Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

health.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 305 posts

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#111

Post by [deleted] »

b4je7d7wb wrote: post #83
twawaaay wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is truly tiring to see all these "linked" articles. It might be interesting but without some more research it is useless and just messes up with 99.9% of population who will read it and wrongly assume sexual activity prevents cancer. I am currently on a big spree trying to fix my diet and sift true information from all those wrong inferences. Turns out, almost everything I have been told and red is a lie based on…

Do they not teach you about macronutrients in highschool? I think nutrition is one of the earliest things you figure out that it depends and nobody really knows what their talking about. My mother and wife have a lot of opinions about nutrition that are obviously unscientific, situational and anecdotal. > Lifetime of avoiding fat... exactly opposite of what I should have been doing... There is more nuance involved. W…

[deleted]

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#112

Post by TheFreim »

The evidence is extremely varied, and in my opinion unreliable for making serious claims. Commonly cited by those repeating these claims, which as others have pointed out is rife with issues pertaining to causality, is the 2004 study "Ejaculation Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer" published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Here is a section summarizing what came before:

> Previous investigations on reported ejaculation frequencies or sexual intercourse and prostate cancer are limited to studies of retrospective design and results are mixed. Nine studies observed a statistically significant or non-significant positive association; 3 studies reported no association; 7 studies found a statistically significant or non-significant inverse relationship; and 1 study found a U-shaped relationship.

Conclusions that come from the aforementioned article, as well as many/most/all others that I have encountered, are mixed and, as others have noted, have issues with determining causes.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#113

Post by mrleinad »

twawaaay wrote: post #104
b4je7d7wb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they not teach you about macronutrients in highschool? I think nutrition is one of the earliest things you figure out that it depends and nobody really knows what their talking about. My mother and wife have a lot of opinions about nutrition that are obviously unscientific, situational and anecdotal. > Lifetime of avoiding fat... exactly opposite of what I should have been doing... There is more nuance involved. W…

> It's your own responsibility to figure it out instead of being told what to do. Why bother having education system if you are supposed to figure everything out on your own? How is nutrition different from math or grammar?

Because it raises the minimum level for everyone, and even if you're DaVinci, it's good for you that society is not full of cavemen trying to build everything from scratch.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#114

Post by dredmorbius »

version_five wrote: post #39

I want to point out that it's long been HN filter policy to "kill" posts that use a word beginning with m for self stimulation they is very relevant to this discussion. If you turn on showdead you'll see a few dead posts by people that aren't otherwise shadowbanned, because they used that word. Seems like a good argument against censorship, especially as it relates to normal activity.

True, but HN also has "showdead" and "vouch" which can overcome both automatic filters and user flags.

If that's not enough or you're seeing an especially egregious case, you can also email mods. I'll do that occasionally, though usually simply vouch dead comments if I feel that's warranted. It apparently takes a few vouches to overcome a kill.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#115

Post by cplusplusfellow »

b4je7d7wb wrote: post #83
twawaaay wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is truly tiring to see all these "linked" articles. It might be interesting but without some more research it is useless and just messes up with 99.9% of population who will read it and wrongly assume sexual activity prevents cancer. I am currently on a big spree trying to fix my diet and sift true information from all those wrong inferences. Turns out, almost everything I have been told and red is a lie based on…

Do they not teach you about macronutrients in highschool? I think nutrition is one of the earliest things you figure out that it depends and nobody really knows what their talking about. My mother and wife have a lot of opinions about nutrition that are obviously unscientific, situational and anecdotal. > Lifetime of avoiding fat... exactly opposite of what I should have been doing... There is more nuance involved. W…

The cultural avoidance of fat, which likely has led to 2-3 digit increases in obesity in America, is not based on nuance.

I think OP can be forgiven for not pre-nuancing it for you.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#116

Post by redeux »

twawaaay wrote: post #36
robocat wrote: post #25

So many opportunities for correlation not causation. One obvious correlation could be testosterone: higher testosterone leading to less prostate cancer. Of course higher testosterone has multiple causes. I knew a girlfriend of a guy taking roids, both in their twenties: she said he was insatiable in her opinion (I think she limited access to three times a day, because he just wanted more).

It is truly tiring to see all these "linked" articles. It might be interesting but without some more research it is useless and just messes up with 99.9% of population who will read it and wrongly assume sexual activity prevents cancer. I am currently on a big spree trying to fix my diet and sift true information from all those wrong inferences. Turns out, almost everything I have been told and red is a lie based on…

> wrongly assume sexual activity prevents cancer

What is the potential danger here? I’m not aware of any links to adverse heath for men ejaculate 21 times or more a month. Are you? Seems low risk for something that will potentially give you a 31% decreased chance to get prostate cancer.

>Lifetime of avoiding fat…

That’s too bad. Low fat diets have been debunked for at least 20 years. They were pushed by companies that produce high sugar foods. The thing we should actually avoid.

I don’t think anyone has the same interest with the topic in the article though.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#117

Post by version_five »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #77
version_five wrote: post #39

I want to point out that it's long been HN filter policy to "kill" posts that use a word beginning with m for self stimulation they is very relevant to this discussion. If you turn on showdead you'll see a few dead posts by people that aren't otherwise shadowbanned, because they used that word. Seems like a good argument against censorship, especially as it relates to normal activity.

I’m all for pushing back against the mods. Lord knows I’ve done it more than I probably should have. But one thing I came to understand after my long slugging match with them is that they have a lot of concerns that are very hard to balance. In this case, here’s the calculus: how many valuable comments do you think were lost as a result of killing that word? The kinds of comments you’d read and think “I really want t…

Still seems odd to me. M___ is a comparatively formal term, and it appears a lot of slang is still allowed (in any event, that term is trivially easy to make up new words for).

And even the circle word you mentioned, especially in the VC tech world is a pretty legit metaphor for a lot of stuff.

Throwing out comments because they use a specific word is really low effort imo, on the same level as banning the f-word. I'd be surprised if it isn't mostly generating false positives.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#118

Post by smogcutter »

Gigachad wrote: post #72
rippercushions wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are rookie numbers. You gotta pump up those numbers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CES1OIkFhg4

I’m probs a coomer because I’d average 80/ month.

Seriously, it might be time to give yourself a rest.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#119

Post by techwiz137 »

robocat wrote: post #25

So many opportunities for correlation not causation. One obvious correlation could be testosterone: higher testosterone leading to less prostate cancer. Of course higher testosterone has multiple causes. I knew a girlfriend of a guy taking roids, both in their twenties: she said he was insatiable in her opinion (I think she limited access to three times a day, because he just wanted more).

And here I am the polar opposite, I can go for days and weeks without the need to or even an urge.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#120

Post by bamboozled »

sph wrote: post #49
altdataseller wrote: post #3

Dont show this to the nofap community

When I'm in the mood of reading a bunch of smug nerds pontificating and preaching, I click on any popsci or diet-related article on HN. Never fails to entertain. Nofap like many things has been turned into a brand, and even politicised to the point some idiots attack it saying it's far right ideology. On the other hand there are teenagers with serious porn-related issues that think nofap will turn them into superhuma…

still is a major indicator of the emotional and physical problems porn is causing to many men and women. It's an epidemic.

What are the physical problems one can get through watching porn? If this study is accurate, it seems batting off more often may be a good thing ?

Post reply on HN