Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
health.harvard.edu
Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
1–10 of 305 posts
Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
#2Phew
Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
#3Dont show this to the nofap community
Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
#4The quote at the end confuses me:
> In 1807 William Wordsworth wrote, "The child is father of the man." With respect to prostate cancer, though, sexual activity in adolescence may be a predictor of risk in adulthood.
Wouldn't adolescent sexual activity be the form-determining-factor (aka "father") of the prostate cancer risk statistical profile in adulthood?
How is this different from the last sentence being analogous to the quote?
Thanks in advance for humoring me.
Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
#5> Compared to men who reported 4–7 ejaculations per month across their lifetimes, men who ejaculated 21 or more times a month enjoyed a 31% lower risk of prostate cancer.
Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
#6> Compared to men who reported 4–7 ejaculations per month across their lifetimes, men who ejaculated 21 or more times a month enjoyed a 31% lower risk of prostate cancer.
Those are rookie numbers. You gotta pump up those numbers.
Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
#7Dont show this to the nofap community
I disagree; as a vulnerable community, they should know the truth.
Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
#8Dont show this to the nofap community
[flagged]
Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
#9> Compared to men who reported 4–7 ejaculations per month across their lifetimes, men who ejaculated 21 or more times a month enjoyed a 31% lower risk of prostate cancer.
Of course, this is correlational. There could be a 3rd variable, like "overall being healthy" which causes both.
Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)
#10Dont show this to the nofap community
Most of that community appears to be based on woo and bad analysis of science/biology, so I imagine they'd likely dismiss this study out of hand regardless.
But also, we shouldn't forget this:
> The studies from the United States and Australia do little to answer these critical questions — but they do open a new avenue for research
This isn't a fully understood area of research yet.