20s Are The Prime Years for male reproduction!

This baby looks fine, but on a population level there is more autism, more schizophrenia, more breast cancer, de novo Huntington's chorea, more Alzheimer's, more prostate cancer, etc. in offspring of older fathers and mothers who had older fathers.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512724&in_page_id=1770





20s
These are prime years for male reproduction. Men have the maximum amount of mature sperm cells and the least DNA damage. The risk of producing birth defects or causing other problems in offspring is as low as it ever will be.

The study comparing outcomes of teenagers newborns versus old men is really misleading. Why has it gotten so much press? IT IS NOT TRUE AT THE HEADLINES IMPLY THAT OFFSPRING OF OLDER DADS HAVE BETTER HEALTH


Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: "It would be easy to point the finger at younger father's sperm and say that they were inadequate in some way.

"But that bucks the trend of many studies that have shown there are increasing sperm DNA defects as men get older.

"A far more convincing explanation for the finding in this study is that older men are simply better able to provide for their pregnant partners than younger fathers. It makes sense that babies born to older fathers probably have a better start to life."


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/older-fathers-have-healthier-offspring-779146.html

Why does the study compare births to men under 20 rather than in their 20s and why does it not look at outcomes over the years to find out about autism, schizophrenia, cancers, and mental retardation that increase with paternal age 31+ compared to those in fathered by men in their 20s?