The Hidden Reason For The Lost Decade

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Do you find the thinking of professors at Syracuse and Penn State absurd, too?

 

No, just you.

 

Try the yellow.

[RickW]

Then tell me if this low testosterone thing has affected Tom Brady? That guy's married and gayer than the 1890s.

 

".........Not that there is anything wrong with that"

[CSBill]

OK, this has to be the most bizarre thread ever at TBW.

 

And worst of all, I just sat here and read the whole thing.

 

Moreover, I'm left wondering: Just what is my testosterone level? And whatever it is, is it good or bad?

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

. . . So let's say we grant your (not scientifically referenced) assertion that testosterone levels are, in fact, lower in committed family men. . .

 

I was puzzled by your "not scientifically referenced" remark, so I went back and looked at the first link in my post #15 above. Turns out I inadvertently posted a link to just the abstract of the published research paper. Sorry about that. Here's a link to the full research paper - - it starts out with the same abstract but doesn't label it "Abstract:"

 

http://anpron.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Longitudinal-evidence-that-fatherhood-decreases-testosterone-in-human-males.pdf

 

Because it was my fault that you didn't have easy access to the full paper, I'll point out a few key portions to make it easier for you. From the description of pre-existing research:

 

Multiple studies have

shown that partnered men have lower T compared with single

men (16, 17), and a large 10-y study of US servicemen found that

T decreased in men who married during the study period (18). In

comparisons of men varying in both relationship and parenting

status, partnered fathers have been shown to have the lowest T

overall, differing significantly from single nonfathers in some

populations (19–21), including the present study population (22,

23). There is also increasing evidence that caregiving predicts

which fathers have lowest T (20, 22, 24).

 

From the results observed in the current study that the paper describes:

 

Among the men in our sample who were single nonfathers as

young adults, those with higher waking T were more likely to

have become a partnered father by the time of follow-up. Once

these men entered stable partnerships and became new fathers,

they subsequently experienced a large decline in T, which was

greater than the comparably modest declines seen in single

nonfathers during the same period. Finally, fathers who were

most involved in childcare had lower T compared with fathers

who did not participate in care. Using longitudinal data, these

results demonstrate that high T not only predicts mating success

(i.e., partnering with a female and fathering a child) in human

males but that T is then greatly reduced after men enter stable

relationships and become fathers. The finding that high involvement

in childcare was associated with low T measured at

follow-up but was not related to baseline T supports the hypothesis

that direct care of dependent offspring suppressed T

among the fathers in our sample (20, 22). Our findings suggest

that human males have an evolved neuroendocrine architecture

that is responsive to committed parenting, supporting a role of

men as direct caregivers during hominin evolution (13, 14, 21).

 

I'd say that amply shows that my assertions about testosterone levels are "scientifically referenced," to use your term. But it's my fault that you couldn't easily see that, so you can have a do-over if you want.

 

We would have to look at a relevant population (football players) and show that there is a statistically significant difference in levels between the family men and single men.

We would then have to show that there's a predictive correlation between testosterone levels during the season, and football performance.

That would enable us to make the link suggesting there is a relevant correlation between family status and football performance.

We would then have to look at whether it is a strong enough correlation to be predictive of an individual's performance.

 

That would be a valid research strategy. Anything else, would be hooey.

 

My original post clearly stated that "Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance." Aren't you just talking about ways that such additional research could be done to provide such proof?

 

I don't want to rub it in, but Jim Kelly notoriously catting around and tieing one on before each of the 4 Super Bowl losses really served us well, didn't it? Perhaps if he'd been "home dry and in bed with his wife" we might have won one?

 

You seem smart enough to understand that Jimbo's performance could have been affected by any one or more of (a) testosterone level (b) consumption of alcohol, and © lack of sleep. Without a regression analysis, you can't blame his poor performance on his testosterone level. Everything else being equal (it never is), I would prefer that Bills players not only have high testosterone levels, but get plenty of sleep and avoid excessive alcohol consumption the night before games.

 

Normally I don't join the "English police" but this is too (unintentionally) good to pass up.[/b][/b]

 

Definition of ABROGATE (transitive verb)1 : to abolish by authoritative action : annul 2: to treat as nonexistent <abrogating their responsibilities> — ab·ro·ga·tion noun

So, you're treating the best scientific research as non-existent. I would say that's right on the money in fact, I don't think it's what you intend though.

 

I'm a fan of Yogi Bera-isms. So shoot me. But as the full research paper shows, I'm talking about real science. Mea culpa for failing to make the full paper easily excisable in post #15 above.

Edited December 21, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[ET1062]

This thread really needs to be highlighted in the Two Bills Drive Hall of Shame as one of the worst ever!

 

With all of the bs data and statistics, I have yet to see any data that shows the Bills have more married players than the league average. What a crock of crap. Shocked this didnt get shut down, I have had threads I've started shut down for much less. Also shocked that I keep posting and it is up to 4 pages.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Let's all give our lifting numbers! 945 Dead, 870 bench.

[BillsRUs]

So while you're extrapolating the research findings from that PNAS paper to make your point, you failed to consider that the study guidelines do not monitor exercise levels in the participants. It has been shown ( and since you are so adept at rustling up research papers, I will let you search for them)and widely accepted that testosterone levels increase after exercise. So you can't really say one way or the other if family life affects testosterone levels in highly conditioned athletes.

 

 

 

PS. Quit ruining science for the rest of us. It's people like you who make biased conclusions and read what they want to read and apply it to something unrelated.

Edited December 21, 2011 by BillsRUs

[Homey D. Clown]

If it hasn't been said, I'll say it: Ralph is cheap.

 

There is no other reason this franchise has been a less than 41% winning team. The Polian/Butler era was an anomaly, your theory seems to only be focused on the last ten years, which leaves out approximately 30 more years of pure suckitude.

 

While I don't discount the facts, it simply doesn't apply to this franchise. It's like saying "It rains a lot in Seattle because people there are sad"

 

We suck simply because the owner chooses not to spend money on players and coaches, enough with the excuses already.

Edited December 21, 2011 by McKinleys Curse

[SactoBillFan]

Wow! This is a revalation!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

So while you're extrapolating the research findings from that PNAS paper to make your point, you failed to consider that the study guidelines do not monitor exercise levels in the participants. It has been shown ( and since you are so adept at rustling up research papers, I will let you search for them)and widely accepted that testosterone levels increase after exercise. So you can't really say one way or the other if family life affects testosterone levels in highly conditioned athletes.

 

 

 

PS. Quit ruining science for the rest of us. It's people like you who make biased conclusions and read what they want to read and apply it to something unrelated.

 

This.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I was puzzled by your "not scientifically referenced" remark, so I went back and looked at the first link in my post #15 above. Turns out I inadvertently posted a link to just the abstract of the published research paper. Sorry about that. Here's a link to the full research paper - - it starts out with the same abstract but doesn't label it "Abstract:"

http://anpron.eu/wp-...human-males.pdf

 

Actually, the first link in your first post was to a blog. Not a paper, not an abstract, to a blog. And since my response was to your first post, that's the relevant link.

 

I don't see any response to the points I (and others) made regarding the fact that testosterone levels are impacted by many things - including physical activity, especially muscle-building physical activity

or to the points about what would constitute the sort of evidence that would be needed to accept difference in testosterone levels between family men and unpartnered men to be predictive of football performance, which is what you want to claim.

 

Until then, you can quote all you like, but the quotes are not to the point, sorry.

 

My original post clearly stated that "Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance." Aren't you just talking about ways that such additional research could be done to provide such proof?

 

No, we're talking about the research that would NEED to be done before one can extrapolate between a statistically significant mean difference in testosterone levels in the general population, to using the maritial/family status of athletes as a qualified predictor of football performance.

Until that research is done, a trend in a general population means nothing - because testosterone is well known to be affected by many factors, one of the strongest being physical activity. Get it now?

 

You seem smart enough to understand ....But as the full research paper shows, I'm talking about real science. Mea culpa for failing to make the full paper easily excisable in post #15 above

 

Good galloping gravy. Your encomium as to my apparent intelligence ... unwomans me. The paper was indeed, easily excisable. (I waver, Sisyphean - crayonz or no crayonz? I can't see crayonz pasting in references but the malapropisms....the malapropisms..)

 

Let's get something straight, just in case this is confusing to any of the Gentle Readers in our audience. I know real science. And sir, you aren't talking about real science.

You are misapplying a scientific observation and failing to acknowledge any observations to that effect or reasonable feedback.

 

G'day!

[Sisyphean Bills]

Good galloping gravy. Your encomium as to my apparent intelligence ... unwomans me. The paper was indeed, easily excisable. (I waver, Sisyphean - crayonz or no crayonz? I can't see crayonz pasting in references but the malapropisms....the malapropisms..)

I'm guessing they tailgate together and bludgeon each other silly with acyrologia.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I'm guessing they tailgate together and bludgeon each other silly with acyrologia.

 

http://www.google.co...9QEwAg&dur=6077

 

Tying it all together...I guess that would explain the testosterone, eh?

Edited December 22, 2011 by Hopeful

[CSBill]

And about that research . . . .

 

Bad Science: The Psychology Behind Exaggerated Research

 

http://holykaw.alltop.com/bad-science-the-psychology-behind-exaggerated

 

http://www.clinicalpsychology.net/bad-science/

Edited December 22, 2011 by CSBill

[elcrusho]

thugs

[BillsRUs]

And about that research . . . .

 

Bad Science: The Psychology Behind Exaggerated Research

 

http://holykaw.alltop.com/bad-science-the-psychology-behind-exaggerated

 

http://www.clinicalpsychology.net/bad-science/

 

I don't believe that research paper OP linked to is false in anyway. PNAS is a pretty reputed journal.But these sociophysiological studies have so much gray area of interpretation, that any conclusion that you draw will be biased in someway because there always appears to be a whole ton of other factors involved. However, his misappropriation of the findings from that study and applying to NFL athletes is pretty ridiculous. There have been studies where they have shown that nicotine improves fine motor skills and short term memory. Does that mean Bills players should start huffing Marlboros every time they sit down to read the playbook? OP is a prime example of why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Bob in STL]

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." --- Albert Einstein

 

By thinking they should place a premium on drafting and signing "high character" players, the Bills inadversely wound up with too many players who are in committed relationships or participate in raising children. I'm not blaming them for making those decisions early in the decade of losing, because the coralization between those life situations and lower testosterone levels wasn't clear then. But it is now, as shown by your admission that I cited valid research.

 

You find my application of it absurd only because you are using the same kind of thinking that the Bills used when they created the problem, e.i.e.i.o., that obtaining "high character" players improves your chances of winning football games. But the biological anthropologists' research, and the empirical evidence provided by a decade of losing, prove otherwise. Einstein would be disappointed at your inability to "think outside the box," to use a more modern phrase.

 

 

Ok. So thinking out of the box means pulling in one bit of random data (character players) and applying it to anything (football success)? Not quite.

 

First, find a reasonable way to measure character and inlcude the metric for how to do it.

 

Next, apply the metric to all players on all 32 teams over the past 20 years (you can even simplify and apply it to the 30 player players that played the most plays).

 

Finally, compare the records from 20 years of data and see what you have.

 

When you do that, right or wrong, I will give you huge props.

 

Until then you are spouting a baseless theory.

 

Good luck.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Actually, the first link in your first post was to a blog. Not a paper, not an abstract, to a blog. And since my response was to your first post, that's the relevant link.

 

I don't see any response to the points I (and others) made regarding the fact that testosterone levels are impacted by many things - including physical activity, especially muscle-building physical activity

or to the points about what would constitute the sort of evidence that would be needed to accept difference in testosterone levels between family men and unpartnered men to be predictive of football performance, which is what you want to claim.

 

Until then, you can quote all you like, but the quotes are not to the point, sorry.

 

 

 

No, we're talking about the research that would NEED to be done before one can extrapolate between a statistically significant mean difference in testosterone levels in the general population, to using the maritial/family status of athletes as a qualified predictor of football performance.

Until that research is done, a trend in a general population means nothing - because testosterone is well known to be affected by many factors, one of the strongest being physical activity. Get it now?

 

 

 

Good galloping gravy. Your encomium as to my apparent intelligence ... unwomans me. The paper was indeed, easily excisable. (I waver, Sisyphean - crayonz or no crayonz? I can't see crayonz pasting in references but the malapropisms....the malapropisms..)

 

Let's get something straight, just in case this is confusing to any of the Gentle Readers in our audience. I know real science. And sir, you aren't talking about real science.

You are misapplying a scientific observation and failing to acknowledge any observations to that effect or reasonable feedback.

 

G'day!

Well, you really put me in my place, but a good scientist doesn't ignore any of the available data, so let's review:

 

1. You first posted in this thread at 11:36 am yesterday morning. That was more than three and a half hours after the next most recent post. You had plenty of time to read all of the then existing discussion in this thread, and to read the relatively small number of associated links, before contributing your thoughts. By then, this thread contained not only (i) my second post with a link to a blog hosted on the Scientific American website, but links to (ii) the abstract of the PNAS article and (iii) an article in the Journal of Endocrinology.

 

2. In your haste to impress us with your knowledge of science and pick on what you perceived to be an easy target, you actually suggested that there was no "research" demonstrating that men in committed relationships or involved in child rearing show lower testosterone levels. After all, my first posted link was to a mere "blog," and anybody who "knows science" wouldn't stupe to actually reading the content of a blog to see if it contained anything of value. With bravado, you juvenilely suggested that I could get you "on the mat."

 

3. Well guess what - - my decision to initially link to a mere blog, even though I already had the PNAS article, was a deliberate choice intended to make the discussion in this thread more inclusive. Scientific American is written at a level that makes scientific topics more approachable for intelligent people who may lack formal scientific training. If you had stuped to actually read the blog, you would know that while it avoided excessive use of technical jargon, it was written by Kate Clancy. As the end of the blog states - - "Dr. Kate Clancy is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois." If you had taken 30 seconds to google her, you would have quickly discovered that she is a biological anthropologist, with degrees from both Harvard and Yale, who teaches a course in behavioral endocrinology. But you "know science," so you certainly couldn't learn anything about the topic of this thread from her.

 

http://www.anthro.illinois.edu/people/kclancy

 

4. Although my link to the abstract of the PNAS article would have allowed you to easily find the full text of the article online, I apologized for inadvertently linking to only the abstract, posted a link to the full article, and even highlighted the exact language showing the impact of committed relationships and child rearing activities on testosterone levels. The very research that you thought was non-existant.

 

5. So how did you respond? You stubbornly insisted that because the first link I posted was to a mere blog, it was the "relevant link." Yeah, you're a scientist. So are the people who responded to the survey in the link originally posted by CSBill:

 

http://holykaw.alltop.com/bad-science-the-psychology-behind-exaggerated

 

6. Along the way, you said:

 

. . . a trend in a general population means nothing - because testosterone is well known to be affected by many factors, one of the strongest being physical activity. Get it now?

 

Could you be any more Conde Nasting? As for your unsupported assertion that it is "well known" that "physical activity" (your exact choice of words) is one of the strongest factors affecting testosterone:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950562/

 

This observational study is the largest to date to investigate the association between longitudinal changes in self-reported physical activity and testosterone in men. It is also the first to investigate the association between physical activity and fitness with androgens across strata of BMI. There was no association of physical activity with SHBG, TT or BT concentration in blacks or whites overall. Interestingly, fitness was significantly associated with SHBG concentration in normal weight and obese whites, whereas no consistent association was found in blacks nor were associations of fitness and either TT or BT found. Additionally, there were no statistically significant interactions between BMI and either fitness or physical activity on hormone levels in cross-sectional analyses. In longitudinal analysis, hormones were not associated with change in physical activity among black or white men.

 

7. There's all kinds of "scientists" in this world, Professor. Maybe if you spent less time flirting with Mary Ann and hitting up Thurston Howell III for your next research grant, you could have finished that coconut radio sooner.

 

P.S. Don't feel bad about missing the "abrogated" usage. If you've ever watched "The Big Bang Theory," Sheldon is a very good scientist, and he misses social context clues all the time.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I'm guessing they tailgate together and bludgeon each other silly with acyrologia.

I can't speak for the wax-eating Sorceror, but I consider my own fear of spiders to be entirely rational.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

This thread really needs to be highlighted in the Two Bills Drive Hall of Shame as one of the worst ever!

 

With all of the bs data and statistics, I have yet to see any data that shows the Bills have more married players than the league average. What a crock of crap. Shocked this didnt get shut down, I have had threads I've started shut down for much less. Also shocked that I keep posting and it is up to 4 pages.

The best current thinking in the anemic community is that it's a lepidoptera and flame thing. There's an unproven theory that your coefficient of resistance would rise if you only posted while wearing clothing that had been stored overnight in a cedar-lined closet. Try it. If you don't post in this thread again, we'll know it worked!