Physically active men show better semen parameters and hormone values than sedentary men

Abstract

Physical exercise promotes many health benefits. The present study was undertaken to assess possible semen and hormone differences among physically active (PA) subjects and sedentary subjects (SE). The analyzed qualitative sperm parameters were: volume, sperm count, motility, and morphology; where needed, additional testing was performed. The measured hormones were: follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone (T), cortisol (C), and the ratio between T and C (T/C). Maximum oxygen consumption was also assessed to check for differences in fitness level. Statistically significant differences were found for several semen parameters such as total progressive motility (PA: 60.94 ± 5.03; SE: 56.07 ± 4.55) and morphology (PA: 15.54 ± 1.38, SE: 14.40 ± 1.15). The seminological values observed were supported by differences in hormones, with FSH, LH, and T being higher in PA than in SE (5.68 ± 2.51 vs. 3.14 ± 1.84; 5.95 ± 1.11 vs. 5.08 ± 0.98; 7.68 ± 0.77 vs. 6.49 ± 0.80, respectively). Likewise, the T/C ratio, index of anabolic versus catabolic status, was also higher in PA (0.46 ± 0.11 vs. 0.32 ± 0.07), which further supports the possibility of an improved hormonal environment. The present study shows that there are differences in semen and hormone values of physically active subjects and sedentary subjects. Physically active subjects seem to have a more anabolic hormonal environment and a healthier semen production.

A Preliminary Comparison of Semen Quality between Competing and Non-Competing Equine Stallions

“…Research carried out with human participants supports the present findings, stating that physical activity has a significant positive effect on seminological attributes including seminal volume, suggesting the outcome is due to the favourable homeostatic balanced of LH and testosterone [16,24]. Contrastingly, earlier research found no association between physical activity and semen volume, but as the sample consisted of males that were considered infertile, comparability is reduced [25].…”

“…Exercise and other stressors can influence human endocrinology and fertility [14], with links to improved libido and a positive effect on hormone levels [15]. Physical activity increases the male anabolic hormone environment and therefore an increase in semen production occurs [16]. Semen parameters significantly decline with long-term strenuous exercise when compared with those exercising at moderate intensities [17].…”

Lifestyle and semen quality: role of modifiable risk factors

“…The same positive relationship between leisure time physical activity and semen quality was observed in the study performed in Spain. Physically active men had higher sperm motility, sperm concentration, semen volume, elevated levels of FSH, LH, testosterone, and an increased testosterone/ cortisol ratio [Vaamonde et al 2012]. Whereas in the study in Boston, bicycling !5 h/wk was associated with low sperm concentration and low total motile sperm compared with no regular exercise [Wise et al 2011].…”

Physical activity, fatness, educational level and snuff consumption as determinants of semen quality: findings of the ActiART study

“…This could also be the case for physical activity, as inactivity and sedentary lifestyle have a well-known harmful effect on many health outcomes (Pate et al, 2008), whereas too much physical activity has been negatively associated with semen quality (De Souza et al, 1994;Safarinejad et al, 2009;Vaamonde et al, 2006). In this context, recent studies support that recreationally active men have a healthier semen production than non-active men, but also than elite athletes, suggesting a U-shape relationship (Hajizadeh Maleki et al, 2013;Vaamonde et al, 2012).…”

“…The few studies analysing the association between regular physical activity and semen quality have shown inconclusive results (Braga et al, 2012;De Souza et al, 1994;Hajizadeh Maleki et al, 2013;Safarinejad et al, 2009;Vaamonde et al, 2006Vaamonde et al, , 2012Wise et al, 2011;Wogatzky et al, 2012). Most of these studies have used self-report methods to assess physical activity, i.e.…”