Men who ejaculate 21 times may gain +defense against prostrate cancer

[brainhulk]

https://prostatecancernewstoday.com...ay-protect-men-from-low-risk-prostate-cancer/

So what do I do the other 4 hours of the day?

 

[Thebobo]

I think that suppose to be over a month not a day ~)

 

[Exterous]

Dang - I should have stocked up on lube during Prime day

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't think I averaged 21 times a month even at my most fap-happy. My prostate is probably planning its revenge as we speak.

 

[highland145]

Dang - I should have stocked up on lube during Prime day

 

[KB]

I keep telling my wife this, but she won't listen.

 

[highland145]

I keep telling my wife this, but she won't listen.

Probably driving with her headphones on.

 

[thebestMAX]

Worked for me.

 

[deustroop]

YES
I can even dial it back a bit.

 

[MtnMan]

Didn't work for me after all those ejaculations. But I still recommend getting in all the ejaculations you can.

 

[crashtech]

The article doesn't mention that sexual satiety affects the way hormones are utilized by the body, seems a no-brainer that hormones would be at least partial driver of the observed results.

 

[clamum]

Huh, no link between ejactulations and high-risk prostate cancer. But at least the ~20%+ benefits for low- and intermediate-risk seem good. Bah 21 times or more a month is a lot IMO. Now if my wife was Mary Elizabeth Winstead or Anna Kendrick... HHNNNGGGGG

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I think that suppose to be over a month not a day ~)

Hey, 21 times a month might be okay if you're fat and/or ugly, but how are the rest of us supposed to get by on so little?

 

[thebestMAX]

Yeah, thats less than once a day every month.

 

[nakedfrog]

I keep telling my wife this, but she won't listen.

She's after the insurance money and some damn peace and quiet.

 

[brainhulk]

Bah 21 times or more a month is a lot IMO. Now if my wife was Mary Elizabeth Winstead or Anna Kendrick... HHNNNGGGGG

 

[BarkingGhostar]

What if I'm approaching 100X/month?

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

I heard--and this is coming from someone who hasn't got this anatomy so I'm sorry if I say something ignorant here--that ejaculating too much badly depletes a man's zinc, leads to adrenal insufficiency, and causes too much circulating prolactin in the blood. Is this true?

I know guys have to rest after they come and that makes me think it takes a lot of energy out of them.

 

[highland145]

What if I'm approaching 100X/month?

See post #5

I heard--and this is coming from someone who hasn't got this anatomy so I'm sorry if I say something ignorant here--that ejaculating too much badly depletes a man's zinc, leads to adrenal insufficiency, and causes too much circulating prolactin in the blood. Is this true?

I know guys have to rest after they come and that makes me think it takes a lot of energy out of them.

Pretty sure we don't care.

 

[deustroop]

this is coming from someone who hasn't got this anatomy so I'm sorry if I say something ignorant here--.

Yeah you're right, stay out of it.

 

[Yakk]

I heard--and this is coming from someone who hasn't got this anatomy so I'm sorry if I say something ignorant here--that ejaculating too much badly depletes a man's zinc, leads to adrenal insufficiency, and causes too much circulating prolactin in the blood. Is this true?

I know guys have to rest after they come and that makes me think it takes a lot of energy out of them.

Well... with the release dopamine & other reactions within the Amygdala... It doesn't really matter, just eat more.

 

[amd6502]

I heard--and this is coming from someone who hasn't got this anatomy so I'm sorry if I say something ignorant here--that ejaculating too much badly depletes a man's zinc, leads to adrenal insufficiency, and causes too much circulating prolactin in the blood. Is this true?

I know guys have to rest after they come and that makes me think it takes a lot of energy out of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0he-LZNzVg0&feature=youtu.be&t=60

I think your point on Zinc might be relevant to the outcome of the study. It's an essential trace mineral that is not the easiest to dose:

Too little, and slowly you develop an enlarged prostate (I believe possibly as the prostate tries to become more efficient in collecting Zinc which is needed to enable effective procreation in men). Too much, and you significantly start to raise the risk of prostate cancer.

I think men should limit zinc to under 20mg/day (especially those with enlarged prostate, or those not doing "it" much), yet still get around 10mg or ideally for avg guy, slightly above 10mg/day.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/zinc

A second point to take away from this is that studies state a very specific condition, and one should interpret it very literally to exactly what it's saying. It's not saying frequent wanking is healthy. It's saying it reduces developing prostate cancers (which is a healthy thing in itself) while not making a statement about potentially other effects that are negative, possibly far worse than the small risk of prostate cancer.

(Furthermore, if the underlying reason for lowering this type of cancer is simply excess zinc it'd be a very roundabout way to address the problem.)

So there's a real danger of being mislead by reading about a study (or worse, just reading the headline) if you don't take the study's conclusion literally to the word. Take the information in, but don't use black/white logic of something is "good" or "bad" because a study found some correlation to a specific "good"/"bad" effect. It's quite common that things have both good and bad sides to them. Ideally read the study itself, get an idea of how large the supposed effect is, and understand exactly what the authors are saying without unduly generalizing their conclusions or inferring unwarranted conclusions from it.

 

[Staples]

I read "ejaculate 21 inches."

I am headed for prostate cancer.

 

[renz20003]

YEEEESSSSSS!!!!

I knew all my jerking off was for a good reason!

 

[chimaxi83]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0he-LZNzVg0&feature=youtu.be&t=60

I think your point on Zinc might be relevant to the outcome of the study. It's an essential trace mineral that is not the easiest to dose:

Too little, and slowly you develop an enlarged prostate (I believe possibly as the prostate tries to become more efficient in collecting Zinc which is needed to enable effective procreation in men). Too much, and you significantly start to raise the risk of prostate cancer.

I think men should limit zinc to under 20mg/day (especially those with enlarged prostate, or those not doing "it" much), yet still get around 10mg or ideally for avg guy, slightly above 10mg/day.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/zinc

A second point to take away from this is that studies state a very specific condition, and one should interpret it very literally to exactly what it's saying. It's not saying frequent wanking is healthy. It's saying it reduces developing prostate cancers (which is a healthy thing in itself) while not making a statement about potentially other effects that are negative, possibly far worse than the small risk of prostate cancer.

(Furthermore, if the underlying reason for lowering this type of cancer is simply excess zinc it'd be a very roundabout way to address the problem.)

So there's a real danger of being mislead by reading about a study (or worse, just reading the headline) if you don't take the study's conclusion literally to the word. Take the information in, but don't use black/white logic of something is "good" or "bad" because a study found some correlation to a specific "good"/"bad" effect. It's quite common that things have both good and bad sides to them. Ideally read the study itself, get an idea of how large the supposed effect is, and understand exactly what the authors are saying without unduly generalizing their conclusions or inferring unwarranted conclusions from it.

Jeez, too much science, are you joining the circle jerk or not?