetites are
satiated can relax.

~~~
orthoganol
Anecdotally, it's the opposite for me. When I'm in a relationship my sex drive
is a lot higher, and since sex becomes more part of daily life, sex starts
coloring things a lot more almost unconsciously, looking at other women more
sexually, thinking about it more etc. If I'm single I usually just focus on me
and my projects and sex kind of fades away into the background.

However, multi year, really long relationships I could see your testosterone
and sex drive drop off, as the excitement of it (neurotransmitter-ly speaking)
wears off.

------
sstjohn
Let me guess: they were all straight.

~~~
mkr-hn
The added stress of homophobia might affect the results. I wonder what a study
of testosterone levels in different areas and orientations would show.

------
minimaxir
> _To test this hypothesis, 122 male Harvard Business School students filled
> out a questionnaire and collected one saliva sample (from which testosterone
> level was measured). Results revealed that men in committed, romantic
> relationships had 21% lower testosterone levels than men not involved in
> such relationships._

Since I can't read the paper without credentials, let's say half the
participants indicated they are in a relationship. Won't a sample size of 61
potentially result in confidence interval issues?

~~~
dietrichepp
This is the kind of question that you get when you read the abstract but not
the article itself.

