Comments on: So you won’t go blind, but you might get prostate cancer

By: Jr

Jr — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:10:16 +0000

Did they ask the men if they thought it was worth it?

I wondered about this: “A possible explanation for the protective effect that men in their fifties appear to receive from overall sexual activity, and particularly masturbation, is that the release of accumulated toxins during sexual activity reduces the risk of developing cancer in the prostate area.”

Does this mean women who have heterosexual intercourse are at risk from all the toxins they receive?

By: Stew

Stew — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:25:30 +0000

The National Science Foundation laughs in the face of such research.

By: Chris O'Neill

Chris O'Neill — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:56:09 +0000

The number of cases of prostate cancer in Australia skyrocketed (nearly quadrupled) in the dozen years to 1994 http://www.aihw.gov.au/cancer/index.cfm . Maybe this means that the number of men in Australia who maturbate quadrupled during the 1950s But seriously I’m amazed that there has been such a rapid and large increase in the number of cases but no-one has found an explanation for most of the increase. The increase in cases has resumed since 2002 s so it could be described as an epidemic with no known cause.

By: AJS

AJS — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:15:57 +0000

Has anyone done any studies on possible adverse effects associated with not having a Thomas when you feel horny?

By: Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:04:31 +0000

Helen: That would indeed be a lot better, but it would take 40 years! Which is why it’s so hard to do that kind of work.

By: Helen Jaques

Helen Jaques — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:54:49 +0000

So I thought I would blog about some controversial to see what happened, and I’ve certainly got a reaction!

You’ve both made some very good points. Let me just address a few:
BJU International is a peer reviewed journal, so for starters no 0ne’s being duped by this appearing on a peer reviewed research website.

The sample size is certainly small, and the fact that this study is retrospective rather than prospective means that the authors can’t unravel causation. I think Devin has hit the nail on the head: “If you have prostate cancer, you are more likely to have had higher ejaculation rates” NOT “If you have a higher ejaculation rates, you increase your risk of cancer”. But then that’s not much of a headline…

I think the authors would have done much better to follow a group of men in their twenties, record their actual sexual activity (not recalled) and hormone levels, and see who gets cancer. Some multivariate analyses of such data should provide a much clearer idea of the link between ejaculation and prostate cancer.

By: Devin

Devin — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:35:41 +0000

In addition to the previous comment, I feel I should add that the study appears to have shown that “If you have prostate cancer, you are more likely to have had higher ejaculation rates” NOT “If you have a higher ejaculation rates, you increase your risk of cancer”.

A far more reasonable explanation is that the differences in hormones cause BOTH an increased sex drive, and an increased risk for prostate cancer. “Higher testosterone (or other hormone) levels lead to an increased sex drive, which leads to more frequent ejaculation. Higher testosterone levels also increase the risk for cancer” is a more plausible explanation given the evidence.

The conclusion presented by the author of this article is (I’m being diplomatic here) premature and unsupported by the data.

A proper study to determine any effect of frequency of ejaculation on cancer would have to be structured that you choose a random sample, and enforce the frequency of ejaculation on them, and then observe them later in life to see the frequency of cancer. Impractical, yes, but at least then your conclusion might be supported by evidence.

By: Peter McKellar

Peter McKellar — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:26:14 +0000

More wowsers trying to spout ficticious drivel with little or no evidence. Amazingly I found this link through a “peer reviewed research” site.

Such a small N is a worry, and the findings are not supported by far more thorough studies. This report is not only inaccurate, but dangerous. It appears that this study is somehow skewed to deliver the desired result. Ejaculation will neither make you go blind or give you cancer.

For real research with much larger sample sizes and more rigourous analysis I suggest the reader look at the Harvard and Australian studies http://www.aolhealth.com/conditions/ejaculation-frequency-and-prostate-cancer