Free Prostate Cancer prevention readily available

by Paul Michael on 17 April 2008 8 comments
Photo: Zesmerelda

98% of men say they do it; the other 2% are lying. But far from it being something to be embarrassed about, researchers have strong indications that this very common activity could have uncommon effects in reducing the risk of prostate cancer. I’m talking about, dare I say it, masturbation folks.

I took a lot of flak recently for suggesting that good hydration can reduce the risk of getting certain cancers. So, I decided to do a little digging around on natural, cheap and effective ways to reduce the risk of cancer. BBC news, a place I rely upon for much of my world news, came to my rescue. And while I know the topic will probably cause even more controversy, I think it’s worth the discussion. We’re all adults here folks.

The masturbation study was conducted by the Cancer Council Victoria, in Melbourne Australia. It was actually a study in response to research that suggested high levels of sexual activity with numerous partners increased a man’s risk of prostate cancer by up to 40%.

However, the study didn’t take into account the fact that ejaculation may in fact be a way to help flush out carcinogens from the prostate. While safety concerns are raised when having a lot of sex, there is nothing at all unsafe about masturbation (well, I guess that depends on how you do it. The Michael Hutchence case springs to mind).

There are various prostate health drugs and vitamins on the market, including Saw Palmetto, which cost varying amounts. Some Protate Health combinations can cost $30-$40 a month. And yet, science is saying the simplest way to prevent prostate cancer, gents, is to take matters into your own hands…literally. And not only does it feel a lot better than taking a vitamin, it’s also free.

So, how many times should you "do it?"

The magic number seems to be almost daily. From the article…

Men who ejaculated more than five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life. Australian researchers questioned over 1,000 men who had developed prostate cancer and 1,250 who had not about their sexual habits.

They found those who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop the cancer. The protective effect was greatest while the men were in their 20s.

 

 

 

Researchers also have a theory that regular ejaculation helps the prostate gland mature, which makes it less susceptible to carcinogens.

Dr Chris Hiley, head of policy and research at the UK's Prostate Cancer Charity, told BBC News Online: "This is a plausible theory." She added: "In the same way the human papillomavirus has been linked to cervical cancer, there is a suggestion that bits of prostate cancer may be related to a sexually transmitted infection earlier in life."

 

 

 

So forget the ridiculous tales of hairy palms and blindness. Not only is there nothing wrong with masturbation, it’s considered to be a healthy and cancer-preventing part of your daily routine. Go for it.

For more information of the findings, read the BBC article here.

0
No votes yet
Your rating: None
ShareThis

comments

8 discussions

Add New Comment

CAPTCHA
This test helps prevent automated spam submissions.
Guest's picture
Guest

As someone who did take issue with your water article, I like this one (I'm sure you really care).
I would be interested to know, given the possibility of a link between STI and prostate cancer, if those who were masterbating more often, were doing so mainly because they weren't having sex and were therefore at a lower risk of contracting an STI to begin with?
I do have one query, surely as a proponent of frugal living you should have included tips for men on frugal self-stimulation? Freecycling old top shelf magazines perhaps? *shudders*

Paul Michael's picture

...I figured this topic alone would get enough backlash.

Guest's picture
Guest

Ain't it great
To masturbate

Guest's picture
Daniel

Interesting. Paul,your first sentence, "98% of men say they do it; the other 2% are lying" raised two thoughts in my mind. First, surely there are men out there who don't masturbate. I met a zen master once who told me he never did, in order to preserve his ojas. Other people who are concerned about things like reducing the passions, clearing the mind, and/or fostering spiritual feelings undoubtedly refrain, too.

The second thought is actually an alternative interpretation of the data (well, of the paragraphs you clipped, anyway). Let's presume, as you said, that nearly all men do masturbate at least once a week. Some men feel neutral or good about it (ie. have no guilt), while some men feel bad about it(ie. have guilt, repressed feelings). Maybe the study's data is not accurate because this second group of men was even too ashamed of their masturbation habit to admit "Yes, I do masturbate" to the researchers.

The shame that this second group of men feels (the "non-mastubators" in the study) is symptomatic of larger patterns of guilt/shame/repression in their lives. This burden of negative feeling leaves these men more stressed than the first group. I think numerous studies have shown that higher stress levels, especially over long periods of time, lower immunity. Perhaps it's these mens' lowered immunity (the price of chronic stress stemming from repression/guilt/etc.) that increases their susceptibility to cancer.

That there's a 'cancer prone personality type' is a very controversial idea and I'm not familiar with all sides of the debate, but I can't help but feel it's one that misses the point. Certainly, the mind-body relationship is not a one-way street, with some disembodied-defective mind making an otherwise lifeless-healthy body sick. Conciousness itself, in fact, not just relies on, but is indivisible from the body. Ask Einstein's brain. Saying that there's a 'cancer prone personality' waaay oversimplifies things. All I'm saying is that maybe what this study shows is that if we embody a certain type of energy pattern (thought, feeling, action) we're more prone to a certain type of cancer.

Guest's picture
Fred Lee

I agree, the 2% are lying, and if there is actually a man out there who doesn't, then he's either having wet dreams, or he's what Woody Allen refers to as "an... guard at a eunuch convention." I think it follows the same logic that applies to colon cancer - traffic flow keeps things glow. The upside is that men who are castrated don't go bald because of the absence of testosterone, which seems like a high price to pay to keep your hair. Thanks for your interesting article.

Guest's picture
Lynn

Here's another herb for maintaining prostate health.

Study Reveals Benefits of Red Clover for Prostate and Liver Health
April 15, 2008

http://www.naturalnews.com/023019.html

Paul Michael's picture

...was actually something I read in one of the men's lifestyle magazines a few years ago. It's not exactly scientific, but it makes a point. I'm sure there are a very very small smattering of guys that don't do it due to physical or mental disability, religious beliefs and so on. But in general, if you're a regular guy and you say you don't do it, well, who are you kidding?

Guest's picture
Gatorblue

As much as I wish this were true, there appears to be a problem with the interpretation of the data from this study and this may lead to an incorrect conclusion. Daniel is on to somthing in the second paragraph of his comment. The frequency of masturbation was correlated with a reduction in the risk of developing prostate cancer. However, just because two factors (e.g. masturbation frequency and cancer outcome) are correlated does not mean that one factor actually influences the other. (Some studies can draw causation from tightly controlled correlations, but that is another discussion)

An alternate hypothesis could be that a large portion of the men share some other characteristic (e.g. lifestyle) or a combination of characteristics (e.g. genetics and lifestyle) in common. It's not necessarily that the conclusion (i.e. regular masturbation is a protective factor) is incorrect, but that there may be more than one way to interpret the data to support an alternate outcome. Essentially, more studies are needed to tease apart all of the things that may influence prostate cancer. It looks promising, but a number of studies have been "debunked" because the results from the first study couldn't be replicated.