Troublesome article about biking creates concern in my family

[Raymo853]

Remind your wife there is a stronger correlation between men who that do not ejaculate often enough and prostate cancer rates.

[bobco85]

The article from the Journal of Men’s Health is here: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/jomh.2014.0012

Important text from the results of this study:

The findings suggest a graded association between cycling and risk of prostate cancer, but whether this is a definitive association related to causation or diagnosis remains to be seen.

Regardless of the study’s findings, you should get a more comfortable bike seat. In the meantime, don’t worry about this study because it doesn’t prove anything just yet.

[Terpfan]

@lordofthemark 90362 wrote:

No, not THAT article, no one in my family takes Mr Milloy seriously.

My wife is now worried I might get prostate cancer from biking more than 4 hours a week (which assuming my commuting becomes more regular after we move, is how much I will be biking.) She understands the other health benefits, but I also mentioned to her that I could get a better seat.

Do I need to a new seat (saddle?) only if I am feeling discomfort, or is there a health benefit anyway. What should I look for in a new seat? Note I did not have a new seat at the top of my shopping list, as I still need a some other accessories and kit.

Sitting though also leads to cancer–

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-sitting-may-raise-risk-for-certain-cancers-study-finds/

Damned if you, damned if you don’t, eh?

If you’re still worried, this urology link provides some good stuff: http://www.drcatalona.com/qa/faq_prevention.asp . It says “Prolonged cycling on a hard seat is thought to affect potency by injuring the pudendal arteries that supply blood to the penis. Cycling can also traumatize the prostate, causing an elevation in the PSA level.” On the positive side, it seems to imply that sexual activity (rather more men getting off) is quite beneficial for the prostate. Not that it works this way, but it would be nice to think one could simply counteract the imbalance by simply having more sex.

[baiskeli]

@Raymo853 90365 wrote:

Remind your wife there is a stronger correlation between men who that do not ejaculate often enough and prostate cancer rates.

If you aren’t a doctor, you ought to be.

[jrenaut]

Cycling gets you in better shape, making you more attractive as a mate, which of course leads to more sex. The problem takes care of itself!

[TwoWheelsDC]

Nothing in this study leads me to believe that the potential risks (which may not even be related to cycling) outweigh the health benefits of cycling.

[baiskeli]

@TwoWheelsDC 90372 wrote:

Nothing in this study leads me to believe that the potential risks (which may not even be related to cycling) outweigh the health benefits of cycling.

It might make you want to buy a recumbent though.

[lordofthemark]

@TwoWheelsDC 90372 wrote:

Nothing in this study leads me to believe that the potential risks (which may not even be related to cycling) outweigh the health benefits of cycling.

I’ve already used the CVD and blood sugar benefits (important to me personally) to calm worries about getting hit by a car. But you can only use that so many times. We are talking a wife, not an actuary (I mean some wives are actuaries, of course, but not this one.)

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 90380 wrote:

I’ve already used the CVD and blood sugar benefits (important to me personally) to calm worries about getting hit by a car. But you can only use that so many times. We are talking a wife, not an actuary (I mean some wives are actuaries, of course, but not this one.)

What’s your alternative? Cars are pretty stinking dangerous…

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 90386 wrote:

What’s your alternative? Cars are pretty stinking dangerous…

I guess I’m looking for advice on saddles – maybe I should have posted this in the equipment forum. Though it appears that since the article did not establish a causal path (or even causality, for sure) one cannot in fact say what kind of saddle would make this less likely. I mean since all we have is correlation we don’t know if its a particular saddle attribute at fault, or, not to be too flippant, its the lights, or the sun, or the wind, or whatever.

I guess I just want to say “look, I’ve taken your concern seriously, and gotten a saddle that should help”. Kind of like when she gets worried about collisions I talk helmets and trails, even if I’ve read all the helmet skeptic and VC articles.

I mean I could talk about the link between overweight and prostate cancer, but I am already at normal BMI even with my current level of biking.

[TwoWheelsDC]

I wouldn’t get a new saddle unless your current one is giving you issues. If it ain’t broke…

Also, as you ramp up the miles, you may have some discomfort while your body adjusts, so you’re saddle may hurt initially, but end up feeling perfect after some time.

[mcfarton]

If your saddle doesn’t bother you don’t worry about it. But you should state what type of bike you have. As that would affect what type of saddle is appropriate.

[lordofthemark]

@mcfarton 90398 wrote:

If your saddle doesn’t bother you don’t worry about it. But you should state what type of bike you have. As that would affect what type of saddle is appropriate.

Kona Dew. An upright hybrid.

[mcfarton]

For my upright bike I grabed a seat off of amazon. It had high customer reviews and was around 40 bucks shipped. I like it, I know that it is a planet bike seat. But I can’t remember the model.

[mstone]

Brooks. Only negative is attractiveness to thieves, and rain. I do keep a cover rolled up under the saddle of the Brooks and have camped in the woods in torrential downpours with the bike sitting out, but if I parked outside to commute it might give me pause. I also have a selle anatomica which is a touch less comfortable (but also newer and maybe less dialed in) and supposedly water resistant.

[Author]

Posts