Urologist talking about abstinence and prostata cancer

I'd ask him about scientific studies.

 

My prostate improved a lot by staying abstinent.

 

@wwtl, how do you know?

 

It feels a lot better and the issue of frequent urgency also did go away.

 

@SirWanksalot, In that original post (here) I wonder what the urologist meant when he said

The studies I quoted in this thread suggest otherwise: Ejaculation Frequency and Risk of Prostate Cancer. It looks like a small effect, but it does show up in the more recent studies (unless you've seen more recent ones).

 

@kropo82 Aye good sir, but I think you mispelled his name.
Anywho, even though you did not ask me I would give my unscientific opinion on the matter.

As far as I understand how the human body works it responds and adapts to stresses of all kinds and tries to keep up homeostasis as much as possible.
Overuse of any organs or tissues (joints) etc. lead to overuse injuries.
Underuse has a similar effect in regard to injuries/deterioration of the tissues.

Therefore, in my opinion(!) the key lies in the proper balance of healthy doses of stress (at least to keep the tissue active if not even growing/rebuilding) and adequate recovery on a physical level.

It becomes even more interersting if you add the psychosomatic effects of your emotions and what not into the mix.
Let's suppose a certain level of "stress" or "action" may be required for healthy prostate tissue.
But feeling super conflicted internally about masturbating or ejaculating would lead to cortisol etc. flodding the body, increase inflammation again, lower immune system function, etc.
And again the opposite is true for when you honestly believe that you are doing something good for yourself.

I think that would mean that not only the objective data but also your personal beliefs and interpretation of it have a significant effect on the question whether masturbation is actually healthy for you or not.

Blissful ignorance may be an advantage sometimes haha

I know that you are very much aware of this (which greatly adds to the probabilistic nature of scientific studies) but just generally I wanted to state that this means it becomes a very individualized issue for each and everyone of us. Studies only work over large quantities of people and then still can only give a general direction for each individual in any given environment.
Similar to how the half-life of any radioactive material gives you a precise measurement for when half of all particles are gone yet you have no clue when one single particle that you are currently looking at may be changing.

Intersting discussion for sure and thanks for linking me in ;-)