tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2281443754502891373.post5256705204410875688..comments2023-09-16T09:09:18.691-04:00Comments on Kittywampus - now at kittywampus.wordpress.com: And It Won't Make You Blind, EitherSungoldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153155221248240952noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2281443754502891373.post-2288008043260402782008-04-28T09:55:00.000-04:002008-04-28T09:55:00.000-04:00Harder has a point in any event that it's silly to...Harder has a point in any event that it's silly to present this *as if it's new.* But it's good to know that you don't remember hearing about this, either, because it probably means it really didn't make news at the time.<BR/><BR/>The fish wrap metaphor is not going to make any sense to our grandchildren, who will wonder how the heck you're supposed to wrap a computer around anything!<BR/><BR/>You have a good point about the grant money. The studies' methodologies *were* different. The one in Oz relied entirely on questionnaire data reported after the fact, while the NIH one was partly prospective since it followed a group of men all through the 1990s (but did use retrospective data to get at earlier behavior). Both looked at relatively large populations (at least 1000 healthy and 1000 diagnosed men in each study). <BR/><BR/>If you look at how the studies' results were reported in the medical journals, you can see that they weren't actually designed to find a benefit of ejaculation - this was an incidental finding! They were trying to examine the presumed *negative* impact of sexual activity on prostate health, which a prior meta-analysis had found. Both studies state that they found no evidence that greater sexual frequency raised the risk of PCa. <BR/><BR/>So part of what's going on here is a paradigm shift. My guess is that it would be useful to extend the NIH data with another round of questionnaires in 2010 (the original study looked at 1992-2000) and see if the original findings still hold up. But it doesn't look as though there are plans to do that. To me, the NIH results, in particular, look pretty convincing but the authors stated them in pretty cautious tones and also noted that they don't really understand the mechanisms through which frequent ejaculation may be protective.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, I think it's safe to say the benefits vastly, vastly outweigh the risks. Thanks, figleaf!Sungoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02153155221248240952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2281443754502891373.post-37302806612517200162008-04-28T09:02:00.000-04:002008-04-28T09:02:00.000-04:00I think there are two things to keep in mind about...I think there are two things to keep in mind about Harder's post.<BR/><BR/>First, I don't remember there being much buzz about the Australian study five years ago. Or the four-year-old NIH study that corroborated the first. If there was a giant fuss the first time, and this is all just round two of the same info then fine, Harder's got a point. (Although an ironic one considering the journalist's lament about "today's best reporting is tomorrow's fish wrap.)<BR/><BR/>The other point is that if two independent studies a year apart that use even slightly different methodologies come up with virtually identical results then... why the heck would anyone waste good grant money following up with a third? (That's not to say more credible research into *other* health benefits and/or risks of frequent vs. infrequent ejaculation wouldn't be useful. But it sounds like the prostate correlation is in the bag.)figleafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01440982008394316977noreply@blogger.com