[Jan Fisher]

Does anyone else get sick of conflicting scientific studies?

Red wine is good for you, oh no it’s not you shameless alcoholic. Dark chocolate is good for you versus put that Old Gold choc bar down at once fatty. Childcare is good for children versus you are irreparably harming your child by sending them to childcare.

Well, the latest is that caffeinated drinks increase sperm count, where previous studies claim sugary and processed foods make men less fertile.

I’d take all this more seriously, but the swimmers that benefitted from caffeine were tested were in mice, versus the study that claims poor diet bad for men which was tested in humans.

Maybe the answer is to tally up the total studies on either sides and then whoever comes out on top is the winner, because it seems the scientist certainly can’t agree on it.

Who should we follow?

[Couldabeen]

These are scientists seeking relevance for their research. I have seen the headlines where a declining birth rate is portrayed as indicating a decline in fertility. This ignores the fact that now both partners have greater control on exactly how many children they will have and when in their life stage.
There are reputedly many millions of sperm in every ejaculation and yet it appears that less than a hundred actually get involved in the fertilization of the egg. Any more than this could be regarded as wasted energy from the male.
It won’t necessarily be the number of the sperm involved as much as their quality and motility that completes the task, whether it is accelerated by or impeded by the male consuming caffeine may have little to no significance in the outcome.

[Author]

Posts