Hegseth requires testosterone deficiency screening for service members over 30

ThatRobGuy said:

There still aren't many women in combat roles (despite the ban being lifted for 10 years)

Per TheHill:
By 2019, more than 600 female Sailors and Marines were serving in combat arms units previously restricted to men, while more than 650 women held Army combat roles

When you consider that the total of combat personnel is what, around a half million? We're talking a very tiny percentage.

Click to expand...

So? That should make it easier and cheaper to implement.

ThatRobGuy said:

Plus, I'm not sure there's a parallel issue happening (in terms of age-independent hormone level shifts) on the ladies' side of the fence that's happening on the mens' side.

Click to expand...

Age independent? Mandatory screening for men is for over 30.

DaisyDay said:

So? That should make it easier and cheaper to implement.

Age independent? Mandatory screening for men is for over 30.

Click to expand...

By age independent, I perhaps should have said "controlled for age"

Meaning, 35 year old men have lower T than their 35 year old counterparts in 1970 did.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that same is happening for women.

Hans Blaster said:

A quick search just showed me that there are a whole collection of "low-T" clinics in my area. Oh boy. They look line the new "chronic pain" clinics of today. If you have a problem with a hormone, see an endocrinologist.

Where is the testing? The safety studies?

Where do these con men think GLP-1 came from (hint: it was nature, gila monsters).

Click to expand...

I suspect there's a couple different factors at play.

There's always been that "natural means better" mentality among certain circles, it used to be confined to the "crunchy granola" types, but it's increased in popularity among certain "wellness" circles over the past 15-20 years.

Second, I think some of it stems from embarrassment from talking to their actual doctor about certain problems, whereas ordering it online or going to a specific place where everyone's there for the exact same thing with a clinician who's a random person they'll never have to face again makes it's less embarrassing and more "anonymous" for a lack of a better way of putting it.

I'll have to see if I can find it again, it was a local news article discussing some of those "low T clinics", and it had made mention that a lot of guys specifically choose to go to one that's one or two counties over, specifically because they don't want the risk of being seen going into one by someone they know.

Hans Blaster said:

The point, as I recall it from last week, was that the "low T" and "more T" as a cure

Click to expand...

Did I? I said American males are betas compared to back in the day. I asked why.

Hans Blaster said:

AI is not a source.

Click to expand...

I know, It's a source of sources.

ThatRobGuy said:

By age independent, I perhaps should have said "controlled for age"

Meaning, 35 year old men have lower T than their 35 year old counterparts in 1970 did.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that same is happening for women.

Click to expand...

I wonder if testosterone levels have varied in the same way in women.

Laodicean60 said:

Did I? I said American males are betas compared to back in the day. I asked why.

Click to expand...

"Betas" smh.

Laodicean60 said:

I know, It's a source of sources.

Click to expand...

It is a delusional computer.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new initiative to test and treat troops for low testosterone has prompted a federal judge to question the differences between that kind of testosterone replacement therapy and hormone treatment for transgender men in the military.

Belk said:

Judge questions difference between Hegseth's testosterone policy and transgender care for troops

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new initiative to test and treat troops for low testosterone is facing scrutiny from a federal judge.

apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new initiative to test and treat troops for low testosterone has prompted a federal judge to question the differences between that kind of testosterone replacement therapy and hormone treatment for transgender men in the military.

Click to expand...

One is males trying to back into the normal reference rage for the sex they actually are.

The other is females trying to present as males by taking cross-sex hormones.

ThatRobGuy said:

One is males trying to back into the normal reference rage for the sex they actually are.

The other is females trying to present as males by taking cross-sex hormones.

Click to expand...

Trying? I didn't see any the part where the 30+ crowd was asking, no, begging for this jab, a mandatory hormone injection.

ThatRobGuy said:

I don't know that it's fair to dismiss it as completely bunk.

Click to expand...

I do. It's bunk.

The observation of wolf packs with a rigid linear hierarchy with a large dominant male "alpha" at the apex keeping lower ranked males in line and a breeding female keeping the lower ranked females in line was based on social dynamics in wolves in captivity.

Even then, it was mostly drawn for two fairly extreme examples (including one where there were 10 wolves of nearly the same age, from multiple different families, within a 33 x 66 foot enclosure). It's more akin to the social dynamics you'd get in a prison than anything you find in nature.

In the wild, wolf packs are formed from family group(s). Usually one, sometimes up to three. The parents are the dominate members - primarily just because they're parents - and take the lead in the division of labour (hunting/foraging/scouting and pup care and defense). Dominance fighting is rare to non-existent.

When raised in captivity, family pack groups exhibit relationship dynamics that are more similar to wild groups than to artificially constructed "packs" of breeding age males and females.

The oldest breeding pair are the dominants and age is most correlated with rank (although its not a strong correlation). Hierarchy is indicated through submission behaviours by younger wolves during greetings, rather than aggressive/dominance behaviour. Ranks within the hierarchy are not fixed (excluding the breeding pair).

Female-female relationships show more dominance and submission behaviours than either male-male or male-female relationships. The main area where the sort of "alpha" behaviour comes out is when food is presented. But even here it is a female over male dominance hierarchy.

ThatRobGuy said:

It's just that we've evolved to the point where the normal laws of natural selection and species propagation don't have to the follow the same rules as they once did when we were still "in the wild"

Prior to much of the modern scientific and medical advancement...

If you weren't fit enough to acquire food, and didn't have enough aggression and strength to be able to physically defend it from someone else who was trying to take it from you and your tribe, it means that you didn't eat/survive.

Click to expand...

Social species exist. You do realise this, don't you? And have existed for tens of millions of years.

There are many social species VOLUNTARILY give up resources (food/water) to ingroup members if they perceive an imbalance in allocation. Reciprocal altruism is a well observed in mammals and birds, both in lab settings and the wild.

There is good evidence that hominids have looked after individuals who couldn't fend for themselves as far back as 1.8 million years ago.

There's more recent evidence for Neanderthals caring for a nearly blind, deaf individual with an amputated arm:

ThatRobGuy said:

However, things like status and dominance are real in humans, just not as binary as they are in other mammalian species. People absolutely track those things, and and those things do correlate with mating and reproductive outcomes as well as other long term outcomes.

Click to expand...

Humans are much more closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos.

Hans Blaster said:

"Betas" smh.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm a Beta also.

DaisyDay said:

I wonder if testosterone levels have varied in the same way in women.

Click to expand...

Interesting question. I looked up whether estrogen levels change in men, and nope, but it does say obesity drives up estrogen levels.

How much of the proposed testosterone deficit is unexplained after controlling for BMI, waist-hip-ratio, smoking etc? I'm not against a screening of military personnel. But in Denmark and Sweden most of the decline can be explained by BMI, yes diminishing body fat increases testosterone, just to make clear that losing fat actually increases testosterone causally.

I also want to point out, that if it is possible to supplement testosterone deficient individuals in the US military, then it is possible to extend the same courtesy to trans men.

Gene2memE said:

Social species exist. You do realise this, don't you? And have existed for tens of millions of years.

There are many social species VOLUNTARILY give up resources (food/water) to ingroup members if they perceive an imbalance in allocation. Reciprocal altruism is a well observed in mammals and birds, both in lab settings and the wild.

There is good evidence that hominids have looked after individuals who couldn't fend for themselves as far back as 1.8 million years ago.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Early hominid 'cared for elderly'

There's more recent evidence for Neanderthals caring for a nearly blind, deaf individual with an amputated arm:

Despite Deafness, Missing Forearm and Limp, This Neanderthal Lived into His Forties | Sci.News

An older adult male Neanderthal from the Late Pleistocene, who had suffered multiple injuries, became deaf and must have relied on social support from his relatives and friends to avoid prey, according to new research.

www.sci.news

Humans are much more closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos.

Click to expand...

Obviously social species exist, but so does the correlation between status and certain outcomes.

You mentioned chimps:

Social Hierarchy and Leadership​

Within a chimpanzee community, a clear dominance hierarchy exists, particularly among males. The alpha male achieves his rank not just through physical size but often through political maneuvering and strategic alliances. His leadership style can vary; some alphas, like the Gombe chimpanzee Freud, built strong social bonds, while his brother Frodo relied on aggression. The alpha’s status grants him priority access to preferred food and mating opportunities.


Chimpanzee dominance relationships are constantly being negotiated and challenged. Aggression, coalition formations, and alliances are some strategies employed by chimpanzees to gain or maintain dominance. These power struggles can lead to conflicts, both within and between groups, as individuals and coalitions vie for higher social rank and the associated benefits. Understanding the complex dynamics of chimpanzee social hierarchy provides valuable insights into their social behavior and helps researchers comprehend the complexities of this remarkable species.

To illustrate the complexity of chimpanzee social hierarchy, consider the following table:

Behavior​

Chimpanzees are highly social. They live in communities of several dozen animals, led by an alpha male and his coalition of male allies. Research has shown that male and female chimps have individual personalities, with females being more trusting and timid.


Given that we're similar to chimps, and people on here are saying that "the alpha thing is complete and total bunk", I'd recommend putting together a strongly worded letter to the editors of these 3 biology publications to inform them that they're wrong. I'm sure National Geographic will be receptive to the critique.

Stopped_lurking said:

How much of the proposed testosterone deficit is unexplained after controlling for BMI, waist-hip-ratio, smoking etc? I'm not against a screening of military personnel. But in Denmark and Sweden most of the decline can be explained by BMI, yes diminishing body fat increases testosterone, just to make clear that losing fat actually increases testosterone causally.

I also want to point out, that if it is possible to supplement testosterone deficient individuals in the US military, then it is possible to extend the same courtesy to trans men.

Click to expand...

Unless you had an extensive blood work history to know which came first on an individual level (the low T, or the obesity), since they can cause each other.

Having low T can make a person subject to fat gain...and gaining a lot of fat can reduce T.

But without tracking it (and only seeing that a person is currently overweight, and currently has low T), it'd be a bit of guessing game because it's the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of thing.


As far as "extending the same courtesy" to Trans men. (a few others in this thread have tried to draw the same parallel)

There is a crucial difference.

One is aimed at getting a male into the normal healthy male reference range
The other is aimed at putting a female in a range that's way above what a normal female would have with the aims of making them look like opposite sex (which actually comes with some health risks to the internal organs that aren't insignificant)


It's the similar distinction I would draw between:
Getting a rhinoplasty procedure to correct breathing difficulties or a deviated septum that's impacting sleep quality
vs.
Getting a rhinoplasty for purely cosmetic reasons

ThatRobGuy said:

Unless you had an extensive blood work history to know which came first on an individual level (the low T, or the obesity), since they can cause each other.

Having low T can make a person subject to fat gain...and gaining a lot of fat can reduce T.

But without tracking it (and only seeing that a person is currently overweight, and currently has low T), it'd be a bit of guessing game because it's the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of thing.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, reducing fat mass increases testosterone. And we have surefire ways to reduce fat mass (being a caloric deficit). Just to be clear i'm not against supplementing testosterone on a medical basis. If more people in the military are testosterone deficient than the general public, the military really needs to investigate why. If it is BMI-related, they can easily fix that. If it is related to any chemicals that military personnel are exposed to they need to reduce that. Or if it related to any other factor, they need to isolate that and remove it.

ThatRobGuy said:

As far as "extending the same courtesy" to Trans men. (a few others in this thread have tried to draw the same parallel)

There is a crucial difference.

One is aimed at getting a male into the normal healthy male reference range
The other is aimed at putting a female in a range that's way above what a normal female would have with the aims of making them look like opposite sex (which actually comes with some health risks to the internal organs that aren't insignificant)

Click to expand...

If the argument is that the military can't supply testosterone to men, then they can't supply it to deficient men in general.

ThatRobGuy said:

It's the similar distinction I would draw between:
Getting a rhinoplasty procedure to correct breathing difficulties or a deviated septum that's impacting sleep quality
vs.
Getting a rhinoplasty for purely cosmetic reasons

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

One is males trying to back into the normal reference rage for the sex they actually are.

The other is females trying to present as males by taking cross-sex hormones.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the judge will be fascinated with your opinion on the subject.

Belk said:

I'm sure the judge will be fascinated with your opinion on the subject.

Click to expand...

That's good for the judge...

Because if that judge is claiming "well gee shucks, I just don't know what's so different about a male getting testosterone supplements because they have clinically provable deficiency, and a person wanting to do a gender transition" then they're either being deliberately obtuse, or they've been asleep for the last 12 years.

ThatRobGuy said:

That's good for the judge...

Because if that judge is claiming "well gee shucks, I just don't know what's so different about a male getting testosterone supplements because they have clinically provable deficiency, and a person wanting to do a gender transition" then they're either being deliberately obtuse, or they've been asleep for the last 12 years.

Click to expand...

The military should be required to explain why it is possible to make testosterone available to one group but not another. Or are you arguing that needing supplemental testosterone should be sufficient for a discharge from military service in general?

Stopped_lurking said:

If the argument is that the military can't supply testosterone to men, then they can't supply it to deficient men in general.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the army can (and does) dispense medications for legitimate medical purposes.


However in this instance:

The normal range for a male in his 30's
~500-900 ng/dL

The normal range for a female in their 30's
~15-70 ng/dL

Therefore, regardless of whether or not one self-identifies as "man".
A 30 year old male who's currently sitting at ~350 probably needs a little boost
A 30 year old female does not (and is actually creating organ and cardiovascular risk)

Stopped_lurking said:

The military should be required to explain why it is possible to make testosterone available to one group but not another. Or are you arguing that needing supplemental testosterone should be sufficient for a discharge from military service in general?

Click to expand...

It's a simple enough explanation.

One is a male, the other is a female, and the clinical reference ranges for healthy testosterone levels are sex-dependent.