Interesting.. debate please

[TitaniumChastiTi]

As a 48 year old male who had always done so until been locked up please feel free to debate the following article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/m ... t-bay.html

[slave d]

Nothing to debate in my view. It's a theory based on some statistics (read lies, damn lies, statistics) that may or may not be accurate and may or may not be proven long term. No different to you shouldn't eat eggs they raise your cholesterol !! then 5 years later eggs are fine they only effect your good cholesterol etc etc etc for ever. If it suits you to say "see I knew there was a good reason I wank all the time" then fine, if not why worry. It's the worry that kills you lol.

d

[locked4her55]

All I can say is I surely did my part to prevent prostrate cancer in my 40's according to the article.

Now pushing 60 it's a much different story.

[slave d]

All I can say is I surely did my part to prevent prostrate cancer in my 40's according to the article.

Now pushing 60 it's a much different story.

Plus One !!! i'm 62 lol !!!

d

[Tom Allen]

There are way too many variables to control for in these kinds of reports.

[TwistedMister]

An excerpt, rather than simply a thread titled "Interesting..." and a link might be helpful for those of us who lack a broadband connection. Although I recently re-wired my house with Cat-5e cable in place of the old phone lines, and a centralized phone/video distribution hub, which significantly increased my connection speed, many of the advertising, image, and script-laden sites such as those of the various newspapers are just so damn slow to load that it is sheer torture to bother with them.

[Tom Allen]

An orgasm a day could keep prostate cancer at bay

Men in their forties who orgasm every day are much less likely to develop the disease, according to researchers at Harvard Medical School

For men in their forties, a daily orgasm can reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer by over 20 per cent, according to new research.

The study, conducted by Harvard Medical School, followed nearly 32,000 healthy men over 18 years, almost 4,000 of whom went on to develop prostate cancer.

Researchers found that men in the 40-49 age range who ejaculated at least 21 times per month were 22 per cent less likely to develop the disease than those who ejaculated between four and seven times per month.

Dr Jennifer Rider of Harvard Medical School said that "While these data are the most compelling to date on the potential benefit of ejaculation on prostate cancer development, they are observational data and should be interpreted somewhat cautiously."

Last year, a study carried out researchers at the University of Montreal concluded that men who had sex with more than 20 women were 19 per cent less likely to develop the most aggressive form of prostate cancer.

However, when lead researcher Dr Marie-Elise Parent was asked whether public health authorities should recommend men to sleep with many women in their lives, she commented: "We're not there yet."

Each year in the UK around 41,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and 11,000 die from the disease.

[celticqueens_sub]

I wonder how this research works... How do you test this? If I cum everyday and don't get cancer, it can never be known if the opposite would have been true. A much better bit if research would be genomic sequencing and see if like the breast cancer gene, if you have the bad gene then you have a real piece of data to assess your risk. Basically I think the article as it presents, is shit. Just not enough info there

[celticqueens_sub]

However, when lead researcher Dr Marie-Elise Parent was asked whether public health authorities should recommend men to sleep with many women in their lives, she commented: "We're not there yet."

She should have said "Yes, and massively increase their chance of some form of STD" What dozy fucknut asked that question I wonder?

[TwistedMister]

I wonder how this research works... How do you test this? If I cum everyday and don't get cancer, it can never be known if the opposite would have been true...Basically I think the article as it presents, is shit. Just not enough info there

Thanks Tom.

Yeah, the way this is presented is misleading and sensationalized, and I suspect that there are some problems with the method(s) used to gather the data. For one, I'm fairly sure that they didn't actually "follow" all those guys around, counting and tracking their orgasms and then testing them for cancer. Much (all?) of the data must have come from self-reporting, which subjects its accuracy to doubt, plus there is no explanation of the criteria used to select the "participants". They mix numbers and throw in some percents, making the results appear to be significant, but they fail to present other facts...which would most likely cause the 'significance' to be less impressive.

I think that the overall risk of any particular individual in the general population developing prostate cancer is relatively small. According to the information from my doctor (in a discussion I had about it), even if one does get it, it is one of the slowest growing cancers, it typically does not present until late in life and one is much more likely to die of something else than from the cancer. It all adds up to make the "22%" figure actually a very small number that is, for all intents and purposes, insignificant for the average individual.