Mobile Contraception: 850Mhz GSM Mobile-Phone Radiation Reduces Sperm Vitality, Membrane Integrity and Motility.

Image 1: If you carry your phone in your pocket, you reduce your sperms chances to hit a home run ;-)

I don't know if you actually realized that there is a separate category "sex" in the navigation bar of the SuppVersity. Well, I guess if you have, you will probably have been disappointed when you hit the respective button, because sexually exciting news from the realms of exercise and nutrition science are scarce and even today's blogpost is probably not exactly what you would expect when you read the word "sex" on the Internet. If you come to think about it from the increasingly popular paleolithic point of view, sex is however nothing but a means of reproduction, our ancestors have been practicing... well you know the whole ancestral litany ;-)

2,000,000 infertile couples in the US and the figures keep rising

What I am really driving at, here, is that for way more of your fellow human beings than you may think sex becomes a meticulously planned undertaking in a pairs hitherto futile endeavor to parent a child. According to the most recent figures from the American Pregnancy Association, a total of 2,000,000 married couples are considered "infertile" and the figures keep rising year by year and while infertility can have many reasons, of which stress, bad nutritional habits, diabesity and metabolic syndrome are recurrent topics here at the SuppVersity, the "contraceptive potential" of electromagnetic radiation is largely ignored by the iPhone-addicted American (and European) public. Thusly, I personally found it not very surprising that the most recent scientific evidence for the anti-feritility effect of GSM mobile radation (850Mhz, yes the same your beloved iPhone uses) comes from a study that was conducted by a team of researchers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Libya, countries where having more than a single spoiled child is still the norm and not the exception - even among academics.

Image 2: Would you buy underwear from this guy if I told you that he is from the Swiss company Isa Bodywear and sells what he claims is radio-protective slips for 29CHF per piece? No? Even if I told you that the experimental approach from the study at hand was valid?

Update: A brief note on a clever objection regarding the real world significance of this kind of artificial experiment. Darko Zdravić, argued not without good reason on Facebook, that putting a mobile phone next to some sperm in a dish was not exactly a perfect model for the little buggers in your scrotum; and without question, Darko is right. I had in fact thought about that myself before and dug up an even more recent study that is going to be published in the physics journal Health Physics in January 2012, which deals with the validity of this approach and then simply forgot to mention that in the "original version" of this article. According to Mouradi and his co-workers, who constructed an artificial scrotum to test the "protective" effect the multiple tissue levels under which your sperm usually reside, the model is adequate, but you would have to subtract 0.8-1.2cm from the distance that is used when no absorbing tissue is placed in between the sperm and the EMR emitting device (Mouradi. 2012). That being said ~4cm is still about the mobile to sperm distance you would get when you put your phone right into the pocket and don't forget that your beloved iPhone radiates even more intensely than the Nokia phone used in the study ;-)

For their research, Mohamed A. Dkhil and his colleagues collected semen samples from 20 healthy donors, including only donor specimen, which had sperm parameters within the normal range defined by the WHO. The subsequent separation procedures, which somehow sound like they were events in the SpermOlympics, involved a so-called "swim-up test" (I guess I don't have to tell you what part of the lifecycle of a sperm requires some serious up-ward swimming ;-), by the means of which the "best" swimmers, which would obviously have the greatest chance to inseminate the ovocyte, were selected. 50% of these "performance athletes" were subsequently exposed to the electromagnetic radiation of a Nokia73 GSM phone (SAR 1.46W/kg which is about the same specific absorption rate the independent German computer magazine measured for the iPhone4S with 1.62W/kg in UMTS mode) at 5 cm distance, which is similar to carrying the phone right in the front pocket of your jeans.

Figure 1: Reductions in vitality, membrane integrity and mobility of previously healthy (elite ;-) sperm after 60-min exposure to cell-phone radiation (data adapted from Dkhil. 2011)

If you take a look at the data in figure 1 you will have to realize that 60 min of this "totally benign" type of EMR reduced the number of vital sperm (as measured by eosin test), increased the number of sperm with membrane defects (as measured by HOS test) and reduced their total motality by ~88%. If I do now tell you that all those effects had a statistical significance way below the cut off of p<0.05, I hope that you will probably agree with the scientists assessment that their results provide an experimental validation of previous epidemiologic data from Fejes et al. (2005) Erogul et al. (2006) and others, who have been warning the public for years that "the prolonged use of cell phones may have negative effects on the sperm motility characteristics." (Fejes. 2005).

And by the way, even if your sperm survive the chronic electromagnetic assault, chances are that the chronic stress of being within everybody's reach 24/7 will finish them off. So, regardless of whether you want or do not want to father a child in the near future, I suggest you reconsider whether or not it is really necessary, let alone desirable to be enslaved by an electronic gadget and the people at the other end of the wireless line.

Capsaicin - 2.56mg to Keep Your Metabolism Running on a Diet. Cold Thermogenesis - 5°C for 6kcal/h. Mobile Phones - 0.853 W/kg Pulsed EMR to Mess Up Neurotransmitters

You don't have to worry, the "guidelines" do not require you to perform either your 150 minutes of moderate cardio, or your 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, and not even your two weekly full-body workouts in these shorts.

24% that's the SuppVersity Figure of the Week and it is actually not so low as I would have expected it to be, after all those 24% describe the ratio of US adults who meet the Physical Activity Guidelines for muscle-strengthening physical activity. Which guideline? Ah, you are the US guys and gals, so you should know that you are advised to

"perform muscle-strengthening activities that are moderate or high intensity and involve all major muscle groups on 2 or more days a week, because these activities provide additional health benefit" (2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans)

Additional benefit? Well, it goes without saying that the 150 minutes of moderate aerobic training and the reduction of salt, as well as the use of healthy vegetable oils are the primary object for every 'true American'.

Not That Hot: Cold Thermogenesis

Figure 1: An avg. effect size of 6kcal/h, non-responders + "negative-responders"; it doesn't work for those past the 30y mark - how on earth is cold thermogenesis going to help us solve the obesity pandemic?

(Chen. 2013) In a single-blind, randomized crossover intervention 24 volunteers (14 men, 10 women) were exposed to a 5°C temperature reduction (from 24°C to 19°C). During that treatment they wre sitting in a whole-room indirect calorimeter to measure their energy expenditure and lay in a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner afterwards (results, see image to the right).

Now, based on previous SuppVersity articles on the matter, you'll know that it is not exactly easy to find people who actually harbor a "significant" (and in this case this means "any at all") amount of metabolically active brown adipose tissue to get the thermogenesis going.

And with 23cm³ and 35cm³ for the men and women participating in the study at hand, the amount of the "good fat" they were carrying around is still pretty stingy. No wonder ...

• there was no thermogenic response in the male participants, but a
• 10% increase in energy expenditure in the female participants

I already see your eyes glow in the cold, ladies, but you crow too soon - those 10% were 6kcal/h, I repeat in full words "six additional calories per hour". Or roughly as much energy as a single set of body weight squats would be burning .

---

If you are looking to shed 18% fat in 21 days, increase your health and your physical appearance, turn up the heat during your workouts, clean up your diet and don't move into the fridge (learn more)!

Bottom line: Against the background that there were neither significant changes in the hormonal profile (thyroid, adrenal, etc.) and considering the fact that the effect declined with age and was hardly measurable for 5 and negative (=lower energy expenditure in the cold) for 4 subjects, I stick to previous assessment: cold thermogenesis as a means of "expending more energy to get rid", is about as stupid as the whole concept of expending more energy to lose fat and it certainly does not, as the scientists state "represent a novel environmental strategy in obesity treatment".

If you want a "environmental strategy in obesity treatment", ban all the junkfood, switch off the elevators, hand out bikes and increase the health insurance cost for everyone who refuses to get his or her ass off the couch on a regular bases. Zealous? Unrealistic? Yeah, it is - but not more unrealistic than the hilarious notion that cooling the overweight majority of the inhabitants of the Western Obesity Belt down by 5°C would solve the obesity problem.

Mobile phones mess with neurotransmitter levels

Andreassen et al. have already developed a "Facebook Addiction Scale" and found that Facebook junkies tend to be

neurotic and extraverted, but lack a reasonable amount of conscientiousness (Andreassen. 2012)

(Aboul Ezz. 2013) I am well aware that many of you don't want to hear this and will discard the results researchers from the Cairo University present in their latest paper in the European Review forMedical and Pharmacological Sciences as "just another worthless rodent study" and I freely admit, you may be right.

It is well possible that rodents are more susceptible to the pulsed electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones than humans are, but I gather you will have to agree that the chance that there are still residual effects in human beings is by no means zero... and based on my personal observations, I would even argue that you see certain abnormalities in mobile phone junkies, already. Ok, those could have psychological and behavioral roots, but ...

Before I digress even further into the abyss of the "I cannot live without my mobile" virus that has already befallen many of my real world students, let's rather take a look at the outcome of Aboul Ezz et al.'s latest experiment.

Table 1: While the first six are actually the TOP (=low SAR) phones that are currently on the market, the others are random picks of mine from the data on SARdatabase.com

In the course of the latter, the scientists exposed a group of adult rats to the pulsed electromagnetic radiation of a mobile phone having a power density of 0.02W/cm² and an average specific absorption rate (the notorious SAR-value) of 0.843W/kg for 1h/day (that happens to be a little less of what your neat iPhone5 is pumping into your brain day in and day out) and measured the monoamine levels after one, two and four months, as well as on a follow-up one month after the last exposure and found:

The exposure to EMR resulted in significant changes in DA [dopamine], NE [norepenephrine] and 5-HT [serotinine levels] in the four selected areas of adult rat brain" (Aboul Ezz. 2013)

And the Egyptian researchers add, these chance could well explain the adverse effects that have been reported in conjunction with chronic "low level" exposure to pulsed electromagnetic radiation, which are usually related to memory problems and chronic stress.

What they don't mention in the abstract though is that the changes were not really consistent. It appeared as if there was some cyclicity involved with an initial increase in 5HT, a concomittant decrease in dopamine a newly established "balance" between the two leading to an increase in norepinephrine (=chronic stress) in months four.

---

Bottom line: That being said, I can only repeat that even in the absence of direct physiological effects of the EMR exposure, the constant state of "being available" to whoever wants to reach you, as well as the addictive potential of being in contact with all your (often fake) facebook friends alone should be reason enough to re-evaluate your own mobile phone use.

Capsaicin keeps fatty acid oxidation & total energy expenditure up, when you're dieting

No this is not Liza Oz after taking Mehmet's beloved RK supplements - and it is not one of the subjects from the "Kitchen Sink Approach to Fat Loss study"... although, who knows? (learn more about that study)

(Janssens. 2013) Right from the Department of Human Biology, School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism (NUTRIM) at the Maastricht University in The Netherlands comes a new study that confirms that capsaicin a long-touted "fat burner" and anti-obesity agent  that's also turning up your heat, when you consume hot peppers, will maintain your energy balance and fatty oxidation rates in the normal zone, when you are dieting.

The 15 healthy Caucasian subjects underwent four 36 h sessions in a respiration chamber, which allowed the scientists to accurately measure their energy expenditure, the ratio of glucose / fat oxidation and blood pressure after receiving a dose of 2.56mg (1.03g of red chili pepper worth 39,050 Scoville heat units (SHU)) with every meal.

Now, this wouldn’t be something we have not seen in previous studies, already. With the study at hand, however, the capsaicin intake, was not the only controlled variable. In addition to simply checking what happens, when you consume one serving of capsaicin with each meal, the scientists also assessed the influence of the baseline energy intake of the subjects, with them being randomly assigned to receive adequate amounts of energy (= 100% of the daily energy requirements), or a calorically reduced diet (=75% of the daily energy requirements) during the tests.
 
The first noteworthy observation the scientists made is the adaptiation induced amelioration of the energy deficit. Contrary to what the simply calories in vs. calories out equation would suggest, the participants who received 25% less energy than they would need ended up having an effective energy deficit of only 20.5% - in other words, the missing 4.5% were simply conserved by the dreaded metabolic downregulation that’s one of the most important reasons for weight loss plateaus.

Figure 2: Changes in energy expenditure at rest, during sleep in response to food intake and activity, as well as substrate oxidation in 15 healthy Caucasian subjects (seven women, eight men) during the supplemented (CAP) and non-supplemented (PLA) energy sufficient (100) and restricted (75) conditions (Janssens. 2013).

Now this is where the capsaicin comes into play, as the results of the study at hand clearly demonstrate, the additional provision of 2.56 mg of the hot spice with every meal can negate the reduction in diet-induced thermogenesis and restore the lowered sleeping metabolic rate the 25% caloric reduction has brought about.

---

Suggested read for those looking to stacking different ingredients to propel their weight loss efforts: "Forgotten Dieting Aids: Choline, Carnitine, Caffeine and the Anti-Weight-Loss Plateau Effects of Sugar and Phosphates" (read more)

Bottom line: In view of the fact that the capsaicin supplement also increased the fat oxidation during both the calorically reduced and the normal dieting conditions, it may in fact be that we've hot a pretty "hot" fat burner here... unfortunately, just with any other "fat burner", you still got to give your body the chance to actually burn the fat. Without sweat and a slightly reduced energy intake (25% does by the way make a good rule of thumb) this is yet not going to work.

Moreover, it is also questionable, whether the effects will be that noticeable after 1-2 weeks of chronic usage. I'd bet money they will either disappear completely or be drastically reduced, but that would be the topic for another study ;-)

All that's left are... *drumrolls* the Facebook news and an awesome weekend!

You know what's coming now, right? Correct, first I will enumerate a couple of Facebook News you may or may not have seen on the SuppVersity Timline (ha! I did not write "wall", am I now going to be rewarded, Mark Zuckerberg?)

• SuppVersity Highly Suggested Read - Part II of Sean Casey's summary of the ISSN conference | read more...
• Science for Science Sake - In the current scientific environment many scientists turn to biased reporting, intrinsically flawed study design & the like to produce "break through" results that are at best irrelevant, in the worst case threaten the live of participants in follow up studies | learn more... 
• Moderate Drinking Probably Lacks Life-Extending Effects - Sociologists argue: The lifestyle and not the booze of moderate drinkers is what prolongs their lives | learn more...
• Barefoot Running is Good for Your Knees: Take your shoes off to reduce patellofemoral joint stress during running | read more ...
• Can Supplements Precipitate Headaches? At least in a recent study from China the researchers observed correlations between isoflavone-supps in men and B-complex, vitamin C and green algae supplements in women | read more...

And afterwards I am telling you to have a nice weekend and reminding you of the fact that Sunday is no "off day" here at the SuppVersity ... although, for many of you it appears to be, which is why I am actually thinking about dropping the Sunday posts completely. Whatever... enjoy your weekend!

References:

• Aboul Ezz HS, Khadrawy YA, Ahmed NA, Radwan NM, El Bakry MM. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone on the levels of monoamine neurotransmitters in four different areas of rat brain. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013 Jul;17(13):1782-8.
• Andreassen CS, Torsheim T, Brunborg GS, Pallesen S. Development of a Facebook
  Addiction Scale. Psychol Rep. 2012 Apr;110(2):501-17.
• Chen KY, Brychta RJ, Linderman JD, Smith S, Courville A, Dieckmann W, Herscovitch P, Millo CM, Remaley A, Lee P, Celi FS. Brown fat activation mediates cold-induced thermogenesis in adult humans in response to a mild decrease in ambient temperature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Jul;98(7):E1218-23. 
• Janssens PL, Hursel R, Martens EA, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Acute effects of capsaicin on energy expenditure and fat oxidation in negative energy balance. PLoS One. 2013 Jul 2;8(7):e67786.
   

Unhealthy Testosterone Boosters: Mobile Phone Radiation and Cat Litter Disease

If you are still looking for ways to "naturally" boost your testosterone levels, here are two ways of doing so, you better avoid.

Excessive Cell Phone Use to Boost Testosterone

The first one has been discovered by Gutschi et al. only recently (Gutschi. 2011). When they investigated the effects of cell phone radiation on men's semen parameters, the scientists were in fact able to confirm their hypothesis that exposure to cell phone radiation leads to decreased sperm quality (cf. fig. 1, left). An interesting side-finding, however was the unexpected correlation of cell phone use and testosterone levels (cf. fig. 1, right) observed in the study.

Figure 1: Sperm health (left) and hormone levels (right) in cell phone users and non-users
(data adapted from Gutschi. 2011)

So, you love your cell phone and don't want to have kids, anyway? Fine, keep using it, but do not expect to improve your athletic performance, gain muscle or lose fat. Just as with almost all natural testosterone boosters out there the "increase", or in this case the observed levels of testosterone in cell phone users, may be "statistically significant" the difference between a testosterone level of 5.1ng/dl and 4.8ng/dl is however biologically irrelevant. You won't feel it and a single night with too little sleep is sure going to annihilate the difference, anyway. So think twice, whether or not you leave your cell phone by your bed to increase your EMR exposure and thus squeeze a little more testosterone out of your leyding cells.


Infecting Yourself With a Parasite to Boost Testosterone

Similar considerations would be indicated before you eat your cats poopoo to infect yourself with coccidian parasite Toxoplasma gondii, a protozoan parasite whose worldwide prevalence varies between 20 and 70%.

Figure 2: Lifecycle of Toxoplasma gondii (illustration by LadyofHats)

The reason I address this issue is the recent (re-)appearance of a study by Flegr et al. (Flegr. 2007A) that found a sex-specific effect of Toxoplasma-infection on testosterone levels:

the effect of the toxoplasmosis-sex interaction on the testosterone concentration was highly significant (F1,260=13·434, P<0·001, η2=0·049). Infected men had higher and infected women had lower testosterone levels than Toxoplasma-free men and women, respectively.

Other than many Internet sources would have it, this difference was yet only significant for women. For men it was so marginal that it did not even reach statistical significance.

A recent study called the dopamine increase into question: Previously scientists thought the increase in testosterone may be a result of an increase in dopamine. A recent study does now indicate that this may not be the case (Wang. 2014). This doesn't change the previous observation, though, discussed in this article.

Apart from being disgusting, it would thus also be plainly stupid to consume some yummy cat excrements - irrespective of your sex, your physical performance, bodycomposition or manliness won't improve. On the other hand, you risk developing "behavioural and neurophysiological changes" related to changes in testosterone, dopamine and other endocrine and neurological parameters, which go hand in hand with a Toxoplasmosis gondii infection (Flegr. 2007B).
References:

• Flegr, Jaroslav. "Effects of Toxoplasma on human behavior." Schizophrenia bulletin 33.3 (2007): 757-760.
• Gutschi, T., et al. "Impact of cell phone use on men’s semen parameters." Andrologia 43.5 (2011): 312-316.
• Wang, Zi T., et al. "Reassessment of the role of aromatic amino acid hydroxylases and the effect of infection by Toxoplasma gondii on host dopamine levels." Infection and Immunity (2014): IAI-02465.