Is the 1% Per Year Testosterone Decline Actually Real?

Why It Matters

Understanding that the apparent decline is mostly a testing artifact prevents unnecessary hormone therapy and refocuses clinical attention on genuine health determinants.

Key Takeaways

• Testosterone decline exists but is smaller than commonly reported.
• New meta‑analysis finds ~0.56% annual drop, not 1%.
• Mass spectrometry shows no significant decline, highlighting assay bias.
• Immunoassay cross‑reactivity overestimated levels, inflating perceived drop in men.
• Clinicians should verify assay type before interpreting testosterone results.

Summary

The video scrutinizes the widely cited claim that men’s testosterone levels fall about 1% each year, asking whether the trend is real or exaggerated.

Original cohort studies—Massachusetts Male Aging Study, plus Finnish and Israeli data—showed 15‑20% lower levels in younger birth cohorts, but they were small, used older immunoassays, and ended two decades ago. A 2025 meta‑analysis of more than one million subjects spanning 1971‑2024 reported a modest 0.56% yearly decline, and when the data were limited to mass‑spectrometry assays, the decline vanished.

The host explains that immunoassays cross‑react with other steroids, inflating testosterone readings, especially at low concentrations. When labs switched to mass spectrometry, the share of men falling below the 300 ng/dL threshold nearly doubled, prompting the Endocrine Society to lower the normal cutoff to 264 ng/dL. This illustrates how changing “rulers” can create an illusion of decline.

Consequently, the popular 1% figure is largely a measurement artifact; clinicians must check which assay was used before diagnosing hypogonadism, and public health narratives should avoid overstating a nonexistent testosterone crisis.

Original Description

Jordan traces the 1%-per-year headline back to its source (the MMAS study, ~1,700 men, with Finnish and Israeli replications), then presents the 2025 Santi meta-analysis: 1,200+ studies, over 1 million subjects, 1971–2024. The pooled decline was ~0.56%/year , i.e. half the headline. When restricted to mass spectrometry studies, there was no significant decline at all. Then the explanation: immunoassays cross-react with other steroids and systematically overstate testosterone, especially at low concentrations. When researchers retested stored blood with mass spec, the proportion below 300 ng/dL nearly doubled. The older tests had been inflating the numbers. The Endocrine Society revised its lower limit from 300 to 264 ng/dL not because men got worse, but because the test got better. Austin adds the clinical layer: how assay type now changes how he reads and orders labs in practice.

Timestamps

00:19:37 Re-entry after break: recap + "testosterone levels are declining" headline

00:20:04 MMAS study: two birth cohorts 15 years apart, 15-20% lower, Finland and Israel replications

00:20:30 1% per year: small studies, older methods, most recent data nearly two decades old

00:21:14 2025 meta-analysis: 0.56%/year — half the headline; mass spec subgroup = no significant decline

00:21:38 If 0.3%/year were real, 30 years of mass spec on 100K+ subjects should detect 9% cumulative drop. They found nothing

00:22:05 Two questions: why is the number inflated? And why is T going down at all?

00:22:24 Cause 1: immunoassay vs mass spectrometry: the cross-reactivity problem

00:23:12 Retesting stored blood: proportion below 300 nearly doubled with better test

00:23:35 Endocrine Society revised threshold: 300 to 264 ng/dL — the test improved, not the men declined

00:23:58 Austin: clinical implications: assay type changes how I interpret a result

00:25:30 Austin: now deliberate about which assay I order on patients

00:26:43 Jordan summary: at least half of the reported decline is testing artifact

Next Steps

Check out our new book, Signal (coming soon)

For evidence-based resistance training programs: barbellmedicine.com/training-programs

For individualized training consultation: barbellmedicine.com/coaching

Explore our full library of articles on health and performance: barbellmedicine.com/resources

To consult with Drs. Baraki or Feigenbaum email us at [e-mail]

To support us and get ad free listening, plus special product discounts, and exclusive content, go to supercast.barbellmedicine.com

Resources:

Travison, T.G., et al. (2007). A Population-Level Decline in Serum Testosterone Levels in American Men. JCEM, 92(1), 196–202. — Original MMAS secular decline, 15–20% lower across cohorts.

Santi, D., et al. (2025). Meta-analysis of secular trend in total testosterone levels, 1971–2024. 1,256 studies, N over 1,000,000. — 0.56%/year adjusted; LH parallel decline; mass spec subgroup no significant decline.

Perheentupa A, Mäkinen J, Laatikainen T, Vierula M, Skakkebaek NE, Andersson AM, Toppari J. A cohort effect on serum testosterone levels in Finnish men. Eur J Endocrinol. 2013 Jan 17;168(2):227-33. doi: 10.1530/EJE-12-0288. PMID: 23161753.

Chodick G, Epstein S, Shalev V. Secular trends in testosterone- findings from a large state-mandate care provider. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020 Mar 9;18(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12958-020-00575-2. PMID: 32151259; PMCID: PMC7063751.