Masturbation

[MikeL]

If I did this right, it won't show up in the Games and Humor forum. There's certainly nothing humorous about it. Please read the WebMD article Masturbation and Prostate Cancer Risk. I know guys don't like to think about, much less talk about, prostate cancer. I don't know if it's embarrassment, fear of the unknown, or what. But it is important that every young man knows the risks and this article presents one of them.

 

I'll not comment on the article now because that might keep some from reading it. Please do read the article...it's important.

[Demetz]

In about 40 years when this study says I'll have prostate cancer, we damn sure better have developed a more successful cure.

[hh5]

In about 40 years when this study says I'll have prostate cancer, we damn sure better have developed a more successful cure.

 

I knew something wasn't right when someone said "You keep on playing with it - its going to fall off!!!"

[Myk]

This study is way too over generalized and the researchers picked an unfortunate title to get more attention drawn to their work.

 

...don't believe everything you read

[glomph]

When I was young, the idea that a 19-year-old male who masturbated twice a week was a "frequent masturbator" would have been ludicrous. Are young people really having that much more sex these days that masturbation is unusual? (I'm not asking for a show of hands, or even hairy palms.)

 

Dimitropoulou warns. More research is needed

 

They did reach an important conclusion for research: that people need to keep giving them more grants to continue the study.

[myself_i_must_remake]

yeah i was going to say... twice a week is frequent?

 

twice a day maybe.

 

we all need a way to wind down.

[Tiger]

This is bad news indeed. I surpass the high end of "frequent" at times.

[JamesSavik]

I wouldn't worry about it.

 

Press treatment of Medical research tends to be as sensationalistic as possible. When you read the fine print you find that their sample size was very small or the study was backed by the KKK or Jebus freaks.

[Raro]

yeah. Sensationalist reporting of science by the press, where all the science is stripped out to make way for sensation... I could cry.

 

But: after a cursory read through... no one seems to be saying masturbation causes anything unhealthy, rather, the same kinds of high hormone levels that make people horny have other health effects. The other thing they suspect, however, is that voluntary masturbation is *healthy* for the over 50 crowd, some vague speculation about "gotta clean out the tubes".

 

So... I'm getting fairly fed up with this whole style of scientific study... you see them every time you open a newspaper, some statistical study of the correlation of random-thing-a on random-health-effect-b. So, Coffee may contribute to breast cancer, or that may have been debunked, but it may help protect against Parkinson's disease, unless perhaps you're a post-menopausal woman... I mean, you throw enough elements into a study, and sure you'll see some correlations. But this isn't science! None of this is contributing towards some grand theoretical framework of what the hell actually happens inside the body. It's just a pile of trivia. Maybe "health effects of food" will appear on Jeopardy one day... true sign of its uselessness.

 

(By the way, blame Krista -- she wanted me to post more nerd-talk on the forums)

 

-- Raro

[Krista]

yeah. Sensationalist reporting of science by the press, where all the science is stripped out to make way for sensation... I could cry.

 

But: after a cursory read through... no one seems to be saying masturbation causes anything unhealthy, rather, the same kinds of high hormone levels that make people horny have other health effects. The other thing they suspect, however, is that voluntary masturbation is *healthy* for the over 50 crowd, some vague speculation about "gotta clean out the tubes".

 

So... I'm getting fairly fed up with this whole style of scientific study... you see them every time you open a newspaper, some statistical study of the correlation of random-thing-a on random-health-effect-b. So, Coffee may contribute to breast cancer, or that may have been debunked, but it may help protect against Parkinson's disease, unless perhaps you're a post-menopausal woman... I mean, you throw enough elements into a study, and sure you'll see some correlations. But this isn't science! None of this is contributing towards some grand theoretical framework of what the hell actually happens inside the body. It's just a pile of trivia. Maybe "health effects of food" will appear on Jeopardy one day... true sign of its uselessness.

 

(By the way, blame Krista -- she wanted me to post more nerd-talk on the forums)

 

-- Raro

 

 

Lol.. shew, sexy. AND I agree with you.

[Graeme]

Press treatment of Medical research tends to be as sensationalistic as possible. When you read the fine print you find that their sample size was very small or the study was backed by the KKK or Jebus freaks.

The sample size, according to the article, was 890. Not very large and we don't know how representative that group was as far as other factors are concerned.

 

The article also makes the point that they haven't identified a cause-and-effect. They just found a correlation, and it admitted it could be another factor completely that's the cause. eg. It could be that the cause of the increased prostate cancer risk in young men is due to high levels of hormones, and frequent masturbation is a symptom of those hormone levels.

 

In other words, it's an interesting result, but with the small sample size and no solid theory to explain the correlations, there's no need to panic.

 

Graeme

 

PS: I also thought their definition of a frequent masturbator would mean that most young men would be frequent masturbators.

[Drewbie]

Then shouldn't a lot of men have cancer then

Edited February 4, 2009 by Drewbie

[rknapp]

Yes Graeme, by that definition only Mormons are safe from prostate cancer. I think 5 or more times per week is average... possibly below average.

[Emulated]

And there's me thinking it reduces the risk, regardless of age...

 

Ah well! It's not like its all been for nothing, right?

[Prince Duchess]

Well i guess i need to slow it down in that department.

 

Who knew?

[Raro]

To quote myself:

 

no one seems to be saying masturbation causes anything unhealthy

 

but these journalists sure have a roundabout way of not saying it.

 

-- Raro

[MikeL]

OK, guys...time to get serious.

 

Most of the responses so far are what I expected: disbelief that masturbation could possibly lead to prostate cancer; discussion about the small sample size in the study; and comments on sensational journalism.

 

In defense of WebMD, it is the most widely read on-line health site and it leans more to medical science than journalism. All articles published by WebMD are reviewed by medical professionals before publication. The report on Masturbation and Prostate Cancer Risk is based on a survey of men in the UK; it is not a medical study. The causes of prostate cancer are well known; certainly more study is required to determine if masturbation may be a cause.

 

Risk factors for prostate cancer include age, race, diet, family history, and a sedentary lifestyle. Researchers may eventually add excessive youthful masturbation to the list. When a man has prostate cancer, testosterone is the enemy. Testosterone actually promotes the growth of prostate cancer. This fact brings the masturbation question into greater significance; a scientific study is needed to determine if there is a causal relationship. The results of a study may show only that men with a higher sex drive have more testosterone and a greater risk for prostate cancer.

In about 40 years when this study says I'll have prostate cancer, we damn sure better have developed a more successful cure.

Forty years would be good for today's teenagers; not many of them will be diagnosed with prostate cancer before then. And a lot of progress is being made including current clinical trials on a vaccine which, if approved, will help promote the body's natural immune system to fight cancer. Currently surgical removal of the prostate and radiation can cure the disease, but they are not always successful even when used in combination. When they fail, the only remaining treatments are those which reduce testosterone production in an effort to slow the progression of the cancer.

Then shouldn't a lot of men have cancer then

That's a great question, Drew. The majority of men will have prostate cancer in their lifetime. In fact, 80% of men who live to age 80 will have prostate cancer. Prostate cancer screening is recommended for men beginning at age 50. If you are in a high risk group, you should start having an annual PSA test at age 40. It is a simple lab test performed on a blood specimen. You're having blood drawn anyway...be sure to request a PSA (prostate specific antigen) test. If your father, brother, either grandfather, or any uncle has ever been diagnosed with prostate cancer, you should start testing at age 40.

 

For the man diagnosed in his 70s or 80s, doctors will usually recommend deferring any treatment. At this age, prostate cancer usually progresses slowly so that the patient is likely to die from some other cause. The man diagnosed in his fifties potentially has a long road to travel.

 

Unfortunately, the majority of men who have prostate cancer don't know it. That is changing because routine screening is now common. Of course, those men who never have a physical will never know. If you are 50 or older (40 or older in a high risk group) make sure you get an annual PSA test. Younger men...think about you fathers.

 

Sorry to be so long winded about the subject, but it is important to me and to you. Hope I haven't spoiled your fun.

Edited February 4, 2009 by MikeL

[LongGone]

yeah i was going to say... twice a week is frequent?

 

twice a day maybe.

 

I'm older than most of you and I am (according to this article) way the hell ahead of the curve. If they think twice a week is frequent, I am (apparently) the foremost expert on the subject in the universe.

 

Idjits.

[Drewbie]

Naw It wouldn't spoil it for me, but half of these things and medical md, i'd be wary of and get people go wacko over symptoms, on their site.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Drewbie

[Graeme]

In defense of WebMD, it is the most widely read on-line health site and it leans more to medical science than journalism. All articles published by WebMD are reviewed by medical professionals before publication. The report on Masturbation and Prostate Cancer Risk is based on a survey of men in the UK; it is not a medical study. The causes of prostate cancer are well known; certainly more study is required to determine if masturbation may be a cause.

 

Risk factors for prostate cancer include age, race, diet, family history, and a sedentary lifestyle. Researchers may eventually add excessive youthful masturbation to the list. When a man has prostate cancer, testosterone is the enemy. Testosterone actually promotes the growth of prostate cancer. This fact brings the masturbation question into greater significance; a scientific study is needed to determine if there is a causal relationship. The results of a study may show only that men with a higher sex drive have more testosterone and a greater risk for prostate cancer.

I think this last comment was the point a number of people had made, and was also made in the article. A correlation doesn't mean a causal link. Both items (prostate cancer and frequent masturbation) could stem from the same root cause.

 

That's a great question, Drew. The majority of men will have prostate cancer in their lifetime. In fact, 80% of men who live to age 80 will have prostate cancer. Prostate cancer screening is recommended for men beginning at age 50. If you are in a high risk group, you should start having an annual PSA test at age 40. It is a simple lab test performed on a blood specimen. You're having blood drawn anyway...be sure to request a PSA (prostate specific antigen) test. If your father, brother, either grandfather, or any uncle has ever been diagnosed with prostate cancer, you should start testing at age 40.

 

For the man diagnosed in his 70s or 80s, doctors will usually recommend deferring any treatment. At this age, prostate cancer usually progresses slowly so that the patient is likely to die from some other cause. The man diagnosed in his fifties potentially has a long road to travel.

There a saying that more men die with prostate cancer than from prostate cancer. While that has an element of truth, there are different forms of the cancer. My eldest brother has recently gone through chemotherapy for prostate cancer, and the doctors said that all his male relations should also be checked. I had mine checked and I currently have no sign of prostate cancer.

 

Sorry to be so long winded about the subject, but it is important to me and to you. Hope I haven't spoiled your fun.

Don't be sorry. Prostate cancer is something that's not often discussed.

 

My only issue is that the article that started this discussion is probably best left to the medical website, because it is way too early to say if there is an link with masturbation. It reminded me too much of all the scares during the 80s and 90s, where it seemed that almost every week there was another common food or substance that was being reported as causing cancer.

 

However, as a way to start discussing the issue, this thread is great! Thanks, MikeL!

[corvus]

Risk factors for prostate cancer include age, race, diet, family history, and a sedentary lifestyle. Researchers may eventually add excessive youthful masturbation to the list. When a man has prostate cancer, testosterone is the enemy. Testosterone actually promotes the growth of prostate cancer. This fact brings the masturbation question into greater significance; a scientific study is needed to determine if there is a causal relationship. The results of a study may show only that men with a higher sex drive have more testosterone and a greater risk for prostate cancer.

 

In other words, the article didn't posit causal relationships between masturbating and testosterone levels and, indirectly, prostate cancer. In fact, a quick Google search would suggest the opposite. From this abstract, it seems that abstinence from sexual activity actually results in raised testosterone levels. I don't think the results are controlled for normal masturbation frequency, which might be important. It might also be useful to track the effects of abstinence over a much longer period than three weeks -- if we assume causation, masturbation would probably only be significant due to its habitual nature. If these things don't matter, however, then the upshot is that masturbation, by reducing testosterone levels, would in theory lower the risk for prostate cancer. As for the study Mike posted, the reason why increased masturbation is correlated with increased prostate cancer risk is probably (again, I'm theorizing here) because genetic factors that code for increased testosterone levels more than offset the testosterone decrease from frequent masturbation. Therefore, if all this back-of-the-envelope theorizing is correct, the highest at risk demographic would be horny guys who don't masturbate.

 

So, guys, don't be one of those...

 

Edited to add: Real Men Get Prostate Cancer, a blog on the NY Times written by a guy who is getting treated for prostate cancer. If this were a movie, the tagline would be: "Oh, and my testicles are shrinking."

Edited February 5, 2009 by corvus

[kitten]

As several people have pointed out, just because there is a correlation does not mean there is even a likely causal link. With any correlation, until some mechanism for a causal link is proposed and tested no conclusions can be drawn.

 

e.g.

For some years in the UK there was an inverse correlation between the numbers of people attending church and the number of cars on the road. Was there a causal link? If so, then maybe banning cars would make more people go to church or possibly forcing people to go to church would decrease the number of cars on the road. Or could there be a third variable (wealth) that affected both? Perhaps people with more wealth are both more likely to buy cars and less likely to go to church?

 

In the case of this masturbation/cancer correlation there is no mechanism proposed for a causal link but a plausible mechanism for third variable (testosterone) which would increase both. The study reported is flawed in many ways - eg small sample size, and (as far as I could see) there was no measurement of the obvious variable (testosterone) which would be expected to affect both masturbation and prostate cancer.

 

Also, the general level of statistical significance for such things is < 0.05. That mean there is less than a 1 in 20 probability the the correlation is real and not just random chance. With that level of significance, therefore, if you test more than 20 variables for correlation with prostate cancer, there is a reasonable possibility that one of them will show a correlation at the p< 0.05 level when there is in fact no real correlation at all.

 

Of course, it may be that they used a higher threshold for significance (eg p<0.01) in which case there is less chance that the correlation is spurious. However, the basic point remains the same - the more variables you correlate with cancer the greater the probability that spurious correlations will arise. Therefore, the 'data-mining' approach of trying to correlate anything with anything when there is no hypothesis for a proposed link is unscientific.

 

Kit

[MikeL]

Edited to add: Real Men Get Prostate Cancer, a blog on the NY Times written by a guy who is getting treated for prostate cancer. If this were a movie, the tagline would be: "Oh, and my testicles are shrinking."

Thanks for your post and the link to Dana Jennings' blog in the New York Times. The Times also has a very interesting video of Jennings discussing what prostate cancer is like for a man in his 50s.

[MikeL]

As several people have pointed out, just because there is a correlation does not mean there is even a likely causal link. With any correlation, until some mechanism for a causal link is proposed and tested no conclusions can be drawn.

 

In the case of this masturbation/cancer correlation there is no mechanism proposed for a causal link but a plausible mechanism for third variable (testosterone) which would increase both. The study reported is flawed in many ways - eg small sample size, and (as far as I could see) there was no measurement of the obvious variable (testosterone) which would be expected to affect both masturbation and prostate cancer.

 

...the more variables you correlate with cancer the greater the probability that spurious correlations will arise. Therefore, the 'data-mining' approach of trying to correlate anything with anything when there is no hypothesis for a proposed link is unscientific.

You are quite right, Kit, about the unscientific nature of the survey on which the article was based. As I pointed out, it was not a medical study. The appearance of some correlation between frequency of masturbation and occurrence of prostate cancer may be mere coincidence. A scientific study would be required to determine if there is a cause and effect relationship. The real significance of the survey is that there is a plausible connection between the two...a higher level of testosterone, which is a known factor in prostate cancer.

 

Masturbation and prostate cancer may both be the result of a very healthy libido and perhaps no other relationship exists.

[KJames]

They must've surveyed only hetero men...I mean, really, why would I only j/o twice a week at the most?!?!? I'd be busy if I was only doing it that infrequently....or in the seminary...(now that's an interesting name for a place!)...