Skip to content


    Attention All WebMD Community Members:

    These message boards are closed to posting. Please head on over to our new WebMD Message Boards to check out and participate in the great conversations taking place:

    Your new WebMD Message Boards are now open!

    Making the move is as easy as 1-2-3.

    1. Head over to this page:

    2. Choose the tag from the drop-down menu that clicks most with you (and add it to any posts you create so others can easily find and sort through posts)

    3. Start posting

    Have questions? Email us anytime at [email protected]

    Saturated fat - Sperm damage Veggies: Reduced Sperm DNA damage
    engineerguy posted:
    Hi folks,
    A recent Fuhrman blog confirms once again that Dr. Fuhrman is a source of health information that is generally 3 years ahead of the popular media.

    Walnuts May Promote Male Fertility

    "Adequate folate, abundant in green vegetables, may also promote fertility by preventing DNA damage in sperm.5 In contrast, higher saturated fat consumption, and cheese specifically, have been linked to lower semen quality.2,6,7"

    Best regards,

    This shows some of the references: (Thanks again, jc, for introducing me to the pubmed system, years ago.)

    2. Attaman JA, Toth TL, Furtado J, et al: Dietary fat and semen quality among men attending a fertility clinic. Hum Reprod 2012;27:1466-1474.

    "In this preliminary cross-sectional study, high intake of saturated fats was negatively related to sperm concentration whereas higher intake of omega-3 fats was positively related to sperm morphology."

    5. Boxmeer JC, Smit M, Utomo E, et al: Low folate in seminal plasma is associated with increased sperm DNA damage. Fertil Steril 2009;92:548-556.

    6. Afeiche M, Williams PL, Mendiola J, et al: Dairy food intake in relation to semen quality and reproductive hormone levels among physically active young men. Hum Reprod 2013.

    "We found that intake of full-fat dairy was inversely related to sperm motility and morphology. These associations were driven primarily by intake of cheese and were independent of overall dietary patterns." or

    7. Jensen TK, Heitmann BL, Jensen MB, et al: High dietary intake of saturated fat is associated with reduced semen quality among 701 young Danish men from the general population. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;97:411-418.

    "BACKGROUND: Saturated fat intake has been associated with both cardiovascular disease and cancer risk, and a newly published study found an association between saturated fat intake and a lower sperm concentration in infertile men.

    RESULTS: A lower sperm concentration and total sperm count in men with a high intake of saturated fat was found. A significant dose-response association was found, and men in the highest quartile of saturated fat intake had a 38% (95% CI: 0.1%, 61%) lower sperm concentration and a 41% (95% CI: 4%, 64%) lower total sperm count than did men in the lowest quartile. No association between semen quality and intake of other types of fat was found. 23269819
    heretk responded:
    If you look at the first study (Attaman et al.), table II - the results are completely marginal! Many if not most results show the worst data in the middle tertile of fat intake not in the highest, which to me is an indication that they either missed some vital parametr or that it simply is statistically insignificant. I don't buy their assertion of low P of 0.01 by trend - that is inconsistent with very high standard deviation of the data and the middle=worse phenomenon.
    jc3737 replied to heretk's response:
    I have to admit I don't understand the statistical analysis of the data so I will have to let EG debate you on this.But it would seem logical for the worst data to be for the highest intake of saturated fat and not the middle ranges if the hypothessis is to hold up.
    engineerguy replied to jc3737's response:
    Hi Heretic,
    Thanks for your answer.

    For those reading, click on table 2 so it opens up full page, so you can see the many rows.

    This is really frightening stuff!

    Heretic is correct that there was little difference between the two worse groups. The difference was between the best group (lowest fat, lowest saturated fat, or highest omega-3 fat, etc) and the other 2 groups. Heretic took this as a reason to disregard the study. Heretic is incorrect that the middle group was the worst group. In every case, the middle and worst group were very similar, and the best group was MUCH better, IF the correlation was statistically significant. Only 9 of the 24 groups had statistical significance. In the top row, Total fat correlated statistically with total sperm count and sperm concentration, but not sperm motility or sperm morphology.
    Sperm motility did not correlate significantly with any of the groups.

    As an example, consider the top left block of data.

    Total fat percentage - N men - Total Sperm Count (Range)
    26% 32 211 (158—283)
    32% 34 113 (85—150)*
    37% 33 125 (94—166)*
    Ptrend** 0.01

    Sorry if this is a bit tedious. The men are divided into 3 groups based on fat intake. The avg fat intake of the lowest group, 32 men, 26% of calories from fat, has 211 million total sperm count, with readings ranging from 158 to 283.

    The middle group, 32% fat, avgs 113, ranging from 85 to 150. Note that the highest sperm count in the middle group, 150, is BELOW the lowest reading in the 26% group. The highest fat group, 37%, has similar readings to the middle group. The highest reading in the high fat group, 166, is just slightly higher than the Lowest reading of the 26% fat group. This is an almost complete separation of the results!!!! Heretic says the middle group is the worst, and disregards the study. I say the two worse groups are very similar, and the low fat group has 75% higher sperm count.

    The asterisk means that this group is 95% confidence different that the group without the asterisk. Another way to say 95% confident, is to say that Probablility P, that the samples are statistically the same, is less than .05.

    Ptrend, if it is less than .05, will have **, and means it is statistically significant as a linear regression (straight line).

    Sperm morphology, the percent normal sperm, correlated very strongly with the omega-3 intake (more omega-3 was better). 0.8% of calories from omega-3, had 7.2% normal sperm. (Why so low?) .4% and .5% of calories from omega-3, were similar to each other, at 5 or 5.8% normal sperm. But - really scary - the max normal sperm for .4 or .5% omega-3 was 6.8% normal, and the LOWEST normal of the high omega-3 group, was 6.1% Again, there was barely any overlap of the data from the two groups.

    Thanks, Heretic, for highlighting this data.

    Best regards, EngineerGuy
    anon43 replied to engineerguy's response:
    Jimmy Moore who ate Atkins, gained weight and now eats a diet that is 85% fat has said on his blog that he has a low sperm count and sperm that lacks motility. He does not think this is due to his high fat diet but only applies to people who eat the wrong fat. As his cholesterol is above 300 and LDL in the 200's I am assuming he thinks sat fat is the right fat.

    engineerguy replied to anon43's response:
    Hi Dolores,

    How are you doing? Great to hear from you.

    What to say about Jimmy Moore. TMI ? Sometimes people just post too much information. And what about Jimmy Moore could possibly suggest that he is a health expert? Maybe if he simultaneously came down with 3 rare incurable diseases, he could authoritatively post about how he expects to cure them with his high fat diet.

    Best regards, EngineerGuy
    heretk replied to engineerguy's response:
    Hi EG,

    Total fat percentage - N men - Total Sperm Count (Range)[br>26% 32 211 (158—283) [br>32% 34 113 (85—150)* [br>37% 33 125 (94—166)* [br>Ptrend** 0.01

    The average trend line slope is:

    dY/dX = (125-211)/(37-26) = -8

    draw a curve to the data using their one standard deviation bars. The highest slope line would fit to the extreme points (26,158)-(37,166) giving a slope of dY/dX = (166-158)/(37-26) = 8/11 = 0.7

    The other extreme slope is if you take the other extremes, that is:

    (26,283)-(37,94) giving a slope of dY/dX = (94-283)/(37-26) = -189/11 = -17

    Probability of the two 1 sigma excursions or more happening simultaneously is 0.158^2 = 0.025 . That is assuming that the statistical distribution of data point is Gaussian. If you take into account a finite accuracy of the fat bins you may get even less tight estimate.

    Given the fact that the middle point is below the two, indicates that the linear model is probably incorrect (especially that this shows up in other graphs as well). This would cast a doubt upon a validity of the entire analysis.

    Incidentally, do you remember Dr. Jan Kwasniewski's theory, I was writing about it. He was saying that the worst dietary fat contents is when it constitutes 35-45% of calories, on a high carbohydrate diet! It is intriguing that the data you quoted seem to exhibit a "U" shaped curve rather than a linear trend, with a minimum at an intermediate fat contents, which may be in agreement with Kwasniewski's!

    I have also a comment regarding your comments on Jimmy Moore. He has got many health problems, most of which appeared long before an adoption of his first high protein low carb (Atkins) and then a better high animal fat less protein diet. I really sympatize with him, his very poor single parent upbringing subsisting on the cheapest of the supermarket foods (i.e. sugar, starch, veg oils etc) . What kind of control did he really have upon all that as a kid and a teenager? Think of him as a friend. I urge you to have some sympathy for him rather than pouring all scorn only because he happens to believe in a different diet belief system than you. Best belief system is no belief system!


    anon43 replied to heretk's response:
    Hi, everyone. I couldn't get back on web md because I forgot my password and they wouldn't let me sign up with my e mail address and screen name so I had to make something up.

    I have a very great deal of sympathy for the Moores' desire to have children and their inability to do so. Having had a miscarriage myself I can tell you that to me it was losing a child and the grief process took a while to work through. And the failure to have a much wanted child causes anguish that those who have gone through it know best.

    However, Jimmy Moore, despite his background and present difficulties has set himself up as an expert and makes a living promoting his way of eating. Not only that he has many followers who are still in his fan club despite the fact that the diet he promoted, wrote about and turned into a living for himself did not produce his own permanent weight loss. People with heart conditions have written to him and he has advised them to eat even more fat and to lower carbs even more. We will never know the result of his advice.

    It seems that rather than relying on the work of researchers his followers are enthralled by his N=1 experiments.

    He writes of the supplements he uses especially glycosolve for his blood sugars. So it looks to me like his diet alone is not producing his low blood sugars. Unlike the rest of the world he is not concerned about his high cholesterol numbers. He claims to fast to get his weight down. Why? For some reason he gained weight on the Atkins diet over a few years yet did not control his weight until adopting his very high fat and fasting regimen nor did he report it to his fans.

    Jimmy Moore is not just someone on a support group who is looking for answers and support. He has crowned himself the expert--an expert who has obviously failed the first time around at the diet he is promoting. And now on to something else--still selling books, being invited on speaking engagements to groups of people whom I can only characterize in this instance as extremely gullible, and dishing out advice on the basis of his n=1 experiment.

    It is hard for some to take him seriously despite the sympathy he invokes when one hears of his life and current problems. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. And maybe the definition should include followers who see poor results continuing to follow. And bye the way this would go for any diet someone tries who finds it is not working for them.

    heretk replied to anon43's response:
    Yes Dolores, but I would like to defend him. He is promoting his diet indeed but not by himself but by mostly by inviting scientists and true experts to talk about it on his programs. He is not hiding the fact that he is only a broadcaster/journalist (professional) with only an amator knowledge of some metabolism. His is not hiding the fact that his experience is N=1 and does not claim that that it must be good for everyone. He said so talking to McDougall! He does however claim that it is good for him,. It probably is, he knows better. One can also probably call his diet "less bad", in the sense that for him, Atkins could be called "more bad" and (for him too) a high carb diet would probably be "really bad". He is after all glucose intolerant and has got a metabolic syndrome, that he could not cure on Atkins. Your own metabolism is also somewhat damaged, according to your accord but it is hard for me to compare it since the underlying causes could be different. If he were provocative he could have said more less the same derogatory comments about your diet being bad for you, as you disparagingly described his diet as being bad for him.

    Once you start communicating with him (rather than only criticizing) , I predict that you will be surprized that you both will probably share more in common than not. How about sending him a comment asking to come here and have a chat with you and the rest us?

    Best regards,
    anon43 replied to heretk's response:
    H, he gained weight on a diet that was supposed to make him lose weight, he uses glycosolve, his cholesterol and LDL are sky high, his sperm production and motility are deficient. And to lose weight he is resorting to fasting. Hardly something the average dieter would enjoy doing. It is not a derogatory remark to point out the obvious as far as his being a guru whose own advice seems to have failed him. Is the truth derogatory? The rest of what I said is merely repeating what he has said himself.

    You could be right about my own diet and time will tell. I frankly think that all bets are off since I have a stent. However, since my MI I have lost at least thirty pounds, and HbA1c, cholesterol, LDL and triglycerides and blood pressure are all within the recommended low levels, not the AHA levels but Esselstyn levels, my ejection fraction is normal and I am on no meds. And I continue to lose weight very slowly, have a BMI of 21.8 and keep slim by eating vegetables, fruit, intact grains and starches and beans with a little flaxseed and B12 and do not have to fast to lose weight. So Jimmy Moore is welcome to make derogatory remarks about results which seem to be better than his if he wants to.

    One must also know that I had my MI when I was 68 years old after years of being very overweight and 20 years diabetic (despite normal blood sugars and HbA1c) Jimmy Moore (and you) are quite a bit younger and normally not at an age when even people on the horrible SAD get a heart attack. So neither of you have reached an age to make personal comparisons with an elderly relic like me. And I am guessing I will not be around when you do reach my age.

    heretk replied to anon43's response:
    It is true, but I think it would be beneficial for you and Jimmy Moore or EG, if you said all that to him rather than about him. You may find that the reality is quite different from what you and I think. In some situations I would not attempt talking to a person, but in this case we should. He will not attempt a verbal abuse or browbeating us into submission, as some other people have tried from you know where... I am quite selective about people. In this case I am quite certain (90% sort of) that you will like an interaction and he may benefit as well.

    heretk replied to anon43's response:
    Re: One must also know that I had my MI when I was 68 years old after years of being very overweight and 20 years diabetic (despite normal blood sugars and HbA1c)

    Vegetarians and vegans do not have a much lower or even just lower rate of heart disease than the rest of the population! It is a myth propagated by you know who. Your MI at the age of 68 was not unforeseen as much as my dad's at an age of 64.
    (He was also told to and followed a low fat diet, reduced cholesterol as much as he could and all that). Look through the vegan forums, including McD's and you will find plenty of examples! Some younger than you. You can rationalized and trying to whitewash all that "theory" by saying that a sliver of a salmon once a week did you in. This is a pure irrationality. If an ounce of salmon a week could do a MI then the humanity would have perished millions of years ago.

    Do not fear anything! Your true health comes from within not externally from some people, doctors etc. If doctors and their theories really worked then my dad would have lived!

    Best regards,
    jc3737 replied to heretk's response:
    Vegetarians and vegans may not have a lower rate of heart disease but Dr Greger explains this in one of his presentations.Does that apply to the McDougall diet with B12 supplementation and a tablespoon of flax seed?

    Here is my e mail to Jimmy Moore and his responce.In a follow up I invied him again once his book tour is over.

    Sounds fun, but I'm in the midst of the release of my new book today and super-busy! THANKS for the invitation though.

    Jimmy Moore, author of "Cholesterol Clarity: What The HDL Is Wrong With My Numbers?" (Victory Belt Publishing - 2013)

    Learn more about the book, info on the 29 featured experts, listen to interviews about the book, read reviews of the book and so much more:

    Get the book on Amazon:

    Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Blog

    The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show Podcast

    E-mail me:

    My self-published books: 2009--"21 Life Lessons From Livin' La Vida Low-Carb":

    2006--"Livin' La Vida Low-Carb":

    On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:02 AM, wrote:

    Hi Jimmy,Visit Web MD diet debate message board and debate with the group.Your friend Stan(Heretic) suggested we invite you.Hope you can join us. JC
    heretk replied to jc3737's response:
    Is there a live conference feature here on the webmd? If you invited him for a live conference to chat with us for example for 40 minutes only, that might work. It can easily be done on Skype.

    It has to be a specific invitation for a specific time. BTW That response looks to me like a bizoidal marketing puke. Has he jumped to the "dark" side?

    I was hoping he isn't like that ...

    heretk replied to jc3737's response:
    Re: Does that apply to the McDougall diet with B12 supplementation and a tablespoon of flax seed?

    Yes it does apply! It is Greger's uproven opinion that flaxseed oil B12 can remedy even all the _known_ defficiencies of a strict vegan diet!

    I doubt if Greger knows what he is doing and I have a similar doubt about McD.


    Spotlight: Member Stories

    Let's see.... I'm the mom of six (three hers, three mine) who used to live in Florida but now lives in the Chicago area. (Don't ask.) I&#...More

    Helpful Tips

    Be the first to post a Tip!

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.