.

.
marylin monroe
Showing posts with label infertility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infertility. Show all posts

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.

Pomegranate for Prostate, Rheuma, Breast Cancer, Aromatase, Obesity, Diabetes, Inflammation, HIV, Influenza, Herpes, Crohn's, Hepatitis, Infertility ... You Name It!

Image 1: This drawing from a German 1885 compendium on the flora in Germany, Austria and Switzerland shows that other than Acai & Co, pomegranate is no exotic (expensive and useless) discovery of some fly-by-night supplement vendor.
People are always all the rave, when some clever scientist (or should I say business man?) dug up another of those exotic fruit from a godforsaken valley somewhere in the African or South-American primeval forests. With the hype around ACAI & Co they often forget that there have been real Superfoods just around the corner, right in their local grocery store for years. Pomegranate, as it becomes increasingly evident from recent research, is one of these Superfoods - one that has even been mentioned in the Book of Exodus and has been part of the Ayurevedic tradition for centuries, now. While I have been following the research for some months now, the one mind-boggling study result has always been missing so that this is in fact the first blogpost in quite some time on the "seedy apple" ("pommum", lat. "apple" + "granatus", lat. "grain, seed").

To be precise, this is a post that was triggered by a Facebook message from Lothar, who informed me about the publication of the preliminary results of a phase II trial on the effects of pomegranate extract in prostate cancer prevention (Carducci. 2011).

In all of the 104 patients, whose PSA levels were on the rise after local therapy, the PSA doubling time, which, contrary to absolute PSA values, appears to be a more or less reliable indicator of cancer progression (Semenuik. 2006; Lee. 2005), lengthened by an average of +55% and that regardless of the dosage (1g vs. 3g) the patients received.

This result is unquestionably pretty impressive, it is, however, only part of the picture that has been emerging over the past years. Even if we only include selected studies from the last three months (!), we have to add at least the following health benefits
Image 2: If you consider this pomegranate seed trail long, then you will feel that the list of their health benefits is endless ;-)
  • anti-rheumatic, anti-oxidant effect (Balbir-Gurman. 2011),
    reduction in the tender joint count by -62%; -25% reduced free radical-induced lipid peroxidation
  • inhibition of glucose-uptake (Kim. 2011),
    -50% Na+-dependent glucose uptake at 424 μg/ml pomegranate extract
  • anti-carcinogenic and pro-apoptotic effects (Dikmen. 2011),
    reduces profileration and induces apoptosis (programmed cell death) in breast cancer cells
  • cardioprotective selective estrogen receptor modulator (Sreeja. 2011)
    the methanol extract of pericarp of pomegranate is an effective and cardioprotective SERM without some of the negative side effects of tamoxifen, such as increases in uterine weight and proliferation
  • anti-obesity effect in diabetics (Gonzalez-Ortis. 2011)
    stops weight and fat gain in 20 obese diabetics
  • potent anti-inflammatory (Faria. 2011)
    not limited, but specifically effective in suppressing the NFκ-B pathway
  • promotes bone formation in fetus (Monsefi. 2011)
    when given as an extract to pregnant mice (no human data yet)
  • antiviral properties (Su. 2011)
    against HIV-1, influenza, herpes, and poxviruses, and human noroviral surrogates
  • protective effect against Crohn's disease (Rosillo. 2011)
    attributed to its ellagic acid content
  • antioxidant and antiartherogenic effects (Haber. 2011)
    protects from hardening of the arteries due to plaque buildup
  • ergogenic and anti-soreness effect (Trombold. 2011)
    pomegranate juice attenuates weakness and reduces soreness of the elbow flexor
  • nephro- and hepaprotective effect (Cayir. 2011)
    pomegranate seed extract attenuates chemotherapy-induced acute nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity 
  • protective against diet-induced obesity and diabetes (Vroegrijk. 2011)
    dietary pomegrenate seed oil ameliorates high-fat diet induced obesity and insulin resistance in mice, independent of changes in food intake or energy expenditure
  • pro-fertility effect / protection against lead poisoning (Leiva. 2011)
    due to its antioxidant activity an ethanolic extract of pomegranate reversed the damage produced by lead acetate on spermatogenesis 
  • oral antiplaque effect (Bhadhabe. 2011)
    pomegranate mouthrinse could be long-term antiplaque rinse with prophylactic benefits
to a still preliminary and yet already epic list of health-benefits of an ancient superfruit that is obviously not exotic and exciting enough to compete with the mostly useless, fancy-named herb and fruit extracts people are willing to spend millions of dollars on, year by year... ah, I forgot to mention: the ripe fruit also tastes damn good!

Fat and Impotent Due to Tributyltin? Not Adipogenetic or Estrogenic, But Adipogenic and Estrogenic. Organotin TBT Dose-Dependently Increases Fat Deposition and Estrogen Receptor Activity.

Image 1: Chemical structure of tributyltin;
the organotin is a common ingredient in
pesticides, anti-fungals and marine paints
Although large parts of the industry won't concede to it, many of the invisible pollutants of our "post-industrial" age are just as, or even more dangerous than the nasty air and water pollutants of the Industrial Revolution. One of these invisible killers is the organotin, tributyltin (TBT). It has been long established that TBT exposure during fetal life promotes adipogenesis and predispositions to a multitude of health problems in later life (Grün and Blumberg, 2006). Other than in other environmental toxins, such as Bisphenol A, it has been established only very recently that TBT may act as an estrogen receptor agonist, as well - in fact, in previous (low-dose) studies (Lissimachou. 2006; Mortensen. 2007; Zhang. 2009) the exact opposite appeared to be the case.

More importantly, these new results show that both effects, adipogenicity and estrogenicity, are not restricted to the prenatal phase (Penza. 2011), so that your daily exposure to tributyltin chloride via marine and fresh water pollution (cf. Antizar-Ladislao, 2008) may well be making you fat, impotent and infertile.
Table 1: Information about TBT from supplemental material to the United Nations Convention in Rotterdam (UN. 2004)
These new insights come from a group of European scientists, who were the first to evaluate the effects of various doses (mean human exposure to TBT: 0.5µg/kg; high dose: 50-500µg/kg) of tributyltin on peripubertal and sexually mature mice. What Penza et al. found were pronounced and highly sex- and dose-dependent increases in adipose tissue differentiation and estrogen receptor activity:
[...] the environmental organotin tributyltin chloride (TBT) exerts adipogenic action when peripubertal and sexually mature mice are exposed to the chemical. The duration and extent of these effects depend on the sex and on the dose of the compound, and the effects are relevant at doses close to the estimated human intake (0.5 μg/kg). At higher doses (50–500 μg/kg), TBT also activated estrogen receptors (ERs) in adipose cells in vitro and in vivo.
Image 2: Eco-activists from Greenpeace
have long been aware of the dangers of
TBT poisoning due to its accumulation
in fresh and marine waters and sediments
  (photo by Marina Dimova. 2008)
In view of the role the endocrine (hormonal) environment plays not only in the maturation of pre-adipocytes, but rather any aspect of the human metabolism, it would be short-sighted to observe the estrogenic and adipogenic effects distinctly. It is much more likely that the same biochemical processes are at the heart of both the estrogenic and adipogenic effects of TBT exposure and - what's even more important - regardless of your sex, you certainly want to avoid both!

Note: TBT has been banned from paints in the European Union since 2003, has been added to the United Nations global trade "watch list" by all 120 countries party to the Rotterdam Convention in 2004 and was eventually banned in the US, as well, in 2008. Unfortunately, the results of Antizar-Ladislao et al. suggest that its concentration in marine and freshwater ecosystems (accumulation in sediments) is still exceeding toxicity levels (Antizar-Ladislao, 2008).

New "Gold Standard" For "Natural" Testosterone Boosting: 10x Increase in Plasma Testosterone After Subcutaneous Gold Chloride Injections in 2004 Rodent Study

Image 1: The world's first "all natural" test booster that is worth every penny... even if, just like the competition, it does not turn your muscles into granite hard stone ;-)
I guess, by now, it is an "open secret" that I am no particular fan of "natural test boosters", simply because the effect of these products on the revenue of their producers is usually several orders of magnitudes larger than their effect on the testosterone levels of their credulous customers. And while even the "product" today's blogpost is about has nothing but a single rodent study to back its efficacy, it certainly would be a valuable investment in these days of permanent financial crisis: gold! I honestly don't remember exactly how I happened onto this study, but the results are so extraordinary, that I thought it was worth a post despite the fact that it was originally published in 2004 and thusly does not qualify as part of "latest research" - after all, this would be the first test booster that would be worth its money, even if it did not work!

Gold chloride: The new gold-standard in natural testosterone boosting?

Over the course of a 26-day study period, N.M. Biswas and his colleagues from the Department of Physiology at the University College of Science and Technology in Calcutta India, injected a group of immature Wistar rats with 0.3 mg or 0.5 mg of gold chloride (46.7% pure gold!) per 1 ml sterile distilled water/kg body weight per day. The injections were subcutaneous, which - given the profound effects the procedure (cf. figure 1) - obviously did not hinder the gold choloride molecules from getting down to the testes (or working systemically from the brain?):
Figure 1: Body weight, testes weight, weight of seminal vesicle and prostate (left) and plasma testosterone levels after 26-days of subcutaneous injection with 0.3 and 0.5mg per 1 ml sterile distilled water/kg body weight per day of gold chloride per day (data adapted from Biswas. 2004)
As you can see in figure 1 (right) the increase in testosterone was literally "earth-shattering" - and in this case, this is still an understatement, I guess. If we assume that the corresponding +20% increase in Δ5-3β-HSD and 17β-HSD the scientists measured in the testes of the animals in the 0.5mg AuCl group, and considering the fact that both enzymes are regulated "centrally" via the release of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) from the pituitary gland, it appears reasonable to assume that the subcutaneous gold chloride injections exhibited central effects on the amplitude or pulsatile frequency of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone production in the hypothalamus, which would be in agreement with the morphological changes of the testes, about which the researchers write:
The weight of the testes and accessory sex organs are the other indicators of a possible alteration in androgen status. An increase in testicular weight in gold treated rats is possibly due to increased level of circulating testosterone, as androgen exerts its major role in sex organs. Testicular size and weight are normally regulated by fluid secretion from Sertoli cells and the production of sperm in the seminiferous tubules. The higher testicular weight in gold treated rats than the controls suggests less degeneration of germ and Sertoli cells that normally occur in immature rats.
This hypothesis in turn corresponds to the -41% reduction in degenerated step 7 spermatids (immature sperm that did not make it to the elongated, let alone the mature state) and the overall profoundly stimulated spermatogenesis in the immature rodents of the high dose gold chloride group.

Impressive results with a couple of non-negligible caveats

Yet, even if we disregard any potential risks, acknowledge the scientists' conclusion that "the beneficial effect of gold may play a significant role in the prevention of infertility" and interpreted the +18% increase in body weight in the high dose gold chloride group as experimental evidence that - contrary to your usual herbal testbooster - the profound effects of the subcutaneously injected gold chloride solution would actually produce visible increases in lean mass, I strongly advice against experimenting with this "ayurvedic panacea"! And that despite the fact that similar solutions are already used clinically as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and regardless of the results of a 2001 study by Sharma et al., which showed that subjects who ingested 2x100mg gold per day (orally) for 40 days did not show any symptoms of toxicity (Sharma. 2001).
Did you know that some of the ingredients of commercially available test boosters and other OTC supps, like piper longum, tinospora cardifolia, garcinia cambogia (HCA) or bulbine natalensis can induce testicular damage at high doses? If not, I suggest you go back to a SuppVersity post from 2010 and read up all the details on the results of a study by D'Cruz et al.: "Protect Your Testes! Beware of These Plants and Plant Products".
Aside from the health issues, the oral supplement regimen (at 200mg/day) would be pretty costly. At the current price of gold ~5$ per day... but hey, if you think about it, that money would probably still better spent than for a 30 months supply of any of the useless and partially likewise not very healthy (cf. red box above) herbal test booster. After all, you can just put the powder back into the box or wherever you store it and wait for the next stock market crash, the occurrence of which is - all pun intended - as safe as the Bank of England ;-)

True or False: Dairy Is a Toxic ☣ Hormone Cocktail That's a Threat to Your Testosterone Levels & Fertility and Promotes Breast, Prostate & Other Forms of Cancer!

Are the hormonal side effects of dairy and its cancerous consequences even worse than they're painted by the steadily growing anti-dairy lobby?
I have to admit that I expanded Artur Vladimirovich's original question, whether I would believe that the results of a 2010 study by Maruyama K, Oshima T, Ohyama K. were a reason for concern to make it relevant for all of us - including the female SuppVersity readers. It goes without saying that we will thus have to go beyond the results of the said paper that was published in the February issue of Pediatrics international, the official journal of the Japan Pediatric Society (Maruyama. 2010) to be able to answer whether the statement "Dairy Is a Serious Threat to His Fertility and a Promoter of Her Cancer Risk!" from the headline is true, false or neither one or the other.
"[E]strogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion" (Maryama. 2010) - Don't worry it looks worse than it is.
The above was the non-literal "bone of contention" Artur stumbled across on Pubmed. It's a literal quote from the conclusion of the previously mentioned Maryama paper in Pedriatrics Internatial and it is, as Artur rightly points out "a little concerting".
I have to admit. At first sight the data in Figure 1 does look disconcerting, but if you knew something about the postprandial changes in testosterone concentration you wouldn't conduct a stupid study like this, where you measure the testosterone levels fasted, 1h before the ingestion of the meal and four times every hour after the intake. And if you did that, you would realize that you've just confirmed previous research, when you realize that, both, ...
  • What about the kids: Maruyama et al. analyzed only the urinary hormone levels of the kids. This is at best evidence that some of the hormones are absorbed..., and excreted, again and thus not really relevant.
    the gradual decrease in serum LH and FSH concentration in six out of seven men that reached a nadir 60–120 min after the milk meal, as well as 
  • the decrease in serum testosterone concentrations which reached their minimal values ~ 120 min after the consumption of the milk in all subjects.
... are pretty much identical to what other scientists have observed before. Jeff Volek et al. (2001), vor example recorded a highly significant ~25% drop of testosterone in response to the ingestion of an allegedly significantly larger milk-free meal (1,300 kcal) that contained 11% carbohydrate, 3% protein, 86% fat and was thus considerably "fattier" than whole milk with a carbohydrate / protein / fat ratio of 33% / 19% / 49% (calculated on a per-total-energy basis).
Figure 2: Macronutrient content (in g) of the test meals and corresponding postprandial reduction (% of baseline) of serum total tesosterone (Volek. 2001; Habito. 2001; Maruyama. 2010)
If you take a look at the data in Figure 2 you will see that the results of the Maruyama study are not really extraordinary if you compare them to the findings Volek (2001) and Habito (2001) present in their papers. If you also take into consideration that
  • And what about the women: I have to apologize, but the researchers didn't find any abnormalities in the female study participants that would be of serious concern. I will still discuss the issue of possible increases in breast cancer risk due to a high dairy intake later in this article - promise!
    ... the diarunal rhythm, i.e. the natural ups and downs in the course of the day allow for deviations of up to 38% (in some cases more; cf. Leymarie. 1974) in serum testosterone levels over a 24h period, and
  • ... we usually don't drink milk that comes exclusively from pregnant cows, because the commercially available milk is a mix of milk from 100s if not 1000s of cows, so that the actual hormone levels in the raw milk mix are not going to be 10x higher than in pasture-fed cows who are milked only through the first three months of a new pregnancy (Shaw. 2007) 
and compare the theories researchers like Ganmaa Davaasambuu base on the assumption that the modern milking / impregnation practice would have us consume 115-1,000pg/mL of estrone sulfate from the milk of pregnant cows instead of the regular is about 30 pg/mL that are present in the whey fraction of milk from non-pregnant cows (Ganmaa. 2001) is not supported by empirical evidence. According to Farlow, Xu & Venstra, the amount of estrone in commercially available milk:
Figure 3: Estrone (E1) content in commercial milk, left; estrogen content in raw milk from non-pregant and pregnant cows in different tirmesters of the pregnancy (Farlow 2006; Malekinejad. 2009)
As you can see in figure 3, the actual values are somewhere between what Ganmaa et al. tell us would be the minimal amount of estrone (E1) you'll find in whey of non-pregnant cows and the low end of the estimates Gabnmaa and her colleagues take as a basis of their theories about milk and male reproductive disorders (Ganmaa. 2011), milk and prostate cancer (Ganmaa. 2002), or milk and breast cancer (Ganmaa. 2005).
Let's put these numbers into perspective: "The level in a liter of skim milk, for example, is approximately 667 times lower than the conjugated equine estrogens in low-dose Premarin (300 g) and 1389 times lower than standard dose Premarin (625 g), which is associated with breast cancer incidence in post-menopausal women after long-term exposure." (Farlow. 2009)
It goes without saying that this discrepancy between the assumed and the real amount of estrone in milk does not exactly increase the plausibility of the assumption that the epidemiological "evidence", i.e. cherry picked associations between nationwide dairy intakes, infertility and cancer rates Ganmaa et al. cite in the respective papers, warrants the conclusion that there was a causative link between the amount of milk and milk products you consume and your likelihood of developing reproductive disorders, prostate or breast cancer.

Let's cherry pick some counter-evidence to the cherry-picked evidence!

If we simply assume that Ganmaa et al. and other researchers who subscribe to the "dairy is the devil" theory don't cite the existing counter-evidence. It should be easy to do some epidemiological cherry picking, ourselves, to support the safety of dairy, right? Right! And in the case of breast cancer, this is actually not really difficult:
  • Table 1: Change in breast cancer Multivariable-adjusted relative risk with highest vs. lowest dairy consumption (Genkinger. 2013)
    -32% breast cancer risk in premenopausal women with one or more servings of low fat dairy per day (Shi. 2002)
  • -19% breast cancer risk  in postmenopausal women with two or more servings of dairy (McCullough. 2005)
  • -86% breast cancer risk with highest dairy consumption in case control study in Iranian women (Bahadoran. 2013)
  • -10%  benign breast disease in young women with high milk intake at age 14 (Berkey. 2013)
Aside from a large body of evidence for beneficial effects, you will also find paper with results similar to those of a recent investigation into the relation of dairy consumption and breast cancer risk
in the Black Women’s Health Study by Jeanine M. Genkinger, Kepher H. Makambi, Julie R. Palmer, Lynn Rosenberg, and Lucile L. Adams-Campbell, who report that ...
"[...i]n this large prospective cohort of African-American women, null associations were observed for intakes of milk (total, whole, and 2 %), other specific types of dairy products, dietary calcium, and dietary vitamin D with breast cancer risk." (Genkinger. 2013)
If you look at the p-values (remember: p > 0.05 ➲ not significant) in Table 1 it becomes even more obvious that we are dealing with a classic null-result here. If anything you could argue that there is a minimal protective effect with a high(er) intake of skim milk.

So dairy doesn't cause breast cancer... does it make men infertile, then?

Figure 4:Change in idiopathic asthenozoospermia w/ high vs. low intake of meat, sweets & dairy (Eslamian. 2012)
For the male fertility issue it's not exactly as easy to find our exonerating studies. In fact a relatively recent study by Afeiche et al. (2013) appears to confirm that there is a direct link between full-fat dairy consumption and compromised sperm quality in men.

These detrimental effects are yet by no means dairy exclusive (actually it should read "full-fat dairy exclusive", because most studies could not find negative effects for low fat dairy foods).

Mendiola et al. (2009), for example, observed a similar decline in sperm quality in men with a high processed meat intake and Eslamian et al. (2012) report that both, the total meat (+103%, p = 0.039) and sweets intake (+105%, p = 0.046), but not the amount of dairy the 72 asthenozoospermic men and 169 normo-zoospermic in Eslamian et al.'s case-control study consumed on a daily base were associated with a significantly higher risk of idiopathic asthenozoospermia (see Figure 4).
Saturated fat as common denominator? I know it's not popular, but processed meat and high fat dairy have a significant amount of saturated fat, which has been implicated as another correlate of reductions in sperm quality in a whole host of studies. Most recently Jensen et al. observed 38% (95% CI: 0.1%, 61%) lower sperm concentration and a 41% (95% CI: 4%, 64%) lower total sperm count in 701 young Danish men with high vs. low saturated fat intake (Jensen. 2013). In view of the less significant, but more pronounced associaton of asthenozoospermia with high sweet intakes, Eslamian et al. report in their 2012 paper, I would yet suspect that overeating and not fats or carbs are the real problem, here.
If finding evidence that the dairy ↔ infertility issue isn't an issue at all was hard, doing the same for epidemiologically established link between high(er) dairy intakes and prostate cancer is ... not virtually impossible, but significantly harder.

Last but not least, the prostate cancer issue

There is in fact a whole host of studies a litigator could chose from, if he decided to sue the dairy industry and I have to admit that I wouldn't want to wear the gown that indicates that it's up to me to decide whether evidence such as, the...
  • 3.2x increase in advanced prostate cancer risk in men who consumed dairy products on a daily basis as adolescents, Torfadottir et al. observed in 8,894 men who were born between 1907 and 1935 in Iceland (Torfadottir. 2012), 
  • 2.2x increase in prostate cancer risk in US men who consumed 21 or more servings of dairy products per week vs. those who consumed only 5 servings/week (Tseng. 2005)
  • 1.68x higher risk of prostate cancer risk researchers calculated in a meta-analysis of case-control studies published between 1984 and 2003 (Qin. 2007)
... is convincing enough to say: "Yes, you're right. Your prostate cancer was caused by products of the dairy industry." I mean, there is even a study by Tate et al. that was published in the August issue of Nutrition and Cancer in 2011 that appears to suggest that the link between dairy and prostate cancer is in fact one of the very few instances, where association signify causation.
Figure 5: Growth promoting effects of various substrates in an LNCaP prostate cancer cell experiment (Tate. 2011), left; Estrogen (E2 in pg/ml) levels before and after the consumption of milk of pregnant cows (Maruyama. 2010), right.
It's undebatable that the data in Figure 5 (left) leaves no doubt that bovine milk possesses greater stimulatory effect on the proliferation of LNCaP prostate cancer cells than IGF-1. It would also suggest that the relatively low levels of estrogen in bovine milk may still promote increases in serum estrogen levels that could be sufficient to cause the previously cited increases in prostate cancer risk in men with a particularly high dairy consumption.

Unfortunately, the data from the paper Artur sent me (see Figure 5, right) confirms what the proponents of dairy consumption have been saying all along (Parodi. 2012). The small amounts of estrogen (E2) in milk don't even make it into the blood stream - accordingly, the serum E2 concentration in the Maruyama study was "unchanged during the 2 h examination (before and peak: 31±4 pg/mL and 32±4 pg/mL, NS)" (Maruyama. 2010).

Let's not forget the changes in estrone and progesterone

We would thus be back to square one and our initial assumption that all that cannot be so bad, as it may have looked at first sight, if we it was not for two significant changes Maryama et al. observed in their experiment, we have hitherto ignored: The +26% and +14% increases in estrone (E1) and progesterone levels, respectively.

We have touched on estrone already. It is one of several natural estrogens and is abundant primarily during pregnancy (which explains why it's high in the milk of pregnant cows) and while the Wikipedia entry on estrone says that it was "known to cause anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and erectile dysfunction" the reference the author provides is an info-document from the United States Department of Labor.
And what about female libido? I did not forget you, ladies. The thing is with the high amount of estrone and progesterone you already have in your body, the minimal amount you may be getting from milk is probably not going to have any effects on your libido.
If you try to find corresponding evidence in peer reviewed magazines, on the other hand, you come up with a report by Jerzy Terter that was published in the British Medical Journal in October 1972 and says that estrone and estrone & testosterone have been used successfully to treat, not induce erectile dysfunction (Terter. 1972). Similar restorative effects have been reported for a combination of estrogen and progesterone, which was more effective in increasing coital frequency in male castrats than testosterone (Davidson. 1983)

Fine, libido / erectile performance shouldn't be an issue, but what about cancer?

Even if the small quantities of estrone and progesterone don't mess with your libido, this does not mean that they cannot (in the very long term) increase your risk of prostate or breast cancer, right? Since we've wantonly neglected the ladies in the previous paragraphs we'll start out with the breast cancer issue and the question: "Do progesterone or estrone increase your breast or endometrial cancer risk?"
  • Progesterone and breast, endometrial cancer & co: Despite the fact that studies from the 1980s show that progesterone deficiency increases the risk of developing breast cancer before menopause by more than 400% (Cowan. 1981) and in spite of recent evidence that progesterone enhances the anti-cancer effects of calcitriol (active vitamin D; cf. Lee. 2013), the rumor that progesterone / protestin based oral contraceptives would promote the growth of all sorts of cancer is tenacious.

    Possible health problems due to low progesterone (in pre- menopausal women): Low blood sugar, foggy thinking, uterine fibroids, decreased sweating, fibrocystic breasts, low blood pressure, tender breasts, infertility, chemical sensitivity, cold body temperature (ordered from lowest to highest incidence).
    Evidence from the early 1980 would in fact support the progesterone cancer association (Pike. 1982). If you know something about the hormonal content of the "early pill", it's no wonder that the observations Pike et al. made in the 1980s stand in contrast to the results of more recent studies on associations between oral contraceptives and breast or other forms of cancer. Studies like the one by Marchbanks et al., for example. In the corresponding paper, the researchers report ZERO increase in breast cancer risk for current oral contraceptive users and a 10% reduced breast cancer risk for those of the 4575 women with breast cancer and 4682 controls who had previously used them (Marchbanks. 2002).

    It goes without saying that there are also more recent studies suggesting risk increases with oral contraceptive for various forms of cancer. The total amount, but also the type of progesteron (bovine vs. articial, sometimes much stronger progestins) do make it very unlikely that milk will promote breast cancer growth... incidentally, the previously discussed in vitro study by Tate et al. (2011) confirms that. In the said study milk may have promoted the growth of the prostate cancer cells, the breast cancer cells, the researchers tested as well, did yet not respond to be being bathed in a Petri dish full of bovine milk. Much contrary to soymilk, by the way, which promoted the growth of Tate et al.'s breast cancer cells magnificently.
  • Estrone and breast, endometrial cancer & co: In view of the fact that estrone is capable of binding to the estrogen receptor on breast cancer cells and considering the fact that Toniolo et al. observed in a 1995 prospective study of endogenous estrogens and breast cancer in postmenopausal women that women with estrone levels between 12.3pg/ml and 20.9pg/ml had a 3.7x elevated breast cancer risk compared to those with estrone levels of 8pg/ml or less (Toniolo. 1995). Similar results were reported only recently by Farhat et al. (2013) for premenopausal women whose breast cancer risk is 3x elevated with estrone levels of 50.39-151.39pg/ml vs. 9.05-27.86 (Farhat. 2013)

    In view of the fact that I could not find a definitive number for the oral bioavailability of estrone, I had to use the C-max (max. concentration) values from a 1990 study by Aedo et al. to estimate whether the maximal amount of estrone you can find in cow's milk, i.e. ~100pg/ml could elevate a woman's E2 levels to an extend that would put her into a higher breast cancer risk category.
Why don't we use the values from the Maruyama study? I am pretty certain that it would be a bad idea to extrapolate estrogen / estrone related data from a study, where the corresponding levels were measured only in men to women. Moroever, even if we did that, we would still be faced with the problem that the peak values Maruyama et al. measured are probably irrelevant in terms of cancerous growth, which thrives in a milieu with constantly elevated estrone levels and is unlikely to grow in response to intermediate peaks that last for less than an hour.
  • In the said study the area under the estrone in response to the ingestion of 2.5mg of estrone-sulfate was 5.32 ng/ml per hour.

    Table 2: Association of estrone levels with invasive breast cancer risk (Farhat. 2013)
    In simple (from a science point of view questionable) analogy, one liter of bovine milk from a pregnant cow in the third trimester (=highest estrone content; ca. 100pg/ml) would thus create an AUC of only 0.2pg/ml per hour. If you look at the data in Table 2 it should be obvious that this is not going to take a women from Q1 with E2 levels of 9.05–27.86pg/ml to Q3 (36.79–50.38 pg/ml) the first quartile, where the risk increase becomes statistically significant.

    Honestly, I would not rely on hilariously inaccurate calculations like this, if the available epidemiological evidence I discussed before would not indicate that the consumption of bovine milk does not increase the risk of developing breast cancer, although the number of potential mechanisms, e.g. high estrogen, high estrone, high progesterone, overactivation of mTOR and IGF-1, are endless. Moreover, similar protective effects have been observed for ovarian cancer with (interestingly, they mostly ascribed to dairy calcium, though)
    • skim or low fat milk - 13-15% reduction, when consumed regularly
    • hard cheese - up to 32% reduction when consumed 2-7 days per week
    • cottage and ricoatte chesse - up to 24% when consumed 2-7 days per week
    in a recently published study by Merrit et al. (2013). The researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health did yet also observe risk increases with high fat dairy products like cream cheese (+42%) or whole milk (+38%), which bring us back to the issue in the "saturated fat as common denominator?" box above - an issue any further analysis of which I am going to postpone to a future SuppVersity article.
If we wanted to summarize the results of our analysis, I would say that the estrogen and progesterone content in bovine milk is not much of a problem for the women. Now this begs the question, whether it is a problem for the men, whose E2 and progesterone levels were significantly, yet only shortly elevated after the consumption of the test milk in the Maruyama study.
  • Progesterone and prostate cancer in men: With a normal range of 0.27 – 0.9 ng/ml the progesterone levels in the Maruyama study, i.e. 0.75ng/ml are still well within the normal range, for men. This and the mere facts that
    1. there is a host of research that confirms that the majority prostate cancer cells don't even have a progesterone receptor (Hobisch. 1997; Gregory),
    2. the progesterone receptors in prostate stromal fibroblasts and smooth muscle cells, suppress prostate stromal cell proliferation (Yu. 2013), and
    3. studies like Umekita (1996) suggest that medroxy progesterone acetate inhibits the growth of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in the Petri dish (Umekita. 1996)
    render it very unlikely that the temporary progesterone peak will have any effect on prostate cancer risk - whether the potential of a belated expression of progesterone receptors, as it was observed by Bonkhoff et al. in 2001 may speed up the the proliferation of existing prostate cancer is questionable, but does not appear to be an issue with the minimal milk-induced increases in progesterone levels in the Myruyama study, anyway.
    • Estrone and prostate cancer risk in men: As far as the estrone levels Maruyama et al. measured in their 2010 study are concerned it is very difficult to tell, whether or not the 26% increase in E2 levels is or isn't a problem.
    The estrone values in the Maruyama study are unrealistic. With a normal range of <68pg/ml the subjects in the Maruyama study would have elevated E1 levels to begin with, if the measurement was correct.
    • According to a study by Hsing & Comstock, prostate cancer patients have lower estrone : testosterone ratios than healthy controls (Hsing. 1993). In their 1988 paper Nomura et al. had already reported that prostate cancer patients have 26.7% lower estrone levels than healthy controls (Nomura. 1988); an observation that confirms the results of a previous analysis of estrone levels in US and Nigerian men by Ahluwalia from 1981 (Ahluwalia. 1981). In all but the Nigerians, the differences were yet not significant, which is why I would hesitate to use these observations to support the hypothesis that the changes in estrone and testosterone Maruyama et al. observed may actually protect against breast cancer.

      In spite of a study by Giton et al. (2008) that implicates estrone sulfate, which happens to be elevated in the presence of high estradiol levels (probably the real culprit here) as a marker of tumor aggressiveness, it would thus appear unwarranted to worry about the estrone increase in the Maruyama study, if we focus on a 26% from a midrange estrone value (see red box above for an explanation of why I don't use the exact serum values from the study) values are even accurate.
    What remains to be seen, though, is whether future epidemiological evidence will support or refute the currently heralded hypothesis that dairy consumption increases prostate cancer risk and whether we will be able to identify more feasible explanations for this relations than those that are implicated by the results Maruyama et al. present in their 2010 study.
    Table 3: Summary of human studies that evaluated the role of milk/dairy product consumption in the development of prostate cancer; Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; OR, odds ratio; RR, relative risk (Chagas. 2012).
    Maybe someone finally comes up with actual evidence for the involvement of the 3ng/ml of the DHT precursor 5alpha-pregnanedione in milk (Jouan. 2006) as it was probosed by William Danby in a 2008 paper about the link between dairy intake and (pubertal) acne.
    A high dairy intake...
    lowers testosterone
    impairs libido
    impairs fertility
    disturbs regular menses
    promotes prostate cancer
    promotes breast cancer
    promotes any type of cancer
    Bottom line - What does the evidence say? This is probably the longest SuppVersity Article ever. This is why even summarizing all the points would break the mould of the short summaries of which I know that all of you love them. Therefore I decided to replace the regular text-based summary by a "graphical" one in which I list the purported pitfals of dairy consumption I discussed in the previous paragraphs and my take on the reliability of the contemporary evidence. In that, ...
    • ✘ - indicates low-to-no evidence, while
    • ❓ - tells you that things are not certain, yet  and
    • ✔ - marks a potential reason to stay away from dairy
    If you want to learn why I chose "✘"for one and "❓"for another of the charges that are brought forward against dairy, you will yet have to read the corresponding part of this >5,000 word article - sorry ;-)
    Reference:
    • Aedo, A. R., Landgren, B. M., & Diczfalusy, E. (1990). Pharmacokinetics and biotransformation of orally administered oestrone sulphate and oestradiol valerate in post-menopausal women. Maturitas, 12(4), 333-343.
    • Afeiche, M., Williams, P. L., Mendiola, J., Gaskins, A. J., Jørgensen, N., Swan, S. H., & Chavarro, J. E. (2013). Dairy food intake in relation to semen quality and reproductive hormone levels among physically active young men. Human Reproduction.
    • Ahluwalia, B., Jackson, M. A., Jones, G. W., Williams, A. O., Rao, M. S., & Rajguru, S. (1981). Blood hormone profiles in prostate cancer patients in high‐risk and low‐risk populations. Cancer, 48(10), 2267-2273.
    • Bahadoran, Z., Karimi, Z., Houshiar-rad, A., Mirzayi, H. R., & Rashidkhani, B. (2013). Is Dairy Intake Associated to Breast Cancer? A Case Control Study of Iranian Women. Nutrition and cancer, 65(8), 1164-1170. 
    • Berkey, C. S., Willett, W. C., Tamimi, R. M., Rosner, B., Frazier, A. L., & Colditz, G. A. (2013). Dairy Intakes in Older Girls and Risk of Benign Breast Disease in Young Women. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 22(4), 670-674. 
    • Bonkhoff, H., Fixemer, T., Hunsicker, I., & Remberger, K. (2001). Progesterone receptor expression in human prostate cancer: correlation with tumor progression. The Prostate, 48(4), 285-291. 
    • Chagas, C. E., Rogero, M. M., & Martini, L. A. (2012). Evaluating the links between intake of milk/dairy products and cancer. Nutrition reviews, 70(5), 294-300.
    • Cordain, H. D. The Adverse Effects of Milk-by Loren Cordain & Pedro Bastos.
    • Cowan, L. D., Gordis, L., TONASCIA, J. A., & Jones, G. S. (1981). Breast cancer incidence in women with a history of progesterone deficiency. American journal of epidemiology, 114(2), 209-217.
    • Davidson, J. M., Camargo, C., Smith, E. R., & Kwan, M. (1983). Maintenance of sexual function in a castrated man treated with ovarian steroids. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12(3), 263-274.
    • Eslamian, G., Amirjannati, N., Rashidkhani, B., Sadeghi, M. R., & Hekmatdoost, A. (2012). Intake of food groups and idiopathic asthenozoospermia: a case–control study. Human Reproduction, 27(11), 3328-3336.
    • Farhat, G. N., Parimi, N., Chlebowski, R. T., Manson, J. E., Anderson, G., Huang, A. J., ... & Cummings, S. R. (2013). Sex Hormone levels and risk of Breast cancer With estrogen Plus Progestin. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 105(19), 1496-1503.
    • Farlow, D. W., Xu, X., & Veenstra, T. D. (2009). Quantitative measurement of endogenous estrogen metabolites, risk-factors for development of breast cancer, in commercial milk products by LC–MS/MS. Journal of Chromatography B, 877(13), 1327-1334.
    • Ganmaa, D., Wang, P. Y., Qin, L. Q., Hoshi, K., & Sato, A. (2001). Is milk responsible for male reproductive disorders?. Medical hypotheses, 57(4), 510-514. 
    • Ganmaa, D., Li, X. M., Wang, J., Qin, L. Q., Wang, P. Y., & Sato, A. (2002). Incidence and mortality of testicular and prostatic cancers in relation to world dietary practices. International journal of cancer, 98(2), 262-267.
    • Ganmaa, D., & Sato, A. (2005). The possible role of female sex hormones in milk from pregnant cows in the development of breast, ovarian and corpus uteri cancers. Medical hypotheses, 65(6), 1028-1037.
    • Giton, F., de la Taille, A., Allory, Y., Galons, H., Vacherot, F., Soyeux, P., ... & Fiet, J. (2008). Estrone sulfate (E1 S), a prognosis marker for tumor aggressiveness in prostate cancer (PCa). The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology, 109(1), 158-167.
    • Genkinger, J. M., Makambi, K. H., Palmer, J. R., Rosenberg, L., & Adams-Campbell, L. L. (2013). Consumption of dairy and meat in relation to breast cancer risk in the Black Women’s Health Study. Cancer Causes & Control, 1-10. 
    • Gregory, C. W., He, B., Johnson, R. T., Ford, O. H., Mohler, J. L., French, F. S., & Wilson, E. M. (2001). A mechanism for androgen receptor-mediated prostate cancer recurrence after androgen deprivation therapy. Cancer research, 61(11), 4315-4319.
    • Habito, R. C., & Ball, M. J. (2001). Postprandial changes in sex hormones after meals of different composition. Metabolism, 50(5), 505-511. 
    • Hsing, A. W., & Comstock, G. W. (1993). Serological precursors of cancer: serum hormones and risk of subsequent prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2(1), 27-32.
    • Hobisch, A., Hittmair, A., Daxenbichler, G., Wille, S., Radmayr, C., Hobisch‐Hagen, P., ... & Culig, Z. (1997). Metastatic lesions from prostate cancer do not express oestrogen and progesterone receptors. The Journal of pathology, 182(3), 356-361.
    • Jensen, T. K., Heitmann, B. L., Jensen, M. B., Halldorsson, T. I., Andersson, A. M., Skakkebæk, N. E., ... & Jørgensen, N. (2013). High dietary intake of saturated fat is associated with reduced semen quality among 701 young Danish men from the general population. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 97(2), 411-418. 
    • Jouan, P. N., Pouliot, Y., Gauthier, S. F., & Laforest, J. P. (2006). Hormones in bovine milk and milk products: a survey. International Dairy Journal, 16(11), 1408-1414.
    • Lee, L. R., Teng, P. N., Nguyen, H., Hood, B. L., Kavandi, L., Wang, G., ... & Syed, V. (2013). Progesterone Enhances Calcitriol Antitumor Activity by Upregulating Vitamin D Receptor Expression and Promoting Apoptosis in Endometrial Cancer Cells. Cancer Prevention Research.
    • Malekinejad, H., Scherpenisse, P., & Bergwerff, A. A. (2006). Naturally occurring estrogens in processed milk and in raw milk (from gestated cows). Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 54(26), 9785-9791. 
    • Marchbanks, P. A., McDonald, J. A., Wilson, H. G., Folger, S. G., Mandel, M. G., Daling, J. R., ... & Weiss, L. K. (2002). Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(26), 2025-2032.
    • Maruyama, K., Oshima, T., & Ohyama, K. (2010). Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows. Pediatrics International, 52(1), 33-38.
    • McCullough, M. L., Rodriguez, C., Diver, W. R., Feigelson, H. S., Stevens, V. L., Thun, M. J., & Calle, E. E. (2005). Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 14(12), 2898-2904. 
    • Mendiola, J., Torres-Cantero, A. M., Moreno-Grau, J. M., Ten, J., Roca, M., Moreno-Grau, S., & Bernabeu, R. (2009). Food intake and its relationship with semen quality: a case-control study. Fertility and sterility, 91(3), 812-818. 
    • Merritt, M. A., Cramer, D. W., Vitonis, A. F., Titus, L. J., & Terry, K. L. (2013). Dairy foods and nutrients in relation to risk of ovarian cancer and major histological subtypes. International Journal of Cancer, 132(5), 1114-1124. 
    • Nomura, A., Heilbrun, L. K., Stemmermann, G. N., & Judd, H. L. (1988). Prediagnostic serum hormones and the risk of prostate cancer. Cancer research, 48(12), 3515-3517.
    • Parodi, P. W. (2012). Impact of cows’ milk estrogen on cancer risk. International Dairy Journal, 22(1), 3-14. 
    • Park, Y., Mitrou, P. N., Kipnis, V., Hollenbeck, A., Schatzkin, A., & Leitzmann, M. F. (2007). Calcium, Dairy Foods, and Risk of Incident and Fatal Prostate Cancer The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. American journal of epidemiology, 166(11), 1270-1279.
    • Pike, M. C., Krailo, M. D., Henderson, B. E., Duke, A., & Roy, S. (1983). Breast cancer in young women and use of oral contraceptives: possible modifying effect of formulation and age at use. The Lancet, 322(8356), 926-929. 
    • Qin, L., Xu, J., Wang, P., Tong, J., & Hoshi, K. (2007). Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate cancer in Western countries: evidence from cohort studies. Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition, 16(3), 467.
    • Shaw, S. (2007) Modern Milk. Discussing research by Ganmaa Davaasambuu. Harvard Magazine. May-June.
    • Shin, M. H., Holmes, M. D., Hankinson, S. E., Wu, K., Colditz, G. A., & Willett, W. C. (2002). Intake of dairy products, calcium, and vitamin D and risk of breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94(17), 1301-1310.
    • Tate, P. L., Bibb, R., & Larcom, L. L. (2011). Milk stimulates growth of prostate cancer cells in culture. Nutrition and cancer, 63(8), 1361-1366. 
    • Teter, J. (1972). Treatment of endocrine impotence. British medical journal, 4(5832), 114.
    • Toniolo, P. G., Levitz, M., Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, A., Banerjee, S., Koenig, K. L., Shore, R. E., ... & Pasternack, B. S. (1995). A prospective study of endogenous estrogens and breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 87(3), 190-197.
    • Torfadottir, J. E., Steingrimsdottir, L., Mucci, L., Aspelund, T., Kasperzyk, J. L., Olafsson, O., ... & Valdimarsdottir, U. A. (2012). Milk intake in early life and risk of advanced prostate cancer. American journal of epidemiology, 175(2), 144-153. 
    • Tseng, M., Breslow, R. A., Graubard, B. I., & Ziegler, R. G. (2005). Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 81(5), 1147-1154.
    • Umekita, Y., Hiipakka, R. A., Kokontis, J. M., & Liao, S. (1996). Human prostate tumor growth in athymic mice: inhibition by androgens and stimulation by finasteride. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(21), 11802-11807.
    • Volek, J. S., Love, D. M., Avery, N. G., Sharman, M. J., & Kraemer, W. J. (2001). Effects of a high-fat diet on postabsorptive and postprandial testosterone responses to a fat-rich meal. Metabolism, 50(11), 1351-1355.

    +76% Testosterone & Protection From Insane Amounts of EMR With Rosmarinic Acid from O. Basilicum, Majoram, Thyme and Several Other Herbs in Your Kitchen Cabinet

    Figure 1: O. basilicum extract was the rosmarinic acid (RA) source that was used in the study at hand; other common herbs which contain RA include rosemary (who would have guessed that ;-), Spanish sage, lavender, perilla and lemon balm, majoram, thyme and mint
    That I am not a fan of testosterone boosters is probably an "open secret"... specifically in terms of "scientifically proven" ones, without any human data to back their claims and a single rodent study published in the African Journal of Pharmacology to back claims that like "increases lean mass" or "helps you shed body fat" that would not be supported by the study data, anyways... so, just to make sure that you, as a faithful student of the SuppVersity are the first to know about the (I bet) soon to be released "scientifically proven" testosterone booster, I decided to share with you the results of... exactly, one of those rodent studies from the January issue of the African Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology (Khaki. 2012), which would actually not have made it into the news, if it were not for the "ivory tower dose" of EMR the scientists used in this study.
    Note: I do not intend to challenge the credibility of this journal or the authors of this study, but I do want to point out that studies into the beneficial effects of "polyphenols" on whatever biological functions do not get published in the influential journals for a good reason: Almost every herb, and I suppose there are millions, will show some sort of anti-oxidant and I would venture the guess, at the right dose, testosterone boosting or inhibiting effects. For the first 1 1/2 months of 2012, the estimated number of papers reporting novel or summarizing old findings on those natural-antioxidants is >1,400 (according to Google Scholar)... so, chances that the next best herb that is growing just before your door is a "potent antioxidant" (at high enough doses) is ~50%, with another 50% chance of associated increases in testosterone, 25% of all herbs are potential testosterone boosters and "scientifically proven" (at least, in supp-company terms) as soon as a single paper with respective data is published.
    I guess, now that we have put things in perspective, I can say the magic words that will usually elicit commentaries à la "Where can I get this stuff on the net?" within the next 24h in either the comment area of the respective blogpost or on the SuppVersity's Facebook wall - ready? Then let's go: Treating male Wistar rats with 5mg/kg Rosmaric acid (RA), a polyphenol from herbal plants from the Lamiaceae family, for 40 days increased their total testosterone levels from 1.7 to 2.99ng/ml (+76%)...
    Figure 1: Effects of 40-day treatment with unrealistically high amounts of EMR from 80G EMF (50hz), 5mg/kg rosmaric acid from 1.5g/kg O basilico or a combination of both on endocrine function in male Wistar rats (data calculated based on Khaki. 2012)
    So, just in case you did not already run to your local GNC to ask the guy/girl at the counter, whether they have rosmaric acid in stock, you may as well be interested to see that the same 5mg/kg RA the rats received in the form of 1.5g/kg body weight O. basilicum extract (you see, you don't even have to go to your GNC for you daily dose of test-boosting herbs ;-) also blunted the -41% reduction in testosterone (cf. figure 1)the scientists induced by exposing the rats to EMF radiation at a completely unrealistic level of 80G - this is way more than 8,000x of what one of those stone-age microwave ovens emits, and another reason why studies like that don't get published in reputable journals.
    Figure 2: Intact spermatogonia and spermatocytes in testis of untreated control and after 40-day treatment with unrealistically high amounts of EMR from 80G EMF (50hz), 5mg/kg rosmaric acid from 1.5g/kg O basilico (data calculated based on Khaki. 2012)
    In view of the fact that the highest real-world 24h EMF exposure at 50Hz, I could think of would be right beneath a high-voltage powerline, which emits <150mG and thusly still 533x less than the EMF emitting device in the study, at hand, it is highly questionable, how significant the actual data on sperm and testis morphology in the EMF and RA + EMF groups actually is (cf. figure 2). The reason I still included it in this post, is that RA alone led to statistically non-significant, but still measurable improvement in sperm morphology, which could, after all, make the difference for any couple unable to conceive.

    This testbooster should already be in your kitchen cabinet, so no reason to go to GNC

    If we discard the questionable data on the exorbitant EMF exposure, this study leaves us with yet another "scientifically proven" testosterone booster, the real advantage of which is that it is naturally present not only in O. basilico, an extract of which was used in this study at a human equivalent dose of 243mg/kg body weight, but also in rosemary (who would have guessed that ;-), Spanish sage, lavender, perilla and lemon balm, majoram, thyme and mint - in other words, all those herbs you should have in your kitchen cabinet, anyway. After all, rosmarinic acid has anti-carcinogenic (Vencatachalam. 2012; Encalada. 2012), neuroprotective (Wang. 2012), anti-... ah, just the same effects as about every other polyphenol at the right dose - and did I mention that it is yet another caffeic acid derivate (cf. Caffeic Acid, AMPK and the Weight Loss Effects of Coffee)?