Milovana.com

Men who are more sexually active in their 20s and 30s may run a higher risk of prostate cancer, research suggests.

The Nottingham University study quizzed 800 men on how often they had sex or masturbated. Those who were most active while younger had more chance of developing cancer later in life. The researchers said higher levels of sex hormones could lead to a bigger sex drive and the cancer, the journal BJU International reported. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the UK, with well over 30,000 new cases diagnosed each year.

It affects the prostate gland, which is found close to the bladder and makes a component of semen.

The Nottingham team, led by Dr Polyxeni Dimitropoulou, recruited more than 400 men diagnosed with prostate cancer, then compared their answers to 409 men thought to be free of the disease. As well as questions about how often they had been sexually active from puberty onwards, they were asked how many sexual partners they had had and whether they had been diagnosed with any sexual infections.

Roughly the same proportion of both groups, 59%, said they had engaged in sexual activity 12 times a month or more in their 20s, falling to 48% in their 30s, 28% in their 40s and 13% in their 50s. Almost two-fifths of the prostate cancer group had had six female partners or more, compared with less than a third of the non-cancer group.

Frequency risk

There was also a difference among the men who masturbated or had sex the most often, with 40% of men in the cancer group being sexually active 20 times a month or more in their 20s, compared with 32% in the non-cancer group. The gap between the two groups narrowed as the men aged, suggesting that the difference was strongest at a younger age.

Dr Dimitropoulou said: "What makes our study stand out from previous research is that we focused on a younger age group than normal and included both intercourse and masturbation at various stages in the participants' lives." He said that it was possible that higher levels of sex hormones in some men were both responsible for a high sex drive in their 20s and 30s, and for the development of prostate cancer later on. "Hormones appear to play a key role in prostate cancer and it is very common to treat men with therapy to reduce the hormones thought to stimulate the cancer cells."

She said that the reasons why the connection between sexual activity and prostate risk appeared to diminish with advancing age was not clear, although other studies have suggested that sexual activity releases toxins from the gland. John Neate, chief executive of The Prostate Cancer Charity, said that while the study was useful, its findings would need to be backed by more evidence before they could be accepted

He said: "The role of sexual activity is becoming an increasing focus for prostate cancer research but unfortunately this study does little to offer any practical advice to men wishing to reduce their risk of the disease.

"The study is retrospective, and asks men to complete a questionnaire about their sexual history.

"However, in relying on men to recall information from 20 or 30 years previously, it is likely that there will be some inaccuracy in the data collected as men either consciously or unconsciously forget some detail which could compromise their findings.

"The sample used in the study is also relatively small, making it difficult to draw any universal conclusions."


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7850666.stm

Useful Infos:
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2896
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 160824.htm

yeah right what a big piece of bs. Sorry but I really wonder why noone is asking the only important questions (maybe cause they dont want healthy people when its a multi-billion $ business with the illness of the people, healthy people are not profitable, cause they have no need for pills). Why do some people get cancer and others dont and how come that in our industrial and modern society cancer is spreading like a wildfire and in other third world or non modern societies cancer is nearly non-existant? How come that since the industrial revolution in countries like china, the rate of cancer did also increase?

Noone ask the question if cancer and the increase of cancer in our western modern society may have something to do with all the industrial shit in the air, stress, people eating unhealthy and dont do sports, people smoke or take drugs (even medical pills are drugs btw. and its an profen fact that the missuse of antibiotics cause bacterias become imune against the antibiotics and thats cause when people have a little cold then they take the strongest antibiotics against ist, antibiotics in chicken, pigs, beef, fish, etc).

Someone should really ask the right questions... or how come that the rate of cancer is risen that huge since the last 100 years and in other countries it isnt? How come that there are countries existing in the world where the cancer rate is 1 in a thousand and in our country its more like that every tenth person will develope cancer in his life already?

Some people get cancer due to a variety of risk factors both genetic and environmental. People with fewer risk factors have a lesser chance of getting cancer. Minimizing those risk factors that can be reduced (i.e environmental factors such as smoking) reduces one's risk of cancer.

One reason that cancer is seen to be more widespread in developed countries than in less economically developed countries is the fact that infectious disease now causes very little death in modernized countries. When, in a less developed country, a large portion of the population is dying of malaria. That section of the population isn't going to live long enough to get cancer. Thus overall incidence of cancer is lower in said countries.

Another reason is one that you touch upon, some air pollutants (such as those produced by factories in china since the industrial boom) are know carcinogens (cancer causing substances). This clearly would cause and increase in cancer incidence. Smoking too is a well known cause of cancer, as wealth increases, more people can afford cigarettes, smoking in china has increased drastically in accordance with the industrial boom.

However, it is incorrect to draw blanket assumptions about cancer without looking at what types of cancer are occuring where. In actuality, Europe and the US (more developed countries) have a lower incidence of cervical cancer than the rest of the world. This is due to the fact that cervical cancer is caused largely by virus and viral infections are on the decline in western countries.

The antibiotic issue is an unrelated but still important concern of many doctors and biologist relating to the rise of new strains of disease which may be harder to treat. That said, the west has antibiotics and through their use has drastically decreased the death toll of infectious disease and I'm not about to complain over that.

To conclude, incidence of cancer is higher in more developed countries for two main reasons, less death from other causes leads to more people living long enough to get cancer; also several well known risk factors are more prevalent in industrialized nations.
Still, overall incidence of early death is significantly higher in less developed countries and life expectancy is significantly lower so i would posit that we are doing something right.

However, in relying on men to recall information from 20 or 30 years previously, it is likely that there will be some inaccuracy in the data

You think?

No, but seriously: We're talking about a single survey (This is not a study, they didn't experiment, they surveyed.) and on top of that it has a small sample size. Their results (higher risk in 20s, lower risk in 50s) is at best a vague indicator and at worst just plain wrong.

I do however agree with lead scientist Dr. Polyxeni Dimitropoulou's conclusion: (Most awesome name ever!)

It is kind of logical that a moderate level of masturbatory activity has to be maintained, not too much, and not none at all.

Source (down near the end)

Wise words.

That's why I marked the last sentences as bold. It's just a little research. Don't take it too serious, but I know we often get questions here about the health of denial. I heard it in the news today, so I looked for an english article about.

The times they are a changing.

On the 16th July 2003 the magazine New Scientist headlined :

Masturbating may protect against prostate cancer

Sadly the New Scientist gained it's results by focussing on the number of ejaculations :

"The team concludes that the more men ejaculate between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they are to develop prostate cancer."


Bad news for T&D ?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3942

yes.

denial play is less healthy than orgasms.

but to some it's worth it, apparently

illtaket42 wrote:The times they are a changing.

On the 16th July 2003 the magazine New Scientist headlined :

Masturbating may protect against prostate cancer

Sadly the New Scientist gained it's results by focussing on the number of ejaculations :

"The team concludes that the more men ejaculate between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they are to develop prostate cancer."


Bad news for T&D ?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3942

This is an old survey and it was the reason why I posted the new one. The old one was already well known here