Misinformation About Risks Associated with Paternal Age at Childbearing

[topaMAXX]

What's your problem with the women's views in this thread? You told me you were looking for a good partner now, rather than waiting until you're in your forties or fifties, and finding a younger woman.

 

I don't have any problem with anyone (well, there is one poster in particular that I don't care for....can you tell who? ). I'm simply stating facts here.

 

Also, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I'd prefer to be a younger father. But that doesn't mean that what the OP posted is incorrect.

 

 

All of this talk in these threads, about women being in their prime before the age of 35, and basically useless after that - it's all garbage, and I don't understand the need to continuously insult and antagonize women over that age. It makes you guys look bad.

 

Nobody said that women over 35 are useless. I'm saying that it becomes way more difficult to have children at that age.

 

Also, what do I care if I look bad on an anonymous internet forum? I am free to say what I want because nobody knows me.

[Els]

To be fair, the link that you cited is a personal blog. A blog written by a PhD guy, sure, but PhDs are a dime a dozen. I'm not saying that what he is claiming is necessarily false, and I wouldn't be surprised if the press release was purposefully exaggerated. But it doesn't change the fact that there are other studies in multiple genuine, peer-reviewed international journals that prove linkage between increased paternal age and certain birth defects.

 

Also, it is worth noting that the only part of this article that doesn't stem mainly from personal anecdote is:

 

However, the actual population risks found by D’Onofrio et al. are consistent with findings from other studies. For example, Frans et al. (2008) found a 1.37 times greater risk of bipolar disorder for children of men aged 55+ compared to men aged 20 – 24 using a dataset that overlapped with, or included, the dataset used by D’Onofrio et al. Another large study, McGrath et al. “A Comprehensive Assessment of Parental Age and Psychiatric Disorders” (2014) found the following increased risks for paternal age, comparing men aged 45+ to men aged 25-29: 1.8 for autism, 1.24 for bipolar disorder, and 1.47 for schizophrenia. In another large study, Parner et al. (2012) found that children of men aged 40+ were 1.35 times more likely to have autism as children of men who were less than 35. Hultman et al. (2011) found a 2.2 times increased risk of autism for offspring of men aged 50+ compared to offspring of men aged 29 or less.

[Els]

I think that since men produce new sperm, it makes sense that age would have less affect on men's fertility. I say this because women do not produce new eggs. Our eggs age, so our 20 year old eggs are in better shape than our forty year old eggs. Just like most other things on our body, they deteriorate over time. Our skin wrinkles, eyes get worse, etc. Old men make more defective sperm than younger men. But they do still make healthy new ones. We dont produce any healthy new eggs. My friend froze her eggs a few years ago for $10k.

 

Unfortunately, this theory isn't biologically sound. Advanced paternal age: How old is too old? has a brief explanation on it:

 

It is thought that accumulation of chromosomal aberrations and mutations during the maturation of male germ cells are responsible for increasing risks of certain conditions with advancing paternal age. The amount of DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36–57 is three times that of men <35 years.

8

There is a recent body of literature discussing the possible effects on reproductive outcomes, which has been summarised by Kühnert and Nieschlag.

10

[RedRobin]

You are incorrect, both in your interpretation of what that poster said and in your general knowledge of this area.

 

Men have far less difficulty having children over 40 than women because men produce sperm into their 60s (just not as healthy as men in their 20s). Women produce a certain amount of eggs and that's it. So, both logically and statistically, it is more difficult for women to have children as they age. Sorry, if this is not what you want to hear, but these are the facts.

 

I never said women produced healthy new eggs..

 

There are women who have plenty of healthy eggs well past their 30's and a few into their 40's.

 

The risk of more being defective go up... And just because a guy produces new sperm doesn't mean it is healthy. That was the point.

 

It will take more than one paper to convince me that reproducing with an over 40 guy is a good bet.

 

I get it that the op in this thread seems to think he has found himself a Triscuit sized island to build his parenting hopes on... With this paper. Doesn't change anything.

 

Anyway... What is the big deal? Why not just adopt if you are over 40?

[Emilia]

Meh who cares. I'll just keep laughing at 50 year-olds doing egg and spoon races on their 5 year-old's school day.

[123321]

I get it that the op in this thread seems to think he has found himself a Triscuit sized island to build his parenting hopes on... With this paper. Doesn't change anything.

 

I've seldom seen anyone be so wrong so frequently, so congrats on that. No, you see 20+ years ago *I* put aside a few battalions of little soldiers and had a vasectomy, so I now have those in cold storage and, as science is finding, also a couple "hot spares" that are not completely useless after all.

 

It's not about me, sugar plum.

 

It's just information that is often misrepresented so I posted an interesting link that does a deep dive into the data and cites peer reviewed studies that back up the authors results.

 

 

Meh who cares. I'll just keep laughing at 50 year-olds doing egg and spoon races on their 5 year-old's school day.

 

This must be some of that "tolerance" I hear so much about.

[sidney2718]

Nice try...Not buying it...

 

I've been a scientist for a long time.

 

As much as the old guys trying to have kids into their 40's and above would prefer otherwise... It simply isn't logical that men's sperm has no contribution to the health or viability of child.

 

I agree. If it were true, then men of sixty would have no trouble having children with a 20 year old wife. But most do.

[123321]

I agree. If it were true, then men of sixty would have no trouble having children with a 20 year old wife. But most do.

 

If it were about that you might have a relevant point, but it's not and you don't.

[pink_sugar]

Which is the main point.

 

 

People who want to have their own biological kids (men or women) need to be doing so at a relatively young age.... ie, less than 40.

 

More so for women than men. While it's true that men's sperm aren't as good past a certain age (like if you're 50+ or something), men can easily have kids after 40+ with minimal concerns. Now if you're a woman on the other hand, that's a different story, although many women have healthy children into their early 40's.

[TintedChrome]

Wow. Like, holy crap.

 

When I was born my dad was 47. I loved the man until he died 5 years ago. It never occurred to me that I was supposed to give him a smack and say "Naughty old man! You shouldn't have made me!"

[Els]

Wow. Like, holy crap.

 

When I was born my dad was 47. I loved the man until he died 5 years ago. It never occurred to me that I was supposed to give him a smack and say "Naughty old man! You shouldn't have made me!"

 

Well, I'm sure children of older women feel the same way, too...

 

Seriously, academic research is just that. In the end, people have the right to make their own real life choices, and statistics are but one factor out of many. Whether you are a poor person, a rich person, an old man, an old woman - as long as you are committed to being the best parent you can be under the circumstances, it isn't really anyone's business whether or not you marry or have kids. I suppose I might personally draw the judgement line at people who KNOW they have an extremely debilitating and almost-certainly-inherited genetic disease (ie Huntington's) and still procreate, but eh.

[topaMAXX]

I agree. If it were true, then men of sixty would have no trouble having children with a 20 year old wife. But most do.

 

Men of 60 only have difficulty having children with women of 20 because society frowns upon.

 

It is socially taboo (in the west). It has nothing to do with their ability to physically do so.

[topaMAXX]

It will take more than one paper to convince me that reproducing with an over 40 guy is a good bet.

 

Guys your (our) age aren't doing too well either in that regard.

 

Anyway... What is the big deal? Why not just adopt if you are over 40?

 

I'm 27 and currently looking for the future wife (aka weeding through all of the low class women out there....there are many).

 

I'll find her way before 40. Trust me on that.

[dichotomy]

Meh who cares. I'll just keep laughing at 50 year-olds doing egg and spoon races on their 5 year-old's school day.

 

 

Thats ok - I am laughing with my daughter and she with me. Life is good.

[123321]

Whether you are a poor person, a rich person, an old man, an old woman - as long as you are committed to being the best parent you can be under the circumstances, it isn't really anyone's business whether or not you marry or have kids.

 

Unless you expect other people to help support them, perhaps.

[Candy_Pants]

OP you know "women" don't produce eggs. Female fetuses do, in utero. We're born with 1-2 million, and that's all she wrote.

[serial muse]

Good information puts solid numbers on this subject. Subtitle, "Researcher Puts Out Misleading Press Release to Pump Up News Coverage, is Caught by Peers".

 

Science.

 

Yes, science.

 

All that guy did was cite the baseline rather than fixed-effects numbers. Go to that graph he links to. Triangles = fixed effects, which according to the caption corrects for factors shared by siblings and other measured covariates. If you use those data, as I'm sure the author of the paper intended, the original numbers cited in the press release are correct.

 

In other words, your link is not the original source and is ignoring a significant part of the data for reasons of his own. The solid numbers already existed; he just didn't like them.

 

I will add that I don't have a dog in this hunt. I just had a child with my husband, who by any calculation would qualify as an older dad. I certainly don't want my child to suffer from various disorders! But does ignoring data to tell a story that would make me happier really change anything? No it does not; and those who have for years warned women of their ticking biological clocks ought to be the first to accept this.

Edited April 10, 2014 by serial muse

[Els]

Unless you expect other people to help support them, perhaps.

 

I actually agree with this.

 

That being said, some of the posters here seem to be trying to turn this into a man vs woman thing for some reason (I don't know exactly what, but it seems to fit into their modus operandi). It's pretty safe to say, given the current body of research, that men and women face more risk of infertility and causing genetic disorders as they age, full stop. There is a good reason why no decent scientist is interested in comparing which gender 'should have kids earlier', and all of the studies are old men vs young men, and old women vs young women.

[123321]

OP you know "women" don't produce eggs. Female fetuses do, in utero. We're born with 1-2 million, and that's all she wrote.

 

And? Why are you addressing this to me?

[veritas lux mea]

I had no idea over 40 was considered "too old" for a man and I always thought a woman took a risk of not havings kids at all by waiting and a slight risk at certain defect increases. But to actually condemn these people? Wow, we really don't have anything better to do.

 

Telling someone they should adopt like adoption is so easy just sounds immature and nosey and know it all.

[Art_Critic]

Meh who cares. I'll just keep laughing at 50 year-olds doing egg and spoon races on their 5 year-old's school day.

 

I was 50 or just under 50 on my son's 5 year school egg and spoon race..or easter egg hunt and I would rather be doing that with him and giving him my attention than what most of the younger generation do today.. today if you look over they are glued to their phones, texing and facebooking while their kids are playing sports all the while I'm engaged in my child sports activity, cheering him on or even being the coach/assistant coach and my phone is in the car

 

Laugh if you will, yeah being an older parent is harder by the end of the day physically than if I was 25 but it is still just as rewarding today as if it had happened 25 years ago.