How true is this???

[Oradev]

I've just received my latest subscription to Men's Health magazine. In it, it states:

"High blood sugar can damage sperm and boost the odds of birth defects, states an Irish study. Scientists analyzed men with Type I diabetes and found that their sperm had 20 percent more mutations than did the swimmers of healthy men. High glucose levels are associated with oxidative stress, which damages your DNA, say the study authors. This also raises the risk of your offspring having health complications, such as leukemia."

WTF?!?!?!??

[jen_slc]

I think this study was the first of its kind in humans, so what can you really say about the first set of results of any study? "Interesting. Concerning. Let's do more studies." I think previous studies using diabetic rats came to similar conclusions, i.e. there is damage. So I would say it is possible (it makes sense biologically speaking) and very probable, but nobody really knows until more research is done. In the meantime, though, it's just another reason to keep your levels down!

[mortis505]

Did the article happen to mention if the test subjects had their D in control, on insulin, or any other factors? If not then the testing is suspect at best IMHO.

[DeusXM]

Could also be that since T1 is a genetic mutation, that mutation will be present in the sperm of T1 men. Doesn't necessarily mean the mutations in the sperm are across the whole gamut of the genome - that 20% mutation rate could just be 'diabetic' genes, rather that damaged DNA.

Also, mutations aren't necessarily bad. Mutations are what drive evolution, so there's also a distinct possibility that your offspring could have some sort of genetic advantage over everyone else.

[REDLAN]

men's health is one of my favourite magazines not least because of their reliance on the latest study for their healthy diet/exercise tips - a great source of junk epidemiology if ever there was one.

I also find the juxtaposition of homo-erotic imagery jars rather amusingly with the lad's mag style articles on sex.

anyway enough of all that. Rule number one of press releases

1) it has to sound good.

the researchers need to big up their institute, to attract funding, so they need catchy headlines and while they are unlikely to actually lie, they will neglect to mention certain facts that might just be pertinent to a more sober interpretation of their study, like...

1) it was rather small - 27 diabetic men and 29 non-diabetic controls

2) both groups were undergoing routine fertility investigations.

- yes you did read this right. The study group were diabetic men who were already experiencing fertility problems - I'm no expert, but I think I would be entirely justified in claiming that these 27 subjects were not representative of type 1 diabetic men as a whole.

3) the rate of DNA damage in the controls was 53% versus 32% - here is your 20% increase they mentioned - there is quite a significant rate of DNA fragmentation in the controls, the study does not address whether this has any significance on treatment outcomes.

4) the authors themselves conclude that...

Diabetes is associated with increased sperm nuclear and mtDNA damage that may impair the reproductive capability of these men.

note no mention of increased health complications on offspring - only an impact on fertility on this study group.

note the study can not prove that the difference in DNA fragmentation is significant, only that it may have an impact.

study abstract is here...

Insulin dependant diabetes mellitus: implications for male reproductive function -- Agbaje et al., 10.1093/humrep/dem077 -- Human Reproduction (http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dem077v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Agbaje&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

a fairer summary of the study might be.

Diabetic men suffering from infertility problems have a greater amount of genetic damage to their sperm, than non-diabetic men also suffering fertility problems.

Fertility outcomes were not studied, and while the authors believe that the result is significant, it is unknown whether the observed differences will have any impact.

but this just isn't as catchy as...

High blood sugar can damage sperm and boost the odds of birth defects, states an Irish study. Scientists analyzed men with Type I diabetes and found that their sperm had 20 percent more mutations than did the swimmers of healthy men

and note the errors...

mutations - the sperm's DNA was not mutated it was more likely to be broken, and had more deletions - mutations imply the genetic code has been changed.

Healthy - the control group were not healthy men, but were also being investigated for fertility problems.

and note the extra information not included in the study

High blood sugar - You can not draw this conclusion from the actual study - there was no attempt to correlate DNA damage with A1C results.

boost the odds of birth defects - the authors did not conclude this at all.

remember rule number 1) of a press release?

so next time you read some scare story in the paper, repeat after me.

It's probably...

<insert lavatorial expletive here>

[BlueSky]

..... Rule number one of press releases

1) it has to sound good. .....

so next time you read some scare story in the paper, repeat after me.

It's probably...

<insert lavatorial expletive here>
LOL ... There can be no doubt that this rule is heavily used in pharmaceutical PR. The really scary thing is that doctors, CDEs and associated medical professionals are taken in by it. :eek:

[REDLAN]

The problem arises because professionals have this habit of believing in the concept of "professional judgement" - they believe that their training imparts them special insights into how to recognise differences in body function, that they like to call disease. This gives them special insights into how to correct those abnormalities.

unfortunately they are just as susceptible to manipulation, logical fallacies, biases and myths as the rest of us.