Edit: After posting, I checked out two of the original studies cited in the article, and I think the author of the Canadian Affairs article was off-base with the things I’ve since struck out. I don’t believe data exists to say that physical vs psychological factors are greater contributors to ED - they both seem relevant.
A recent study of thousands of American men under 40 found nearly 15 per cent struggled with erectile dysfunction. Most cases were strongly linked to psychological, rather than physical, causes.
Other studies have suggested psychological or emotional factors may explain as many as 85 per cent of ED cases.
A 2018 review of 49 international studies found that men with depression were 39 per cent more likely to experience erectile dysfunction than men without depression.
And yet, mental health is rarely assessed in ED clinical trials or included in treatment plans. A 2025 Canadian evaluation of more than 450 ED clinical trials found that fewer than eight per cent mentioned mental health issues.
I’m sure the brains and lungs and balls and blood full of microplastics is entirely unrelated.
Microplastics are stored in the balls?
(In the balls in the balls)
What connection do you believe could exist between ED and microplastics, and why do you think that
No idea.
I think our once unfathomable pollution is having unforseen effects in unforseen ways.
Everyone thought sanity would prevail. That the world would slam on the brakes before any of this got this bad. Instead our leaders accelerated. Daring the rapidly approaching cliff to allow us to fling ourselves into oblivion.
Mostly unrelated. But how long do you think it’ll take our inevitable replacement as apex predator to rise to our current level? Dolphins or corvids or whatever they turn out to be. Will they repeat our mistakes? Could we build anything that would last long enough to warn them?
Mostly unrelated. But how long do you think it’ll take our inevitable replacement as apex predator to rise to our current level? Dolphins or corvids or whatever they turn out to be. Will they repeat our mistakes? Could we build anything that would last long enough to warn them?
depends on how bad the climate and pollution get.
perhaps the successor will be eusocial and recognize the impacts and folly. but I don’t know how a successor would manage to have an industrial revolution with all the easy oil and coal stripped out. given geological time periods it’ll be fine, but I wonder how many would be species will suffer for ages in the interim.
Great apes are herbivores. Humans are built to hunt tubers. That’s why our mouths are full of amalayse and not teeth that can rend hide.
Cool. But our replacements.
Do you think some other apes will survive and eventually replace us?
No, we will exterminate them all before we go kicking and sobbing.
3 things:
- F
- A
- T
Factory acceptance tests?
I so rarely see a joke that relates to the jargon of the work I’m in. What a treat.
I love this for both of us
I love it for all three of us … my job all last week was nothing but factory acceptance tests and meetings.
Overexposure to sexual materials and chronic masturbation? It sure gets difficult to get hard with only one woman, no clowns, and nobody is reciting the screenplay to The Bee Movie with a vuvuzela providing an erotic ambiance after cranking out some slime a few hours prior to two bi midget twins with G-cups and strap-on going to town on a bound muscle girl futa dressed like a gender-bent Thor from both ends and all 3 holes while they give an aria that would make Pavarotti shed a tear.
Depression and ED having comorbidity isn’t surprising, definitely not if medicated because a lot of that stuff causes loss of sex drive.
Depression and ED having comorbidity isn’t surprising, definitely not if medicated because a lot of that stuff causes loss of sex drive.
Good point
There may be multiple components in fertility, but the majority of erectile dysfunction is rooted in metabolic health. The penis getting enough blood to form and maintain a erection is a early bell weather for cardiovascular function.
ED is a very common, and often ignored, sign of poor metabolic health. 96% of westerns have sub-optimal metabolic health. Which is driven principally by diet, lots of sugars and processed foods lead to a condition of insulin resistance but not too far down that root is ED.
There may be multiple components in fertility, but the majority of erectile dysfunction is rooted in metabolic health.
Do you have data to support that, specifically in young men? Nocturnal tumescence studies would be necessary to conclude ED issues are primarily vascular in origin
Here is a good review article on it: Erectile dysfunction, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular risks: facts and controversies
I don’t have data on young men.
Impaired metabolic health impacts not only the vascular system but also the hormonal system, it touches almost every aspect of ED.
The question was about the relative effect sizes of psychological and physiological factors on ED in young men. The article you shared just characterizes one set of risk factors. It doesn’t address the question
I can just give you the bits and pieces that ED is a very common symptom of poor metabolic health and 96% of westerners (I don’t have the breakdown by age) have impaired metabolic health.
Thank you for clarifying that when you proclaimed in your original comment “the majority of erectile dysfunction is rooted in metabolic health” - that that’s just a personal opinion of yours that you can’t provide any specific supporting evidence for. Please note that this community is dedicated to health science information, not armchair speculation, etc.
This is a discussion forum, everything we say is opinion, i’ve given you my perspective on the issue to the best of my ability.
You might find these previous posts interesting:
Actually, the closest this community gets to describing its purpose is a) Link to high-quality, original research whenever possible and b) low-effort posts or comments are not allowed.
If you want to share an opinion here, it should be clearly labelled as such. In contrast, here’s what you’ve since clarified is you just stating your opinion:
“There may be multiple components in fertility, but the majority of erectile dysfunction is rooted in metabolic health.”
That is opinion masquerading as a scientifically informed assertion. It’s a waste of time to people reading it, but it’d be fine if clearly labelled as an opinion.
I don’t think you’re malicious, you just seem unfamiliar with the hows and whys of science
