Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022) • Hacker News Board

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#261

Post by Cerpicio » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

danielvaughn wrote: post #161

TheFreim wrote: post #112

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: > Prev…

My wife and I have been trying for a kid for a while, and though I’m healthy, over the past 9 months I’ve gone down a rabbit hole on the professional literature around men’s health. I don’t know how it compares to anything else, but the variance of the data is what struck me the most. That, and the low-resolution around a lot of the studies that have been run. I get that science is hard, but I would expect a LOT more…

As great as it is to have your own biological kids, please consider fostering and/or adopting as well. It can be challenging but also very rewarding, and there is a huge need for that sort of thing. We have two biological kids, fostered for a little while, and ended up adopting a young boy. They are all awesome!

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#262

Post by Too » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #216

Too wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the attention spent reading disinformation that is meant above.

They were attempting to be humourous. Fairly successfully IMO

As if this thread needed more already open doors kicked in. Lately feels like this place is turning into Reddit more and more for every day, I’m not only talking about this thread.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#263

Post by TheFreim » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:35 PM UTC

latchkey wrote: post #259

thepasswordis wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey man good luck! I know some people who have tried and tried before it finally all clicked. One person I can think of now has 4 kids! It can be tough. I'm sure you don't need any advice. Kids are the best, most meaningful thing you will ever do. Its worth it to keep trying.

> Kids are the best, most meaningful thing you will ever do. Heavy dose of "in my opinion..." Kids are absolutely the last thing I've ever wanted in my lifetime. Am I supposed to take your statement as I'll never do anything meaningful? Come on.

> Am I supposed to take your statement as I'll never do anything meaningful?

No, you probably aren't to take that statement that way since the statement never said any such thing. He said "most meaningful" which necessarily implies that there are other meaningful things, just lower in a hierarchy of meaningfulness. Respectfully, you seem quite bitter by reading into what was said, perhaps some introspection about the reason for this reaction would be in order.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#264

Post by EGreg » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:48 PM UTC

bobobob420 wrote: post #257

EGreg wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a doctor, but can I suggest a non-medical intervention that probably doesn't have any adverse effects, but may help? Under capitalism, the social networks compete for your attention, by sending you notifications. It's a "tragedy of the commons" where the commons is human attention: if Facebook doesn't get you to click during dinner, then Twitter will, and then it'll grow through those tactics. Thus the marke…

Thanks for your comment. I am slowly adding techniques like this to my routine. I checked out your blog.. absolutely fascinating stuff

Thanks for your kind words!

I would definitely appreciate it if at some point in the future (a month, 6 months, or whenever) you emailed me and told me whether what I said made any difference -- positive or negative. You can find my contact info in my profile.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#265

Post by zttg » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:03 PM UTC

danielvaughn wrote: post #161

TheFreim wrote: post #112

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: > Prev…

My wife and I have been trying for a kid for a while, and though I’m healthy, over the past 9 months I’ve gone down a rabbit hole on the professional literature around men’s health. I don’t know how it compares to anything else, but the variance of the data is what struck me the most. That, and the low-resolution around a lot of the studies that have been run. I get that science is hard, but I would expect a LOT more…

[dead]

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#266

Post by zttg » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:06 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #172

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).

> higher testosterone leading to less prostate cancer Is this a well known association? I would assume it to be and opposite; don’t anabolics tend to increase cancer risk?

[dead]

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#267

Post by latchkey » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

TheFreim wrote: post #263

latchkey wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kids are the best, most meaningful thing you will ever do. Heavy dose of "in my opinion..." Kids are absolutely the last thing I've ever wanted in my lifetime. Am I supposed to take your statement as I'll never do anything meaningful? Come on.

> Am I supposed to take your statement as I'll never do anything meaningful? No, you probably aren't to take that statement that way since the statement never said any such thing. He said "most meaningful" which necessarily implies that there are other meaningful things, just lower in a hierarchy of meaningfulness. Respectfully, you seem quite bitter by reading into what was said, perhaps some introspection about the…

Apologies if I read their or your statement incorrectly.

Bitter defined as 'a sense of unjust treatment', is absolutely correct, but 'angry, hurt, or resentful'... nah, none of that.

In fact, quite the opposite, I'm extremely happy about my decision to not have children.

I'm just not a fan of people who think that it is the most meaningful thing I (or anyone else) could ever do.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#268

Post by EGreg » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:15 PM UTC

noptd wrote: post #247

EGreg wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do educate myself. I read many different viewpoints, including for example parents whose own kids were diagnosed with ADHD and did more research. As one example: https://www.amazon.com/ADHD-Hunter-Farmers-Thom-Hartmann/dp/... First of all, I appreciate your sharing of personal anecdotal experience (I mean that sincerely), and I am open to more infomation. But you should be also willing to educate yourself on what y…

This condescending, pseudo-intellectual bullshit has no place on HN. Take it back to r/conspiracy where it belongs.

[dead]

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#269

Post by rrgok » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:16 PM UTC

ddrdrck_ wrote: post #256

fancybouncy wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if I may give you a piece of advice, ask yourself whether you can guarantee that your kid will be happy to have been forced to come to life, or if you are selfishly taking a bet at someone else's expense.

If I may ask, would you have preferred to not come to life, if you had the choice?

I know you are not asking me. But, I would've refused to come to life. Given that, when they ask me the question, I have the same knowledge that I have now or a short trailer about what is life (not specifically mine). Ahah.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#270

Post by causi » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:55 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #153

version_five wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

You're right that it probably is. My main frustration was with the "Posting too fast; please slow down" throwing away comments that you spent a half hour writing. I felt strongly that the user should get an override button, similar to vouch, which lets you post your comment anyway. Obviously, it'd be revokable if abused. But it's so easy for us to sit here and say all that when they're the ones in the field doing the…

My main frustration was with the "Posting too fast; please slow down" throwing away comments that you spent a half hour writing.

It's somewhat expected when you're commenting a lot and your recent comments have been being downvoted or flagged. It's rather infuriating, however, when neither of those are the case but one of your comments happened to trod on a mod's personal fixation.