Ejaculation Frequency and Risk of Prostate Cancer

Until I get a chance to download the paper through my University library site (it isn't open access but is in a 'decent' journal), I am going to paste here the comments from Wales Online for consideration:

"Does this mean that ejaculating frequently definitely reduces the risk?

To put it simply: no, there is no definite link.

Although the research showed an association between ejaculating more frequently and a lower chance of getting prostate cancer there are some things people should consider according to the NHS website .

Firstly the three age groups looked at. It is not known what the differences are within these groups and it is not known what the outcomes would be if ejaculation was measured in different age categories.

Secondly, although the authors adjusted for some variables, there are still some factors that might have influenced the results, such as social demographic background, education level and whether the men had children.

Thirdly, circumstances in which the men ejaculated were not considered i.e. through masturbation or with a sexual partner. This could influence on the results.

Fourthly, the data relied on self-reporting and considering past history, which may have led to participants inaccurately reported their ejaculation history. This is called recall bias.

Fifth, It could be that men who are more sexually active are less likely to go for cancer screenings and are therefore be aware of having prostate cancer.

Finally, it is hard to say if the study applied to people in the UK, especially ethnic minorities. The study was conducted on mostly white health professionals. This means it may not apply to people in the UK especially as prostate cancer tends to be more common in men of African-Caribbean or African descent."

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/masturbating-often-could-reduce-mans-13307590

Just reading the abstract, my biggest issue with it is that they seem to be saying the key findings apply to two distinct groups: men ejaculating 4-5 times a month (i.e. about once a week, who have the higher risk of prostate cancer) vs. men >21 times a month (i.e. almost daily). The men in the higher frequency group have about c 20% reduced risk of prostate cancer, although the error margin is quite high to be fair given this difference (approx +/-10%) which really - with such a massive trial - could suggest something else is involved here other than just frequency? Don't forget they even claim to have adjusted this data for a whole range of other variables. So this is adjusted data*.

They don't say anything about the 0 frequency group - which apparently did exist (very odd, this wasn't mentioned at all in the original data also I believe). Clearly there isn't a simple relationship between frequency and cancer risk - otherwise it would have been in the abstract. So we cannot just say 'more ejaculation equates to lower prostate cancer risk', this isn't at all what the paper is claiming based on the data discussed in the abstract.

The Wales Online/NHS criticism looks good to me.

Is this going to get me masturbating once a day from now on? Definitely not. I think there are much better ways to look after my prostate TBH. However, to anyone who is able to get proper, loving sex 5-6 times a week for the next 20 years or so, I say, "You lucky so-and-so, go for it!".

(*They claim to have adjusted for diet. This seems extremely difficult. Numerous studies fail to link a specific diet with any number of specific cancers. So I am very suspicious of this claim. This could mean a whole host of things. You simply cannot 'just' adjust for diet).

 

here is the full text version of that article "Ejaculation Frequency and Risk of Prostate Cancer: Updated Results with an Additional Decade of Follow-up"

 

Without reading the full text to understand the nuance and limitation of the data on which the conclusion is based, wouldn't it be worrisome for someone about their own credibility who insisted this discussion has to be based on scientific evidence, and yet only based his understanding on the abstract portion of the article?

 

a mod removed it, it's sad the mod did it without asking me if I have the permission to share it, but it's even more sad to see fear of copyright concern potentially holds back the validity of a discussion. I guess the mod does not care, they just don't want any potential legal trouble.

 

I can read the full paper anyway no problem. Just need to get around to it.