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.
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:
Male fertility: optimizing reproductive health, treating infertility, & navigating TRT - MD Attia, MD Turek
The Metabolism of Male Infertility - 56m - Ben Bikman
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:
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
Polite burn, this is the highlight of my day. Thank you.
I’m trying to contribute to the dialog in a meaningful way, I’m sorry ti doesn’t fit your standards.