Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and makes up about 8 percent of all new reported cases. So here’s some news that’s bound to make a few men happy about reducing their risk. According to a recent study conducted by the Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women Hospital men can reduce their risk for prostate cancer simply by having an orgasm a day. Researchers found that achieving orgasm and ejaculating, whether through sex or masturbation, could significantly reduce the risk of prostate cancer in men by nearly a quarter. It also provides a host of health benefits such as a boost in immunity, better sleep, and can even protect against heart disease.
The research data that was compiled demonstrated that participants who ejaculated as much as 21 times in a one month period minimized their risk of developing prostate cancer by as much as 22 percent. Dr. Jennifer R. Rider, Assistant Professor of Medicine, further indicated in an interview regarding the research stated that,
“The current study is the largest prospective study to date on ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer. It includes 18 years of follow up of almost 32,000 healthy men, 3839 of whom later were diagnosed with prostate cancer. We asked men about their average monthly frequency of ejaculation between the ages of 20-29, 40-49, and in the year prior to the questionnaire (1991). We find that frequency of ejaculation throughout life course is inversely associated with risk of prostate cancer at all three of these time points. For instance, men who have an average monthly ejaculation frequency of 21 or more times/month at ages 40-49 have a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of developing prostate cancer compared to men with a frequency of 4-7 times/month, adjusting for multiple dietary and lifestyle factors, and prostate cancer screening history.”
Dr. Rider also believes that while the new data presented on the potential benefit of orgasm and the reduced risk of developing prostate cancer are by far the most compelling, the data is still purely observational and should be interpreted cautiously.