Chastity Forums

I know a lot of these have already been cited, but Jimi123 and others have been asking, and currently the links are spread throughout multiple threads.

These are, to my knowledge, the main medical studies linking ejaculation frequency to prostate cancer.

NUMBER ONE

Ejaculation Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer

Michael F. Leitzmann, MD; Elizabeth A. Platz, ScD; Meir J. Stampfer, MD; Walter C. Willett, MD; Edward Giovannucci, MD

JAMA. 2004;291:1578-1586.

Abstract and notes: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... 91/13/1578
Full text: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/13/1578


This was the one done at the National Cancer Institute between 1992 and 2000n and strongly affiliated with Harvard. They had a large group size and studied ejaculation frequency in 20s, 40s and in the past year.

"Our results suggest that ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer."

That's the news I wanted to hear.

NUMBER TWO -

Sexual factors and prostate cancer

JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association

Date: 21/07/2004
Volume: 292
Issue: 3

I have accessed this through my library and put it online at:
http://glowinside.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 4319-x.pdf

This was an earlier study, smaller in size, conducted in Australia, by a group led by Graham G. Giles, PhD, Gianluca Severi, and John L. Hopper. It wasn't published until 2004, but was actually conducted between 1994 and 1997. They asked elderly men how often they had ejaculated in earlier life and looked at correlations with prostate cancer incidence.

Their conclusion:

Ejaculatory frequency, especially in early adult life, is negatively associated with the risk of
prostate cancer, and thus the molecular biological consequences of suppressed or diminished ejaculation are worthy of further research.

So, the opposite of the US team. Not the news I wanted to hear.

NUMBER THREE - ongoing debate

There has been an ongoing dialogue between the Australian and US teams played out in the letters of the JAMA.

In 2004, the Australian team were quick to reply to the US team's study, and published this note in JAMA Vol. 292 No. 3, July 21, 2004.

In their prospective study, Dr Leitzmann and colleagues replicated the findings of our case-control study in regard to a protective relationship between frequency of ejaculation and risk of prostate cancer. Although the study of Leitzmann et al avoids the potential for recall bias, for both their study and ours the accuracy of ejaculation assessment was likely to be affected by problems in recall of past practice, particularly of that in early adult life. We believe that the effect of such a bias would tend to be conservative and would have thus underestimated any real effect for ejaculation.

We were puzzled by the authors' choice of men with the second lowest frequency of ejaculation as the reference category. It would be interesting to see the relative risks produced by an analysis that combined the first 2 groups together as the reference category.

Unlike many other studies, we found no effect with number of sexual partners. It would be interesting to know also if Leitzmann et al measured this variable. Our study found a particularly striking protective effect that was limited to ejaculations experienced in early adulthood. Neither study, however, addressed the question of ejaculatory frequency during puberty, but this might prove to be particularly illuminating if appropriate questions could be included in one of the biennial follow-ups of the study of Leitzmann et al.

So, as far as I can decipher the nerdspeak, they are basically claiming that the US study replicated their own findings, even though the summaries are very different. That confuses me.

They are also noting that in both studies, asking 70 year old men how many times they came per week 50 years ago is a bit of a tall order. Do you think some men might have been inclined to play up how studly they were.

And, they also note that that the most pronounced effect was for men that ejaculated a lot in their twenties.

The US team - Gleitzman et al - came back with the following note:

In response to Dr Giles and colleagues, our rationale for using the category of 4 to 7 ejaculations per month as the common reference group was that that category reflects a more typical ejaculation frequency than the category of 0 to 3 ejaculations per month. In addition, the category of 4 to 7 ejaculations per month had sufficient numbers of cases across the different age groups, which ensured reasonable stability of the relative risk estimates. When we combined the first 2 groups as the reference category, the multivariate relative risks for men reporting 21 or more ejaculations per month at ages 20 to 29 years, ages 40 to 49 years, in the previous year, and across the lifespan were 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.06), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.87), 0.42 (95% CI, 0.24-0.74), and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.52-0.91), respectively.

We did not address the association between number of sexual partners and risk of prostate cancer because we believe this variable does not represent an accurate measure of sexual function. We did examine serum testosterone levels in order to address whether the ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer relationship is mediated by androgens. The correlation between ejaculation frequency and testosterone levels in our study was low, but statistically significant (r = 0.17; P = .005). Our finding of an inverse association between ejaculation frequency and risk of prostate cancer suggests that any androgen-related mechanism linking enhanced testosterone levels to increased risk of prostate cancer is countered by one or more nonandrogenic biological pathways.

We agree with Giles et al that evaluating ejaculation frequency during adolescence would represent an important step in determining whether the peripubertal time period is etiologically relevant regarding the association between ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer.

OK, I admit my eyes kinda glazed over there. The thing I don't get is, how come the Australian team say that "Dr Leitzmann and colleagues replicated the findings of our case-control study in regard to a protective relationship between frequency of ejaculation and risk of prostate cancer," when in fact, Dr Leitzmann and his cohort actually said: "Our results suggest that ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer."

Hmmm. I guess I could read the articles more closely, because to me, those two things are totally contradictory.

Thanks to Mayhew for doing some good research and summary activity.

I can neither confirm nor dispute any information he provided, but I wish to ask why is it somehow only the prostate that we feel is impacted by ejaculation frequency?

Our ejaculation includes other glands besides the prostate. Shouldn't their cancer rates be of equal concern? Why would chastity give us prostate cancer but not Cowpers' Gland cancer? Why not testicular cancer? Why not seminal vesicle cancer?

I believe that we hear about prostate cancer and associate it with ejaculation. Ergo, we feel that there is a causal link between the two. Did anyone suggest that Lance Armstrong's tesitcular cancer was related to him not cumming enough?

In my humble opinion: If we are worried about ejaculation frequency as a cause of prostate cancer, you had better spend at least as much time researching the other organs involved with splooping. (love that term) Should we get our Cowpers' Gland "milked" once a month? Should we get our seminal vesicles "drained, but not orgasmed" every six weeks? Should our testicles get "emptied every seven weeks via e stim"? Who the heck knows. But it ALL matters just as much as our prostate.

David

Thanks David.

why is it somehow only the prostate that we feel is impacted by ejaculation frequency?

I think this is something that was becoming clear from the other thread on "Mother Nature as Keyholder."

There is a big difference between what we actually think, and what we happen to have information on.

I am in a position to cite certain scientific studies because they were done - not because they are what I would have studied, if I were a scientist.

In an ideal world, we would have data from 100 years plus of chaste men giving accurate medical details about exactly what happened to them in all areas of health, tested against a control group of men that were not chaste. Then we might know about the Cowper's gland, and a whole range of other things.

But we don't. We have evidence just where it happens to relate to our own sexual practices. And no-one is specifically studying the health risks of chastity.

There is also the thought that prostate cancer is more common than other forms of disorder that you mention. That's probably why more money gets put into working out what causes it.

But I think the main thing is, people don't neccesarly feel any more strongly about the prostate than anything else that might go wrong as a result of chastity play. There just happens to be more research on it.

I believe that we hear about prostate cancer and associate it with ejaculation. Ergo, we feel that there is a causal link between the two. Did anyone suggest that Lance Armstrong's tesitcular cancer was related to him not cumming enough?

Particularly because testicular cancer is most common in younger men (ages 15-40), a group that one would presume is ejaculating frequently. So, what is the relationship there?

D

OK, I admit my eyes kinda glazed over there. The thing I don't get is, how come the Australian team say that "Dr Leitzmann and colleagues replicated the findings of our case-control study in regard to a protective relationship between frequency of ejaculation and risk of prostate cancer," when in fact, Dr Leitzmann and his cohort actually said: "Our results suggest that ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer."

Did Leitzman et al. report the relative risk ratios in their original article, or only in the letter responding to Giles et al. comment? The odds ratios that are presented, all less than 1.0, suggest a protective effect of ejaculation. Maybe that is what they (Giles et al.) are basing their statement on.

I have only read the excerpts you posted here, not the original articles, so this is mostly an educated guess on my part.

D

David that is an excellent question. My thought is that Prostate Cancer is a major concern the cowpers etc are not common types of cancer or perhapes they are all lumped in?

From Wiki - More than 200,000 new cases and about 30,000 deaths are attributed to prostate cancer each year in the U.S. I think the US population is what? 350 million and half are women (Who don't have a prostate) so thats a lot of guys getting cancer.

Testicular cancer is of course a concern as well but most of the men who get this have the teste(s) that are affected removed and are "cured" fairly easily.

My read on the two studies is that our friends in Australia are saying that the US study proves their conclusions with its similiar data but that the US study is slanted to avoid finding the same conclusion.

for me I think I will Quote MikeCB "Chastity NOT Celibacy!"

davidphd1866 wrote:Thanks to Mayhew for doing some good research and summary activity.

I can neither confirm nor dispute any information he provided, but I wish to ask why is it somehow only the prostate that we feel is impacted by ejaculation frequency?

Our ejaculation includes other glands besides the prostate. Shouldn't their cancer rates be of equal concern? Why would chastity give us prostate cancer but not Cowpers' Gland cancer? Why not testicular cancer? Why not seminal vesicle cancer?

I believe that we hear about prostate cancer and associate it with ejaculation. Ergo, we feel that there is a causal link between the two. Did anyone suggest that Lance Armstrong's tesitcular cancer was related to him not cumming enough?

In my humble opinion: If we are worried about ejaculation frequency as a cause of prostate cancer, you had better spend at least as much time researching the other organs involved with splooping. (love that term) Should we get our Cowpers' Gland "milked" once a month? Should we get our seminal vesicles "drained, but not orgasmed" every six weeks? Should our testicles get "emptied every seven weeks via e stim"? Who the heck knows. But it ALL matters just as much as our prostate.

David

Jimi123 wrote: My thought is ................

Jimi, I believe you are over thinking all this.

You are going to cause a brain hemorrhage.

-A

Ha! I think your right!