Produce, don't Consume

An examination of Mechanistic and Teleological aspects of health and how it applies to male testosterone production

Welcome to the Acid Gambit Substack! I greatly appreciate all of you who are currently subscribed. You drive me to work harder and produce high quality posts to improve our health, fitness, and mentality towards training. If you haven’t subscribed, join 1,873 driven athletes on our journey to 10k subscribers:

I have a post from 27DEC23 addressing the use of production versus consumption in testosterone production. It seems to be a fairly polarizing post among you. Many seemed to be immediately upset by it, where one called it "the most illogical argument I have heard in a long time."

My favorite comment on the post was "they not gonna like or understand this one." So true brother.

So today, I'm going to share that post with you, break down the arguments against it, explain the difference between teleological and mechanistic aspects of health, and drive it home with why it all matters anyway.

My goal today is not to offend or anger (or ever). My goal today is to share my research into the objective truth of behavioral endocrinology. I even received a comment that this isn’t evidence backed science. This is well understood and published information in a large number of fields of science.

Additionally, this year I'm alternating paid and free posts every other week as I drop one new post a week. But this is a super interesting topic and a lot of people can benefit, so I'm making today's post completely free to all. If you take anything away, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Now through the end of the month, I'm running 25% off substack for the lifetime of your subscription - meaning it's only $3.75/mo instead of the normal $5.00/mo, for as long as you're subscribed. Use this link to sign up! This ends in 2 days on the 31st of January at midnight.

Let's address the original post:

"I recently wrote on the significance of maintaining optimal stress in the Year End Wrap Up on Substack. What that didn’t address is how it applies to your testosterone levels.

Mass media and constant advertising everywhere we go has conditioned us to believe the solution to either increasing or maintaining your testosterone is a pill or injection.

Whether it be a supplement or actual T injections, we’re being conditioned to approach it from the wrong angle.

Dr. Huberman speaks extensively on this in his epic Testosterone episode (The Science of How to Optimize Testosterone and Estrogen). You’ll notice a majority of the episode focuses on BEHAVIORS. 

Dr. Bakri takes it a step further - using a supplement to raise testosterone is an oxymoron.

He states CONSUMPTION is feminine, not masculine.

Maintaining and increasing your T is about output. Performance. Competition. Drive.

I commented a hypothesis that surrounds production in the real world, working with purpose (in career, physical fitness, family) rather than relying on a supplement. And these things make me incredibly happy, as they should. 

All this to say production is more in line with “the natural order that men have followed for 50,000 years.” Before you go buy a supplement, or go to a clinic (there are of course legitimate reasons to do this - this is not for you), do a self-assessment if your BEHAVIORS and OUTPUT are in line with optimal testosterone production."

Outrage ensued. Sometimes (all the time) when many people read something they either 1) don't agree with and/or 2) don't understand they will be upset (lol).

Some called it "illogical" and claimed that by this argument eating food and drinking water is also feminine.

But that is not what the post addresses. Consumption in the sense of basic survival instincts differs from consumption from the lens of optimizing hormonal levels. Of course men and women consume food, water, electricity, etc. as basic utilities of modern life.

The post addresses the behaviors we enact in our daily lives and the impact it has on our testosterone. To be clear, this post was NOT about the differences between men and women and whether drinking water is a masculine or feminine act - that is preposterous and completely skipping over the primary argument to make a false claim.

To make this more clear, let's bring up the lion story that Dr. Bakri recently told in a recent podcast. To summarize:

He was at the lion enclosure in Henderson, Nevada. The star of the enclosure was a male lion with a vibrant black mane. Generally speaking, the darker the mane the higher the testosterone level in males. This specific male is clearly the "alpha" in the enclosure. But the lion refused to engage in sex with any of the female lions. Interestingly, the trainer at the enclosure stated the lion would not mount any female (or male lions to see if he was homosexual). The lion had zero interest in any sexual activity.

But the lion had testosterone levels that were high and testosterone is generally associated with sexual function/activity. The lion MUST be vital and ready to reproduce.

Dr. Bakri then explains the way the lion was fed - this massive alpha male predator was being fed by a trainer, and would coyly approach the trainer to be handfed and eat the food with zero aggression. He was caged, perfectly contained and being fed by humans. He even describes the lion as eating pathetically.

So what is the actual connection in this anecdote? The lion had zero aggression. Although he had peak testosterone levels and was clearly the alpha in the group, he had zero interest in sexual activity amongst the pack. The main takeaway is although sex is associated with testosterone levels, it's not a 1:1 match. You cannot just increase testosterone and expect to have high sexual function. In addition to testosterone levels, there are behaviors involved as well.

From the podcast, they also mention the role of domination (read: competition) and aggression in healthy sexual function - meaning the lion is no longer dominating his environment - his lack of aggression (in spite of high testosterone levels) contributed to his lack of desire for reproduction. He had been caged, withdrawn from his natural environment and learned a lifestyle that differs from his natural state of aggression, dominance, and competition in the real world (does this sound familiar to how some men act today? More on how this applies to humans later).

This brings us to mechanistic versus teleological aspects of health. A mechanistic perspective would say increasing testosterone means higher sexual function/desire. This perspective focuses on a simple direct cause-and-effect relationship between the two. The lion has high testosterone therefore he MUST have high desire for sexual activity.

Whereas teleological asks "why." It seeks to understand the purpose or end goal behind the existence of testosterone. This includes examining the broader implications and roles testosterone plays, such as its impact on behaviors, traits typically associated with masculinity, and its evolutionary advantages. It's about the intended outcome or the reason behind the biological process.

So let's actually break down the difference between the two.

There's a really fascinating PhD dissertation titled The role of "because" in mechanistic and teleological explanations in science by Lillian K.E. Asiala from 2018 that breaks down key differences.

The author examines the role of "because" in generating causal bridging inferences in mechanistic and teleological explanations. These explanations differ fundamentally in their approach to explaining phenomena:

1. Mechanistic Explanations: These are based on cause-consequence relationships. An example of a mechanistic explanation is: "Skin becomes tan because when it is in the sun, the rays activate special cells that produce a brown pigment called melanin." Here, the production of melanin is the cause (antecedent) and the tanning of the skin is the consequence (consequent). In such explanations, the phenomenon (tanning of the skin) is the object or the consequent of the proposition​​.

2. Teleological Explanations: These explanations present an enabling relationship where the phenomenon enables a beneficial state. For instance, a teleological explanation for tan skin might be: "Skin becomes tan because damage from dangerous UV rays may be prevented." In this case, the phenomenon (tan skin) is not the consequence but the antecedent that enables the protective effect against UV rays. Teleological explanations typically feature the phenomenon as an antecedent​​.

The study hypothesized and found that the selection of mediating ideas in explanations depended on whether they were mechanistic or teleological. For mechanistic explanations, there was a higher frequency of selecting options where the phenomenon was the object of the mediating idea. Conversely, teleological explanations saw a higher frequency of selecting options where the phenomenon was the subject, reinforcing the predicted differences between these types of explanations​​.

The dissertation also tests two hypotheses regarding the role of "because" in these explanations:

- Causal Dominance Hypothesis: This hypothesis suggests that "because" facilitates inferences necessary for understanding cause-consequence relations in mechanistic explanations but disrupts inference generation for enabling relations in teleological explanations.

- Explanatory Dominance Hypothesis: This hypothesis proposes that "because" facilitates inferences needed for causal coherence relations in both mechanistic and teleological explanations, as it elicits a general causal schema that is further specified by the context​​.

In summary, mechanistic explanations focus on a cause-consequence relation where the phenomenon is typically the consequent, while teleological explanations involve an enabling relationship where the phenomenon is the antecedent. The role of "because" in these explanations can either facilitate or disrupt the generation of appropriate inferences, depending on the explanatory context.

I’ll even give you a picture to help understand:

source: https://twitter.com/AbudBakri/status/1740065361104691229

Let's consider the teleological versus mechanistic roles of testosterone through examples to further illustrate the difference:

1. Mechanistic Role of Testosterone:

- Example: "Muscle mass increases because of higher testosterone levels in the body."

- Explanation: In this mechanistic explanation, the focus is on the cause-effect relationship. Testosterone, the cause, leads to an increase in muscle mass, the effect. The explanation centers around how testosterone biochemically stimulates muscle growth. The phenomenon (increased muscle mass) is the consequence of the antecedent (higher testosterone levels).

2. Teleological Role of Testosterone:

- Example: "Testosterone levels increase during puberty because it is necessary for the development of male secondary sexual characteristics."

- Explanation: In this teleological explanation, the increase in testosterone is explained by its purpose or end goal. The increase in testosterone is not just a biochemical event, but it's understood in the context of its role in facilitating an important developmental stage. Here, the phenomenon (increase in testosterone) is the antecedent enabling the achievement of a beneficial state (development of secondary sexual characteristics).

These examples show how the same biological element, testosterone, can be explained in two fundamentally different ways. The mechanistic explanation focuses on a direct cause-and-effect relationship, where testosterone is the cause leading to a specific effect (increased muscle mass). In contrast, the teleological explanation views testosterone as part of a broader, purpose-driven process, emphasizing its role in achieving a specific developmental goal (maturation during puberty).

That purpose driven process allows us to better understand the broad scope of testosterone. We see so many advertisements and supplements that claim their ability to improve specific aspects we associate with testosterone by improving it - by consuming a product. But that puts us in the same world as the lion. We have to CONSUME something provided to us in order to have high testosterone (and their bogus claimed benefits like increased libido, more muscle, etc). This goes directly counter to the behavioral requirement to COMPETE and win in our environments to function properly as men. This can be boiled down to a simple question: What are you DOING? Not what are you consuming in order to improve.

Now obviously we can caveat that with injecting exogenous hormones to improve muscle mass commonly seen in bodybuilding/men's physique competitions. But that is not the point today.

The main point is understanding the difference in mechanistic and teleological aspects of our health - which leads to a better understanding of how our daily behaviors impact our hormonal health. Are we acting in natural order of masculinity that has existed for thousands of years?

This brings us back to how the lion story ties into men today. How common is it today for men to barely leave their couch, order uber eats for their food, constantly play video games, consume alcohol to blunt their emotions, view pornography to satisfy their sexual needs, and utterly revoke all natural aspirations to produce, compete, and win in the present environment? Essentially many men's life is a constantly stream of consumption, not production.

That is the point of the original post. It just took an additional 2000 words to break it down in an easily understandable way. We as humans were designed to go out and WIN in our environments. Not sit back and take what may come our way. This applies to everything.

In summary, the original tweet I referenced suggests that taking supplements to increase testosterone is at odds with the teleological understanding of testosterone. From this view, testosterone is about action and production, characteristics traditionally associated with masculinity. Consuming something to achieve an increase in testosterone is seen as passive, thus contrasting with the active nature of testosterone's teleological role, which is about doing and producing.

It is crucial to understand the purpose of testosterone — its teleological aspect. This suggests that understanding why testosterone levels rise and fall, and the broader significance of testosterone in human biology and behavior, is more important than simply understanding the mechanistic pathways that regulate its production. There is very rarely free chicken in biology - meaning a 1:1 relationship of direct cause and effect with zero side effects. It's not as simple as taking a pill resulting in higher testosterone resulting in perfect human functions. The world is broad, there's an infinite amount of things to understand, and I'm only scratching the surface today.

You are free to disagree with me here or actually use this to fuel your own investigation into how the world works. Learn, discuss, and share what you find. It's incredibly interesting and I hope you take something away from today's post. As always, if you have any questions or comments feel free to drop a comment below or DM me on instagram.

Cheers

As posted above, I'm running 25% off substack for the lifetime of your subscription - meaning it's only $3.75/mo instead of the normal $5.00/mo, for as long as you're subscribed. Use this link to sign up! This ends in 2 days on the 31st of January at midnight.

---

DISCLAIMER

This is not Legal, Medical, or Financial advice. Please consult a medical professional before starting any workout program, diet plan, or supplement protocol.