
What men eat and drink may affect their babies’ health - pseudolus
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/what-men-eat-and-drink-may-affect-their-babies-health/2019/10/11/33d4aefa-da42-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html
======
hnuser54
>The boys were at the age when their sperm cells...were forming. The studies
showed that overindulgence in food or exposure to toxins at this key
developmental stage left a biological memory on sperm cells that could be
passed on to future generations.

This is not exactly accurate, because sperm cells are constantly re-created.
It would be more accurate to say that some sort of epigenetic mechanism, that
authors of the linked study admit they are not sure about, during the time of
_initial_ spermatogenesis can affect future spermatogenesis and therefore
future generations.

The implications of epigenetic inheritance research, including regarding the
fetal environment, are pretty shocking. Endocrine disrupting chemicals, drugs,
smoking, and obesity can hurt your _grandchildren_.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _The implications of epigenetic inheritance research, including regarding
> the fetal environment, are pretty shocking. Endocrine disrupting chemicals,
> drugs, smoking, and obesity can hurt your grandchildren._

There's got to be some adaptive function for all these things.

If some sort of signal is passed down the generations, I bet that mechanism
was honed by natural selection, because it was probably _useful_ , in the
grand scheme of things, to do so.

~~~
sombremesa
Natural selection is just an emergent process. Genetic errors at some stage
are going to be passed to all descendants, regardless of utility. The
harmfulness or usefulness of these errors is left as an exercise for mortality
prior to reproduction - which, in modern society, may not be a particular
useful factor.

~~~
smallnamespace
The popularity of the Darwin awards notwithstanding, mortality is not the only
mechanism by which evolutionary pressure is applied - simply influencing the
likelihood of having children (and recursively onward through descendants) is
sufficient.

That gives wide latitude for more subtle influences (e.g. attractiveness,
_desire_ to have children) to have a large impact.

~~~
elgenie
Not the main point, but it should be noted that the Darwin Awards are wide
open to candidates with outstanding self-sterilizations, not just people that
remove themselves from the gene pool by dying (hilariously).

[https://darwinawards.com/rules/rules1.html](https://darwinawards.com/rules/rules1.html)

------
08-15
Unbelievably bad reporting on top of weak studies. From the article:

"...showed that young men who smoked just before puberty produced sons who
were more likely to be overweight, beginning in adolescence."

So I looked at the study. They "found" that fathers who began smoking at very
young age produced sons (but not daughters) with a higher BMI at age 9 (but
not at 7). Note the fine distinctions, all from a sample size of just 330 such
fathers. This reeks of a Munchhausen Grid.

But it gets better: the difference is between a BMI of 17.23 and one of 18.15.
What an enormous difference! And both values are considered _underweight_.

So, guys, better start smoking before you're ten years old, or you risk siring
underweight sons!

~~~
rjf72
Normal BMI values are for adults. Child BMI differs somewhat sharply depending
on age and gender.

This [1] is a tool from the CDC for measuring the BMI of children. For
instance a 9 year old with a BMI of 22.5 (in the middle of the normal range
for an adult) would be considered obese. A BMI of 17.6 (very underweight for
an adult) would mean they're more overweight than 70% of other children their
age, but it's still considered a healthy weight - just on the high side. By
contrast dropping down just 1 BMI point (to 16.6) puts the child at the 55th
percentile, meaning it's a perfectly average weight.

[1] -
[https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/bmi/calculator.html](https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/bmi/calculator.html)

------
WheelsAtLarge
I always assumed that this was the case but what I find more remarkable is
that even what your past generations eat will effect your health.

Nova did an episode a few years back on Epigenetics that gave a pretty good
explanation of it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYnBtqYv_U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYnBtqYv_U)

~~~
i2shar
Also, the initial few lectures from Robert Sapolsky's lecture series[1] were
an eyeopener for me. The exact mechanism of how environment affects
epigenetics (transcription factors, etc.) was really fascinating!

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PLqeYp3nxIY...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PLqeYp3nxIYpF7dW7qK8OvLsVomHrnYNjD)

------
tathougies
I hope we get more research and recommendations regarding this. It'd be great
for young (and old) men to have the information they need to make good
decisions.

~~~
ChuckNorris89
I don't think it takes more research to know you should be treating yourself
well physically and mentally, eat well, sleep well, go outdoor and exercise,
eliminate stress factors and don't consume drugs or alcohol.

~~~
tathougies
Well, yes, it does actually. Not all 'common sense' solutions have the same
impact. I will never understand this line of anti-science thinking. In the
past, all sorts of 'obvious' advice turned out to be terribly wrong. For
example, in the past, before knowledge of infectious disease, people would
have told you that you didn't need scientific inquiry to understand how to
stay well, just avoid 'bad air'. This was terrible advice as the air could be
crisp and clear, but still contaminated with viruses or bateria, while
polluted air could be free of the same agents.

Another example is low-fat diets. These are now known to not be as healthy as
purported, and indeed for men, it is known that such a thing would actually
lower testosterone, so maybe it's not just simply a matter of putting into
motion the abstract ideal of 'treating yourself well', but actually a matter
of offering targeted, specific advice.

We should not substitute 'common sense' with actual, careful study.

~~~
rjf72
Miasma theory [1], as you are referencing, was not "obvious advice" \- it was
the scientific consensus, worldwide, for thousands of years in terms of the
propagation of illness. Germ theories had been suggested by numerous people
for many centuries, but a problem is that miasma theory was deeply entrenched
as the consensus view and could also explain most things such as people who
are around sick people also getting sick. It's a theory that was extremely
difficult to falsify until it became undeniably wrong once we developed the
technology to actually be able to literally see bacteria.

On top of scientific inertia, another issue is that "actual, careful study"
often fails to detect things that are really there. A great example of this is
scurvy. Scurvy at one time was one of the most virulent diseases there was. It
killed many millions of people during the age of sail alone and long-term
voyages simply accepted the reality that they would likely lose a significant
portion of their crew to scurvy. [2]

We now know that scurvy is simply caused by a lack of vitamin C, but one
problem with resolving the scurvy mystery over time is that the actual cure
sounds absurdly hokey and superstitious. Oh you're dying from this absolutely
awful disease that's causing your entire body to deteriorate and rot from the
inside out? Here, suck on some limes - it'll cure you! And scientific trials
to test the "lemon theory" (which had been written about for hundreds of
years) failed to show any meaningful success. The reason is that exposing lime
juice to light, air, and certain metals used in storage/delivery (all as
happened during experimentation) worked to greatly reduce its vitamin c
content.

It was also confounded by the fact that fresh meat also has lots of vitamin C.
So you notice claims that fresh fruits seem to cure scurvy and fresh meats
also seem to cure scurvy. This now led to the scientific view that the problem
was caused by tainted food. So forth and so on, stumbling very awkwardly along
again until we reached an era of technology where we could isolate and measure
'vitamin C' and finally prove, once and for all, it was indeed the root cause.
As a fun aside, vitamin C was not initially named ascorbic acid. It was named
hexuronic acid. It was renamed to antiscorbutic (against scurvy) acid,
shortened to ascorbic, once it's effect was proven once and for all. This is
also where the slang of a limey for a British sailor came from. They were one
of the first nations to require a regular dosing of lime for their sailors.

So there's always a balance in life. It's important for the evolution of our
entire species that not everybody believe the exact same thing. Common sense
is usually right, but sometimes it's very wrong. And science is usually right,
but sometimes it's very wrong. People diverging from the norm to pursue their
own views and values is something that benefits everybody as they work as
completely volunteer guinea pigs. And it's often the case both that common
sense ends up complimenting science, as well as science complimenting common
sense.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy#History)

~~~
tathougies
Science doesnt mean forming a consensus. You are arguing for allowing
competitive ideas which is the most scientific thing you can do

------
civilian
I was going to scream "correlation" but the idea of epigenetic markers being
left on sperm cells during male puberty is compelling.

~~~
ngold
Reminds me of a study that suggested that a bit of malnutrition during
puberty, like during the great depression, improved longevity.

~~~
AQuantized
This might be due to smaller adult height/mass, which is in turn associated
with longevity.

~~~
wtetzner
There's quite a bit of research that shows calorie restriction and/or fasting
increases both lifespan and healthspan.

------
lsiq
Article very soft and studies as well. The bottom line is this:

Epigenetics is a thing and you need to be aware of it. And if you intend to
conceive, you are doing your kid a disservice by not being in peak physical
condition when you do so.

~~~
ummonk
Only thing to add is that you are doing your kid a disservice by not being in
peak physical condition during your adolescence and early adulthood as well,
as epigenetics is also affected by what happens during your development, not
just when you conceive.

~~~
lsiq
Indeed, but there's unlikely to be many 11 year olds reading this thread.

------
tracker1
I wonder if this underlying study is more or less significant than say soy
intake, or refined foods in general, or sugar consumption.

------
known
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle)

80% mother 20% father

~~~
ololobus
I don't think that this principle is directly applicable here. DNA-based
inheritance is still 50/50% split and I guess DNA is most important anyway.
Although, the epigenetic one (let's assume its overall contribution is <5-10%)
may be split according to something similar to Pareto.

------
dnprock
Isn't this obvious? :) My dad thankfully told me about this when I was a
teenager: don't smoke, drink, trash your body. Men need to tell their
children, sons in particular.

~~~
civilian
I definitely stress-ate during puberty b/c of how shitty middle & high school
were. I still have a 25.5 BMI which is just into the overweight category. (And
I know BMI is not a perfect diagnostic tool, but let's just say I still have
more bodyfat than I want.)

Just prescribing "don't do X vices" ignores the fact many people turn to vices
to deal with shitty situations. I wish school had been better constructed so I
wasn't stressed out at that time.

~~~
ChuckNorris89
After being really stressed at work due to colleagues harassing me and being
threatened to get fired I started to sleep poorly and put on a lot of weight
despite exercising and eating well.

A lot of the times mental health, especially sleep quality, is more important
as it will affect your physical health as well.

------
hsnewman
I won't read any article with a subject line containing "may" because it may
not (or MAY) be accurate.

------
WA
Err what? We don’t even understand nutrition in a single person that well.
Some people thrive on a vegan cost, for others it’s unhealthy. The same is
true for many other forms of diet.

The reason for this is that it’s incredibly hard to make meaningful studies
over such long periods of time where so many other variables have an impact on
health.

And now someone claims that they can trace some health aspects back over one
or more generations? I call BS.

Not that this isn’t possible, but that such specific claims like higher BMI
can be traced back to smoking fathers.

------
peteradio
Wonder what consequences are with diet of exclusive beef jerky coffee and
beer.

~~~
jraph
I would hate reading that this would actually make the babies healthier for
some obscure reasons that nobody had anticipated.

(This might be a writing prompt)

~~~
fenwick67
coffee ⇒ caffeine ⇒ better urinary health ⇒ better gametes ⇒ better babies?

~~~
ChuckNorris89
Depends.

Maybe a guy takes caffeine because he's stressed about his financial security
and can't sleep well, and the caffeine prevents him later from sleeping well
at night propagating a vicious circle => worse babies.

------
andreygrehov
> [...] and one of their studies showed that young men who smoked just before
> puberty produced sons who were more likely to be overweight [...]

My father started smoking when he was 7 y.o. (yes, seven, lol). I was born
when he was 36. I'm almost 33 right now and have never been overweight in my
entire life. Not even a little ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯.

~~~
dannykwells
Of course! If only they had met you, they would have realized their mistake!
An N of 1 counter example is the perfect way to disprove a statistical claim!

~~~
perl4ever
Maybe it's a causal claim being challenged, not a statistical claim. What _is_
a statistical claim anyway? No observation will disprove another observation.

