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

271–280 of 305 posts

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#271

Post by opamp »

sagebird wrote: post #260
opamp wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kids are the best, most meaningful thing you will ever do. Just coming in from the other side, but this is not universally true. Mine has been an absolute nightmare, and I’m in pretty intense therapy trying to keep it all together. My relationship with my wife has been wonderful before and after, so that wasn’t a factor. I’m not trying to dissuade people from having children, but we were completely unprepared for h…

The language you use is a bit unclear. Your kid is a nightmare? Your kid is challenging? Your relationship with your wife has been wonderful before and after what? The birth? I am in a challenging marriage. I have young kids. My kids are wonderful. I am trying to work things out with my wife for my children's sake. I would be careful with the language you use to frame the problems in your life. How you describe your…

I'll try to keep this from becoming a therapy session to the best of my ability. I don't have all the answers yet ;)

> Your kid is a nightmare? Your kid is challenging?

This is hard to explain without a larger conversation, but I think one of the primary issues for us is the huge commitment a child can be. We are in a very rural community (close to nil childcare available), very little family support, and both work full-time (luckily from home).

Deciding to have a child can be a complex decision, and it seemed like a good idea at the time based on the information we had. Close friends in very similar situations have been successful and happy. There are also a small minority of friends that have similar feelings to us.

> Your relationship with your wife has been wonderful before and after what? The birth?

Correct.

> Are you sure it's a problem with your child? Maybe it is a problem with you and your relationships?

I believe the root issue here is a conflict between what we want out of life and the realities young children bring. The things that "fill us up" are generally unsafe for young children (eg. mountaineering in the dead of winter at high altitude).

I'm not looking for criticism (unless it's constructive), because the decision has been made. We're doing the best we can and trying to find new techniques/outside help; we're trying our best given what we have. (it's worth noting that I didn't take the parent comment negatively)

> Anyways, good choice being in therapy. A competent therapist will help you unravel your problems better than some asshole on hn (that's me).

I agree, and I've posted the unfiltered version here. It has helped me mentally reframe our situation in a more positive light, but it's still a journey. Hopefully insight into our specific situation can help someone else along the way.

*edit:

>I am in a challenging marriage. I have young kids. My kids are wonderful. I am trying to work things out with my wife for my children's sake. I would be careful with the language you use to frame the problems in your life. How you describe your problems may influence what you see as the solutions.

This is good advice, and I don't see my child as "the problem" so much as the general situation. The struggle now is recalibrating my world view.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#272

Post by benj111 »

Too wrote: post #262
benj111 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do we have to be serious all the time? Even undertakers have a laugh occasionally.

I'm quite surprised by how little puns there are under this post.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#273

Post by ddrdrck_ »

latchkey wrote: post #267
TheFreim wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Actually it depends on what you think is "meaningful". It could be having children, but it also could be discovering a new vaccine, helping other people, or just living a happy life without annoying anyone.

In any case, even if one thinks so, I find it quite rude to say that having a kid is the most meaningful thing you can achieve to someone that may not have children ...

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#274

Post by quickthrower2 »

owl57 wrote: post #160
pessimizer wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually true, or is it only true of drivers? I'm pretty sure that of people who don't drive, the ones who walk fewer than 5km a day are going to be involved in fewer road accidents than the ones who walk more.

I haven't got any data whatsoever, but probably most people who walk more than 5km a day live in places with relatively pedestrian-friendly roads and driving habits.

Yeah that was my joke/point. Walking alot means you are more likely to be doing that walking instead of using a car on average. City dwelling being the main scenario and I am sure there are other scenarios. By specifying car accidents (and not just accidents) I biased it further

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#275

Post by joshspankit »

joshspankit wrote: post #242
twawaaay wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Agree. This is part of why we need educational reform. Currently in North America, school is optimized to solve two main problems: 1. Create citizens who work well in companies (sadly these are industrial-era: show up on time, parrot back what is told to you, be the same as everyone else) 2. Babysitting parents who are currently working for companies (this was especially obvious in Ontario’s approach to the pandemic)…

*Babysitting for parents

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#276

Post by girvo »

altdataseller wrote: post #238
_yb2s wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t need research to listen to my own body and notice that I have a lot more energy, confidence, and enthusiasm for life with nofap. The difference is night and day. I noticed this on my own before ever hearing about nofap, and so have numerous cultures and religions. The dismissive attitude you have is one I have seen a lot, and only makes sense to me if your body works differently from mine. Is there is some sl…

Exactly, research has its place, but sometimes people put way too much importance on it. The research that matters the most is your own personal experience and trial and error. Do it for a few months and see what it's like. That's all there is to it, and this applies to a lot of things too: a new workout regimen, a diet, cold showers, productivity hacks, biohacking, etc. Stop arguing over whether there's scientific e…

Except “nofap” itself uses a core misunderstanding of biology and neuroscience to justify itself to prospective new recruits to the “community”. It’s only when that is called out that your group then retreats into “science doesn’t matter”.

It’s crap and in bad faith.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#277

Post by sagebird »

opamp wrote: post #271
sagebird wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language you use is a bit unclear. Your kid is a nightmare? Your kid is challenging? Your relationship with your wife has been wonderful before and after what? The birth? I am in a challenging marriage. I have young kids. My kids are wonderful. I am trying to work things out with my wife for my children's sake. I would be careful with the language you use to frame the problems in your life. How you describe your…

I'll try to keep this from becoming a therapy session to the best of my ability. I don't have all the answers yet ;) > Your kid is a nightmare? Your kid is challenging? This is hard to explain without a larger conversation, but I think one of the primary issues for us is the huge commitment a child can be. We are in a very rural community (close to nil childcare available), very little family support, and both work f…

I wish you the very best. Let’s set a timer for ten years and come back to this thread. I am curious what form our journeys will take and hope this is represented the low point of what is to be a great climb up.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#278

Post by opamp »

sagebird wrote: post #277
opamp wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll try to keep this from becoming a therapy session to the best of my ability. I don't have all the answers yet ;) > Your kid is a nightmare? Your kid is challenging? This is hard to explain without a larger conversation, but I think one of the primary issues for us is the huge commitment a child can be. We are in a very rural community (close to nil childcare available), very little family support, and both work f…

I wish you the very best. Let’s set a timer for ten years and come back to this thread. I am curious what form our journeys will take and hope this is represented the low point of what is to be a great climb up.

That sounds great, and I hope it's a long climb up as well :) I wish you the best with your marriage.

Apologies to anyone reading for being so negative. I know I'm in a tough spot, and it's hard to see out right now.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#279

Post by girvo »

_yb2s wrote: post #195
maximus-decimus wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the nofap community claim that abstaining from masturbation gives them "super powers". From Google, a cult is "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object." They venerate non-masturbation as if it were a deity able to grant them divine powers if they worship it enough. Or at least that's how it sounds like when you hear them talk about it.

They only believe it gives them “super powers” in the same way getting free from a heroin addiction would feel like gaining super powers. Normal health feels super when you previously lacked it.

> in the same way getting free from a heroin addiction would feel like gaining super powers

As someone who has done exactly that and is involved heavily in recovery communities, no one would describe sobriety as "gaining super powers", and I'm sick of people conflating porn addiction and heroin addiction as if they have anything in common. They really do not, and anyone who does has obviously never experienced opioid dependence. "But but but dopamine pathways" -- if you don't understand the difference in orders of magnitude between exogenous chemicals that directly operate on those pathways, and that which your body and brain can create on their own, I don't know what to tell you.

Re: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer (2022)

#280

Post by valenceelectron »

twawaaay wrote: post #245
valenceelectron wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (insulin sensitivity is your ability to clear blood sugars, exercise does not improve insulin sensitivity directly but helps clear the sugar making it as if insulin was more effective). Can you elaborate? As far as I'm aware exercise (even moderate) does indeed increase insulin sensitivity. I was told so by my doctor and as type 1 diabetic with 24/7 glucose monitoring sensor I can "see" this. A day long hike (not i…

Regardless of the type of diabetes you have, your body needs to clear sugar from bloodstream. It really does not matter how this happens, exactly. Insulin performs other functions in your body... but ability to clear sugar is the absolutely most vital concern. If you can do things that either prevent or clear blood sugar levels from your bloodstream you can technically live without the need for insulin at all. With a…

I'm afraid but this is a very simplistic view and not how it actually works. You cannot keep your blood sugar stable by eliminating intake of carbohydrate. Something every diabetic who goes into weight lifting learns really quickly (and is well established in literature and known by doctors): protein will increase your blood sugar. It is a very delayed response (3-5h+) and its amplitude is low but it will happen. The process is called gluconeogenesis. Your body has multiple metabolic pathways to create glucose out of nearly any kind of protein found in your body (figuratively speaking) and will do so even in the presence of enough calories (i.e., this is not a response to malnutrition or under-eating).

And then there are all the hormone-based reactions. The classic obvious culprit for raising blood sugar out of nowhere is of course adrenaline but even many others can do so. Stress reactions and others will do this. The glucose in this case comes from your liver which stores it as glucagon. Note that your liver will store glucagon even when you have no carbohydrate intake. As mentioned above, your body will metabolize it eventually.

Your advice about keto is downright harmful. Type 1 diabetics should not go on a keto diet. This is actively advised against and will lead to coma and death. The reason keto works for healthy people is that they actually do not go 0 on carbohydrate and, therefore, still have some amount of insulin in their blood (also for other reasons). Even vegetables contain small amounts of digestible carbohydrates that will trigger trace amounts of insulin and protein, through the pathway illustrated above, will do so as well. Please understand that diabetes is an old and very well researched condition. Modern medicine has a trove of long-term detailed data and statistics telling us what works well and will lead to a side-condition-free life in old age and what will lead to long term damage. This is well understood. Contrary to what you suggested, modern diabetes management does not advise to reduce insulin need as much as possible through dietary means for type 1 diabetics.

Edit: Please note that blood sugar is not a "lower means better" metric. A low blood sugar has risks associated just as high blood sugar has. The "band" of good values is well understood and the headroom "upwards" (i.e., higher than normal values that still won't cause damage) is a lot larger than the headroom "downwards". In fact, standard therapy for diabetics keeps them a little higher than the normal person just for safety reasons. Personally, I stay in a "normal person" range but I also have the luxury of fewer trouble managing my values than others.

Post reply on HN