Significance of pain during ejaculation? W/O pain can I conclude pain is not backpressure?
rbungay
problem and what it has come to mean for you.
I am 18 week post vasectomy and I have been in pain for almost the entire
time. After much research, I self diagnosed (either wisely or unwisely) -
congestive epididymitis primarily as a result of closed-ended procedure.
When I finally saw a uro last week, he was with me until I said that I DO
NOT have pain with ejaculation. This he concluded definately means I do not
have pain due to backpressure. I have my doubts but I can't prove
otherwise. What do you on the board think of this opinion?
He has sent me back to my GP for discussion about a stronger
anti-inflamatory (Cox 2 inhibitor type) since he feels my pain is simply due
to an "inflamatory process" and may simply take a year or two to disappear.
Without a doubt, he made one excellent point when refusing to do a reversal
for me - more surgery could make everything worse (he sited nerve entrapment
an a possible root cause.) I accept this because I'm not in a risk taking
mood but I feel somewhat without options given that I don't have much faith
in more medication.
Interested on any thoughts...
Richard
dez
> I am 18 week post vasectomy and I have been in pain for almost the entire
> time. After much research, I self diagnosed (either wisely or unwisely) -
> congestive epididymitis primarily as a result of closed-ended procedure.
>
I doubt that anyone knows what your problem is, so your guess is as
good as theirs.
> When I finally saw a uro last week, he was with me until I said that I DO
> NOT have pain with ejaculation. This he concluded definately means I do not
> have pain due to backpressure. I have my doubts but I can't prove
> otherwise. What do you on the board think of this opinion?
I think it is just a random opinion from a urologist. And other
urologists would have other opinions (like it is all in your head).
Of the many urologists I have spoken with, none of them seem to really
understand the mechanisms for sperm transport from the epididymus to
the urethra.
Here is what I come up with from trying to understand what they claim
to understand:
There are urologists who believe (without any evidence that they could
point me to) that during orgasm, an impulse of sperm is transported
suddenly through the epididymus into the tubing leading to the
urethra. That is, the epididymus acts like a fluid pump. This would
mean that if there is a blockage in the tubing near the epididymus, or
a vas cut, then that is when you would feel the pain from
backpressure. Others believe that sperm always diffuses, or rather,
is gradually transported through the tubing, so that during orgasm
only some of the sperm that is already present in the tubes is
ejaculated outside. This would put the fluid pump closer to the
urethra, and so you wouldn't necessarily feel any pain.
Maybe there is a definite answer to this question, but no one has
really pointed me to any evidence.
> He has sent me back to my GP for discussion about a stronger
> anti-inflamatory (Cox 2 inhibitor type) since he feels my pain is simply due
> to an "inflamatory process" and may simply take a year or two to disappear.
>
A year or two? This sounds idiotic to me, IMHO. Pain is a sign of
trouble. I wouldn't wait a year or two. I myself would get a
reversal, but that is only me...you need to do what is most
comfortable for you.
> Without a doubt, he made one excellent point when refusing to do a reversal
> for me - more surgery could make everything worse (he sited nerve entrapment
> an a possible root cause.) I accept this because I'm not in a risk taking
> mood but I feel somewhat without options given that I don't have much faith
> in more medication.
>
> Interested on any thoughts...
I think that you need to find another urologist, and I also think that
you need to find someone who is expert in PVP. A reversal is a pretty
serious operation, but from some of the posts here, it does seem to
work. I myself would have done it quite willingly if my pains had
continued. If my pains start up again, I would definitely go through
a reversal myself.
Good luck, and keep us informed.
--Dez.
trifold
"rbungay" <rbu...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:
> When I finally saw a uro last week, he was with me until I said that I DO
> NOT have pain with ejaculation. This he concluded definately means I do not
> have pain due to backpressure. I have my doubts but I can't prove
> otherwise. What do you on the board think of this opinion?
Hmmmm...I've read that there are important contractions in the epi
during ejac. And I guess those would cause pain if there were lots of
congestion or an infection/inflamation. On the other hand, I'm
thinking the real test of congestive epi. would be simpler--the epi
would feel swollen and would be tender when he touched them. I had
some of this my first year (even the dr. said so), but it never hurt
to ejac. (Also, it went away with abx.)
It could be the uro. will have sent a report to the gp that will help
him help you. When you see the gp again, you should ask if he got a
report from the uro. (you shouldn't have to act as go between). And
you should ask the gp all the questions you have and may not have
asked the uro. (In a lot of managed care systems, one job of a gp is
to make sense of the recommendations of specialists and explain them
to the patient.) One question I would have is what he thinks might be
causing the "inflamatory process." And what could be done to
determine the cause. Is it due to an infection in the epi? If so,
why isn't abx working? Some sort of autoimmune response due to sperm
leakage? Scarring? If they say they don't know, then I'd ask how
they know how to proceed with a treatment. Many medical problems are
diagnosed "empirically"--that is, doctors do something without knowing
the cause of the problem, and if what they do works, then they know
what the problem was. If it doesn't, they know to try something else.
Maybe this is what they are trying with you. But I'd ask what there
plan is. Ultimately, I think knowing the cause of pain would be
important. For example, I imagine nerve entrapment would be a wholly
different source of pain than "inflamation"--and would be treated
differently. Probably with surgery to free the nerve; or maybe with
spermatic cord denervation. On the other hand, reopening the vas
would make sense if there is backpressure and if the inflamation is
not due to an autoimmune response. I do agree that reversal is a last
option for all sorts of reasons. But I think finding the cause would
be important--and they should be able to tell you the plan for this
(or explain why they don't have to know to treat you effectively).
Don't rule out "mere medication" as a solution. Medicine is often a
better solution than surgery as long as there aren't serious side
effects. And it could deal with pain caused by inflammation even if
they don't know the source of the inflammation long enough for the
problem to resolve. But I'd want them to explain to me how long
before you should would need to wait before moving to "plan b"--and
why they think the problem will resolve on its own over time.
Good luck. And I hope you will let us know what the gp says.
rvfsl
scaring to have it done .
Dez , I think you have regrets to have it done , and do you think having a
reversal is rather a phycological solution for you .
Reversal is a complicate surgery and the risks to have problems is higher
than vasectomy itself .
A couple of days now , I read a book which talk about chronical pains
after others surgery or road accidents . It 's seems that some people ,
develops chronical pains sometimes after the surgery , sometimes years after
. all is cured physically , but pain is always there , and they must have a
physical treatment to get the pain away . For some , pain is means of living
.
I think if you have regrets with vasectomy , you can develop this kind of
symptoms .
"trifold" <trif...@netscape.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:f6289b53.04031...@posting.google.com...
dez
> I'm considering vasectomy and when I saw the "dez" or "rbungay" posts , I 'm
> scaring to have it done .
> Dez , I think you have regrets to have it done , and do you think having a
> reversal is rather a phycological solution for you .
> Reversal is a complicate surgery and the risks to have problems is higher
> than vasectomy itself .
I don't really have "regrets". I'm quite happy now that it is done.
It is true that if I decided to think about it (which I don't), I
would decide that it is a philosophically ambivalent procedure, and I
might prefer to try something else instead.
As to my view on reversals: yes, they are complicated procedures.
However, most of the practitioners are well-trained (unlike
vasectomists), and the surgery is done very carefully under a
microscope, so there is probably little likelihood of complications.
That said, I would never advise anyone to get a reversal. However, I
note that rbungay has massive pain problems, and from the posts I have
seen here, reversals do seem to help.
If I had pain in my testes, I would sure as hell get a reversal, since
pain is always a sign of something not being right.
--Dez
trifold
desdi...@operamail.com (dez) wrote in message news:
>
> I don't really have "regrets". I'm quite happy now that it is done.
> It is true that if I decided to think about it (which I don't), I
> would decide that it is a philosophically ambivalent procedure, and I
> might prefer to try something else instead.
Ummm. . .I may regret asking, but what do you mean by "a
philosophically ambivalent procedure?"
>
> As to my view on reversals: yes, they are complicated procedures.
> However, most of the practitioners are well-trained (unlike
> vasectomists), and the surgery is done very carefully under a
> microscope, so there is probably little likelihood of complications.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "vasectomist." Board certified family
physicians are trained to do vasectomies. As for the relative risk of
reversals, I don't believe using a microscope entirely compensates for
the extra hazards involved involved in general anaesthesia, the
additional length of the procedure, the additional trauma.
>
> That said, I would never advise anyone to get a reversal. However, I
> note that rbungay has massive pain problems, and from the posts I have
> seen here, reversals do seem to help.
>
> If I had pain in my testes, I would sure as hell get a reversal, since
> pain is always a sign of something not being right.
But let's not forget that there are other less expensive, less
complicated treatments that also have good success, depending on the
source of the pain--reopening the vas tubes on the testicle sides,
spermatic cord denervation, an intensified regimen of
anti-imflammatories, even administration of testosterone (which
suppresses sperm production).
trifold
http://www.vasectomy-information.com
>
> --Dez
dez
> Hi Dez,
>
> desdi...@operamail.com (dez) wrote in message news:
> >
> > I don't really have "regrets". I'm quite happy now that it is done.
> > It is true that if I decided to think about it (which I don't), I
> > would decide that it is a philosophically ambivalent procedure, and I
> > might prefer to try something else instead.
>
> Ummm. . .I may regret asking, but what do you mean by "a
> philosophically ambivalent procedure?"
I myself find the utilitarianism of having a vasectomy pretty
liberating, but I now believe the procedure of cutting one's own vas
deferens to be philosophically disturbing (to me), and medically
unwise (for those with PVP). There is a "cost" involved to everything
one does in life...and hopefully, the cost in getting this "free ride"
will not be too great.
> I'm not sure what you mean by a "vasectomist." Board certified family
> physicians are trained to do vasectomies. As for the relative risk of
> reversals, I don't believe using a microscope entirely compensates for
> the extra hazards involved involved in general anaesthesia, the
> additional length of the procedure, the additional trauma.
Many reversals aren't done under general anasthesia (you seem to have
this problem with always assuming general anasthesia, Trifold). In
fact, I saw one web site in Florida that does it under LOCAL
anasthesia.
With the new vasectomy reversal machines coming out, the procedure
length will be shorter. Also, I assure you that connecting back the
vas referens is LESS traumatic to the body than cutting it.
> > If I had pain in my testes, I would sure as hell get a reversal, since
> > pain is always a sign of something not being right.
>
> But let's not forget that there are other less expensive, less
> complicated treatments that also have good success, depending on the
> source of the pain--reopening the vas tubes on the testicle sides,
> spermatic cord denervation, an intensified regimen of
> anti-imflammatories, even administration of testosterone (which
> suppresses sperm production).
When it comes to one's health, expense shouldn't be an issue. It
strikes as a tragedy when you encourage the use of testosterone
instead of reversals. Testosterone is a death sentence. Besides
screwing up the hormone levels of the average guy, it will also
greatly increase one's chances for prostate cancer.
PVP is caused by severing one's vas deferens. The most effective way
of changing the dynamic of pain is to get the trauma to the body
reversed...
--Dez.
Giraud
> I myself find the utilitarianism of having a vasectomy pretty
> liberating, but I now believe the procedure of cutting one's own vas
> deferens to be philosophically disturbing (to me), and medically
> unwise (for those with PVP). There is a "cost" involved to everything
> one does in life...and hopefully, the cost in getting this "free ride"
> will not be too great.
Does there *have* to be a cost to everything? Is there always a devine
order to the universe that guarantees fairness? Maybe, but these are
philosophical and religious issues. You state it as fact, but I think
care must be taken.
For example, if I fly somewhere, and there is a strong tailwind, I get a
"free ride" of sorts. If, on the day of my return, there is a tailwind
in the opposite direction, I get that for free too. Yeah, it's
solar/wind energy I'm using, but there was no devine policing that made
me "pay" for that.
I don't think there is *necessarily* payback owed from a vasectomy.
Yes, there are problems sometimes due to altering a bodily process and
the effects of that (backpressure, etc.), but nature would only be able
to "take action" if evolution provided a "vasectomy prevention"
mechanism (one, arguably, is recanalization, but that's rare). And for
evolution to work takes time, a lot longer than vasectomy has been around.
To imply otherwise requires some kind of devine judgement or punishment
to be at work.
> With the new vasectomy reversal machines coming out, the procedure
> length will be shorter. Also, I assure you that connecting back the
> vas referens is LESS traumatic to the body than cutting it.
This is a strong statement, and it sounds like it's based on your
philosophical problem with vasectomy. There are many operations that
involve cutting or even removing something from the body, but this
doesn't make them a bad idea in principle. Modern medicine is all about
doing unnatural things to ourselves (operations, drugs, etc.).
Now, there may be after effects to interrupting the sperm flow
(backpressure issues, etc.), but the actual cutting is simple and
doesn't usually cause major trauma. What people most likely mean when
they say reversal is traumatic is that it involves a long and
complicated operation that disturbs the tissue more profoundly. It
involves a larger incision in the scrotum, for example.
Are you referring to the end result (putting the body back to a more
natural state)? Yes, it is true that the mechanics of sperm flow would
be closer to the way they used to be, and it may relieve PVP, etc. But
the actual operation is probably more traumatic than the original
vasectomy, and there may be other ways to relieve the pain. I do agree
that testosterone therapy is a scary idea (I'd go to great lengths to
avoid that!), but maybe open-ended conversion is a viable option.
> PVP is caused by severing one's vas deferens. The most effective way
> of changing the dynamic of pain is to get the trauma to the body
> reversed...
Maybe. But I maintain that your blanket statement that the body should
(philosophically) be returned to its original state has some problems.
For example, would you say that after an appendectomy, it would really
be best to reconnect the appendix because it relieves the "trauma" of
cutting it out? Nature isn't perfect, and our bodies are not perfectly
designed. Take the knee - what a horrible design! But designing
something like that is hard, and nature/evolution, being a "random"
process, takes a really long time, and it doesn't always get it just
right. People have knee surgery to clean up stuff that causes them
pain. It works in lots of cases, and I doubt you could tell the guy who
is pain-free now that he should have left nature alone.
What I'm trying to say is that the idea you have latched onto, namely
that this change to the body is philosophically wrong, is understandable
on the surface, and yet it should be examined a little. You may find
that taking ths belief to its logical conclusion would eliminate much of
your modern life. Flying isn't natural for humans, but I'm not going to
stop doing it because of that.
Giraud
Steve Law
Good luck in trying to sort our all the different messages. I have
posted here for years. There are basically two camps, those that
defend vasectomies and thus consider reversal to not be an option with
reasoning they don't apply to vasectomy in the first place. This same
pro-vasectomy group defends vasectomy by trying to underplay the real
pain and problems that vasectomies can cause. This group often falls
back to 'it is in your head' rather than recognize the problem is
between the legs. The other camp recognizes the real risks are not
being conveyed to men.
You can use Google Groups to search for more information that I have
posted by search for 'Steve L' - with this search you will also get
the counter points by David, Trifold and others.
Vasectomy is associated with the following:
- increased rate of prostrate cancer (more studies indicate this then
don't)
- Testosterone changes from normal (with loss being a common theme)
- PVP varying from the 'kick in the nuts' to the constant low
annoying
- Increased Auto-Immune reaction due to ASA - and recent news
articles suggest constant inflammation of any kind leads to greater
risks of other ailments (recent Time Mag Coverage and others)
Vasectomy causes changes to the endocrine system of the male body.
There will be those that will try to tell you that ASA is common even
among non-vasectomized men, but fail to mention that the ASA antigens
are orders of magnitude higher in vasectomized men then non.
Some folks will say there is no proof, without showing you the proof
of the safety themselves. You will not be able to find a post
vasectomy study that gives men the testosterone levels of vasectomized
verus non-vasectomized men 10 years after the procedure in the common
levels of ng/dl. Something that would go along way to informing all of
us if there is really no change to men.
Good Luck, and God's Speed,
Steve L
trifold
desdi...@operamail.com (dez) wrote in message news:
>
> I myself find the utilitarianism of having a vasectomy pretty
> liberating, but I now believe the procedure of cutting one's own vas
> deferens to be philosophically disturbing (to me),
I still don't understand this statement. A "philosophical" opposition
to vasectomy, though, is a good reason not to get one. And, I
believe, a predictor of trouble for those who do.
>and medically
> unwise (for those with PVP).
You mean for those who develop pvp because of vasectomy, having the
vasectomy was unwise? I guess I can agree with this.Unless, of
course, the "pvp" can be dealt with medically like complications from
other procedures that have clear benefits. Happily, this is almost
always the case. But there is something wrong with the general
formulation. It would make more sense to say, "It is unwise to get a
vasectomy because you may develop complications leading to pvp that
cannot be treated." Such a statement, of course, would be subject to
the usual qualifications--what are the medically verifiable risks of
unresolvable complications, what are the benefits of the procedure,
what are the risks of not having the procedure and relying on other
forms of birth control, etc. For many, given these calculations, the
decision for vasectomy may be wise. But we've been over this. And
all these rational calculations could be trumped by a "philosophical
objection." My preference would be to say, "for those who develop
vasectomy related pvp, the decision to have a vasectomy is unlucky."
>There is a "cost" involved to everything
> one does in life...and hopefully, the cost in getting this "free ride"
> will not be too great.
This economic model seems unhelpful. After all, there are also costs
to everything one does NOT do in life.
>
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by a "vasectomist." Board certified family
> > physicians are trained to do vasectomies. As for the relative risk of
> > reversals, I don't believe using a microscope entirely compensates for
> > the extra hazards involved involved in general anaesthesia, the
> > additional length of the procedure, the additional trauma.
>
> Many reversals aren't done under general anasthesia (you seem to have
> this problem with always assuming general anasthesia, Trifold).
Maybe. Certainly most are, as I understand it.
> In
> fact, I saw one web site in Florida that does it under LOCAL
> anasthesia.
>
> With the new vasectomy reversal machines coming out, the procedure
> length will be shorter. Also, I assure you that connecting back the
> vas referens is LESS traumatic to the body than cutting it.
I was talking of the trauma involved in the procedure. I'm not
convinced "trauma" is the word to describe the body's successful
compensatory responses to a blockage of sperm flow.
>
>
> > > If I had pain in my testes, I would sure as hell get a reversal, since
> > > pain is always a sign of something not being right.
> >
> > But let's not forget that there are other less expensive, less
> > complicated treatments that also have good success, depending on the
> > source of the pain--reopening the vas tubes on the testicle sides,
> > spermatic cord denervation, an intensified regimen of
> > anti-imflammatories, even administration of testosterone (which
> > suppresses sperm production).
>
> When it comes to one's health, expense shouldn't be an issue. It
> strikes as a tragedy when you encourage the use of testosterone
> instead of reversals. Testosterone is a death sentence. Besides
> screwing up the hormone levels of the average guy, it will also
> greatly increase one's chances for prostate cancer.
I share your concern re: testosterone as a therapy for pvp. In fact,
I am on record here as cautioning against it, especially as a long
term therapy. Still, I know it is practised short term and under
careful watch. My main point above is that a vasectomy reversal is not
a sensible response to all testical pain after vasectomy.
>
> PVP is caused by severing one's vas deferens. The most effective way
> of changing the dynamic of pain is to get the trauma to the body
> reversed...
This statement seems careless. Severing the vas deferens is not
always the cause of pvp. Sometimes the cause is sperm backpressure,
which could be addressed by reopening the testicular ends of the
tubes. Or incidental nerve damage, which could be addressed by sperm
denervation. Or a granuloma or scar tissue impinging on a nerve,
which could be addressed by removing the granuloma or the scar tissue.
Or by some persistent infection in the epidydimis or structural
damage to the epidydimis that could be addressed by its removal. Or
indeed by a coincidental problem not related to the vasectomy ("post
vasectomy pain" literally means pain following vasectomy, not pain
caused by vasectomy). My point is that in all the cases cited above,
vasectomy reversal is not necessarily the best solution. Indeed, it
might not work at all. I can see reversal as the necessary solution
in at least two cases: when pain is caused by persistent imflammatory
auto-immune response to sperm; when pain is pschosomomatic, caused by
a "philosophical" ambivalence about the procedure itself.
David
> Good luck in trying to sort our all the different messages. I have
> posted here for years. There are basically two camps, those that
> defend vasectomies and thus consider reversal to not be an option with
> reasoning they don't apply to vasectomy in the first place. This same
> pro-vasectomy group defends vasectomy by trying to underplay the real
> pain and problems that vasectomies can cause. This group often falls
> back to 'it is in your head' rather than recognize the problem is
> between the legs. The other camp recognizes the real risks are not
> being conveyed to men.
I think you must have posted to a different group. I don't defend vasectomy,
nor do I consider reversal "not" to be an option - same goes for all of the
other regular posters. Neither do we say it's in your head. In your absence
I hope you have been reading some of the excellent recent posts from people
concerned with problems. Steve Joiner is one that springs to mind
immediately - there are others too of course.
I have no problem with being labeled - just get the label right. The labels
you ascribe to people are far from correct, and do a dis-service to all.
>
> You can use Google Groups to search for more information that I have
> posted by search for 'Steve L' - with this search you will also get
> the counter points by David, Trifold and others.
Steve - do you really want to advise this? I did as you suggest and seem to
have found one post dated 16 feb 2003 where you claim your penis has grown
larger since your reversal, and of course the rather shameful thread where
quotes were made up and attributed to Dr. Mark Goldstein. He is the doctor
that introduced NSV to the US and is currently pioneering reversal surgery
with robots if you read the recent thread on this.
If there are specific posts you feel you have made a point well, then I'd
post that personally.
Sigh. Once only reply. Any further discussion will be referred back to this
post.
>
> Vasectomy is associated with the following:
> - increased rate of prostrate cancer (more studies indicate this then
> don't)
I'm well aware that this is used as the "Bogey man" to scare people off.
When people find out they have been not exactly been informed correctly,
they turn against you. A bad move if you have a point to make.
You refer to the table in Schwingle Guess. Anyone wanting to read the
section fully, and in it's proper context the entire document is on the
website. "Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy".
I would point out that the Gianvanucci study you usually refer to is flawed.
1. It was conducted on women.
2. They did NOT ascertain *if* the men had prostate cancer.
3. They did NOT ascertain *if* the men had a vasectomy.
4. they did NOT compare the results to known data.
In the past you have often claimed the study had a 20 year follow up. The
follow up was 18 months-3 years after the original. 20 years refers to the
fact that some of the men in the study were older. It is a known fact that
older men *do* have an increased incidence of prostate cancer, and it
increases gradually with age. The men in the older age group were NOT
compared with the known incidence of prostate cancer by age. Nor was it
ascertained if the had prostate cancer OR vasectomy either!
Since that study there have been several large studies (including 2 in the
US) were the facts of prostate cancer and vasectomy have been ascertained
from medical records - an entirely different picture emerges.
> - Testosterone changes from normal (with loss being a common theme)
Now would it be too much to ask you to post some evidence to support this
claim? Please read old Steve Law posts to see what happens every time we ask
for evidence to back up statements.
> - PVP varying from the 'kick in the nuts' to the constant low
> annoying
Nobody disputes that PVP exists here Steve. To say we pretend it's not the
case is untrue. Only this week I've posted a 2004 study into this to the
journals section, and we have been discussing the excellent Christiansen &
Sandlow articel on this from 2003 recently.
> - Increased Auto-Immune reaction due to ASA - and recent news
> articles suggest constant inflammation of any kind leads to greater
> risks of other ailments (recent Time Mag Coverage and others)
Are you making two seperate points here? ASA detectable incidence does
increase - we have discussed this bere, and to claim we say it doesn't does
us a dis-service.
>
> Vasectomy causes changes to the endocrine system of the male body.
> There will be those that will try to tell you that ASA is common even
> among non-vasectomized men, but fail to mention that the ASA antigens
> are orders of magnitude higher in vasectomized men then non.
See above. The study you usually refer to says that *only* vasectomised men
have ASA's which is completely untrue. The point we make constantly is that
there is an increased incidence of detectable ASA in vasectomised men. The
know effect of them is to make the chances of fathering a child less post
reversal - a point we frequently make.
I will not enter into a flame war - the last few months we have had
excellent discussions on these topics and I am not going back to olden
times. I will challenge any misrepresented facts, and ask for evidence.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Giraud
> This group often falls
> back to 'it is in your head' rather than recognize the problem is
> between the legs. The other camp recognizes the real risks are not
> being conveyed to men.
Steve, I take exception to your comment! I have never seen any one here
try to imply that pain is "all in one's head." In fact, the regulars
here have a gread disdain for doctors who dismiss patients in this way.
There are psychological factors to vasectomy, and we've tried to explore
them here, since I think being less cut and dried (forgive the pun),
they are less well understood than the purely physiological (and some
are quite unexpected). But this group is supportive of those in pain,
and we all know the pain is real.
Giraud
dez
> What I'm trying to say is that the idea you have latched onto, namely
> that this change to the body is philosophically wrong, is understandable
> on the surface, and yet it should be examined a little. You may find
> that taking ths belief to its logical conclusion would eliminate much of
> your modern life. Flying isn't natural for humans, but I'm not going to
> stop doing it because of that.
Hey, Giraud, I think you are taking my statement too seriously. Just
because I am ambivalent philosophically about vasectomy does not mean
I can't sleep at night :-). In fact, I probably sleep better 'cause I
can have a "quickie" any time I want :-).
All I am saying about the effects of my philosophical ambivalence is
this: if there *ever* develops any bad effects of the vasectomy, then
I will get a vasectomy reversal. Nothing more, nothing less. This
means that (if I had pains) I wouldn't start going into mental
gymnastics about taking testosterone or opening up the vas ends, or
those half-way measures. I'd just say: "Go in, and undo it!"
Note that I had philosophical ambivalence about my wife taking birth
control pills also, but yet she did for a while. I have philosophical
ambivalence about living in a world that has so many poor people, but
I don't give all my money to charity. I also have philosophical
ambivalence about living in countries that invade other countries, but
I have no plans on leaving the USA for the moment. So philosophical
ambivalences are pretty harmless...
--Dez.
Steve Law
Yes, I have made mistakes in the past and have always admitted when
they occur. I have seen Trifold only refer to part of studies that
support his 'no-problemo view' of vasectomy and ignore damning
evidence. David for all of his 'neutrality' seems to only notice
critics mistaks not supporters. David also has been known to emphasize
one study and not the entire body of studies regarding vasectomies.
Yes, anyone who searches as I suggest will see those posts and
counter-points also. They will see it all, point and counter point.
Stupid & Profound by all. Perfection - I have not achieved it yet -
probably never will. But if mistakes of mine is how you expect men to
judge the risks, well that is an old argument trick, rather than focus
on the real issues - typical David, something he reverts to on
occassion - just like he sometimes refers to wife pressure as the
reason for vasectomy complications.
I take it giraud has not read the recent posts where folks again tried
to convince a poster that he must have regrets thus the pain. Yes,
David has been more careful of late, but he and Trifold still lean
that way.
I still read most of the posts. Lately a few of suffers, seemed to be
getting the run around. David, Trifold, and others seem to forget that
reversal still has been shown to be the most effective method of
treating PVP. Again refer to past posts.
As a recent poster said there is no free lunch on Birth Control and
when it comes to vasectomy doctors do not tell men the price they may
have to pay before they undergo the procedure. If the true risks were
given to men in language that was clear, there would be little debate.
With so many vasectomies, and so many suffers who find there way here,
we all should be asking for real ng/dl studies to end the debate; real
PVP rates so that men know the true risk factors. The lack of studies
do not point to little risk, but to not enough information for a man
to give informed consent to a procedure that may radically alter his
life.
Just take note of how real HRT studies backed by US Senate completey
turned HRT treatment completely opposite the accepted wisdom,
including just lately that HRT increases risk of Alzheimers, where
before it was thought to decrease risk. No such comprehensive studies
have been done on vasectomy.
Steve L
David
post. All of the points raised have been discussed many times, so on this
occasion there is no need to answer you directly. I can live with the
character assasination. It seems that over the last few years we have been
battering these issues to death and acheiving nothing in the process.
The last few months has proved something. It is possible to discuss PVP and
the wider implications of vasectomy in an atmosphere of mutual respect. The
issues have not simply gone away, or not been referred to over the last few
months. Indeed, the discussions on these points have increased, with more
people participating. Nowadays, when newbies ask questions, they get a
variety of replies from all viewpoints, from posters who respect the other's
opinion and input. This atmosphere of late has allowed and enabled
discussions to take place on pvp and other topics that are informative, and
enlightening. Newbies no longer feel they are marching into a flame war and
stay away, and the other regulars from all points of view have been more
prolific of late, which is to my mind absolutely fantastic.
The standard of discussion recently has been superb. All points of view have
been respected, and indeed all posters have had the respect they deserve,
and for me there is no going back.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
dez
>
> desdi...@operamail.com (dez) wrote in message news:
> >
> > I myself find the utilitarianism of having a vasectomy pretty
> > liberating, but I now believe the procedure of cutting one's own vas
> > deferens to be philosophically disturbing (to me),
>
> I still don't understand this statement. A "philosophical" opposition
> to vasectomy, though, is a good reason not to get one. And, I
> believe, a predictor of trouble for those who do.
So, Trifold, are you predicting that I am going to have clinical
problems with my vasectomy because I am not completely philosophically
comfortable about it? What sort of clinical problems are you
predicting for me?
--Dez.
PS: Please don't suggest (like you did above) that I am
philosophically opposed to vasectomy. I have used the words
"philosophically ambivalent" and "philosophically disturbing" -- and
they were always put in a personal -- and not universal context. In
addition, I have bent over backwards to explain that this ambivalence
is only present if I choose to conduct a philosophical dialog with
myself, which is not very often. I do, however, maintain that the
"ambivalence" will make it easier for *me* to get a vasectomy reversal
if trouble ever develops (like you predict above).
trifold
I will leave aside your unsubtantiated claims below, which have been
addressed countless times here. I do want to make clear that I don't
reject reversal as an option for pvp. I just don't think it is the
only option, nor always the best.
Giraud
> I take it giraud has not read the recent posts where folks again tried
> to convince a poster that he must have regrets thus the pain. Yes,
> David has been more careful of late, but he and Trifold still lean
> that way.
This is not cut and dried. The psychological and physical interplay in
mysterious ways. But you misread the posts if you think there was the
implication that the pain was all in someone's head. It is probably
true, however, that pain will most likely be more bothersome or
magnified if there is regret. Stress can even cause pain. My balls
hurt when I am upset or stressed sometimes. Is that due to a physical
process? Who knows. Part of it is focus too: Since I am almost 40, I
have aches and pains from all sorts of things (I do a lot of strenuous
things, like indoor climbing, so that's to be expected). If I focus on
what aches, I will notice it more. If you hate your vasectomy, or if
you were pressured into it but against it, and you also have aches
sometimes, you'll HATE those aches and they will be a reminder of
something you resent. No one says the pain is not real.
> As a recent poster said there is no free lunch on Birth Control and
> when it comes to vasectomy doctors do not tell men the price they may
> have to pay before they undergo the procedure. If the true risks were
> given to men in language that was clear, there would be little debate.
Although I don't believe there is necessarily no free lunch possible in
this arena, I do agree with you, as do many others, that the medical
consultation should be standardized and they should be sure to mention
all risks. My uro *did* mention PVP is a possibility; he was very up
front. All should be frank about this.
Giraud
dez
>
> Vasectomy is associated with the following:
> - increased rate of prostrate cancer (more studies indicate this then
> don't)
Well, I'm new to this newsgroup...but I think that from what I've
read, this does not appear to be the case.
> - Testosterone changes from normal (with loss being a common theme)
Is this true? David, are there any studies that back this up? Is
there anyone on this newsgroup who has had a measured loss in
testosterone himself? I'm only a couple of months post-vas, and
haven't noticed this...but maybe others have. I recall a few postings
that they have ED, but I always read in books and journals that this
was psychological.
> Vasectomy causes changes to the endocrine system of the male body.
> There will be those that will try to tell you that ASA is common even
> among non-vasectomized men, but fail to mention that the ASA antigens
> are orders of magnitude higher in vasectomized men then non.
Yes, that's true. The question, I guess, is whether or not there is a
clinical problem with this.
> Some folks will say there is no proof, without showing you the proof
> of the safety themselves. You will not be able to find a post
> vasectomy study that gives men the testosterone levels of vasectomized
> verus non-vasectomized men 10 years after the procedure in the common
> levels of ng/dl. Something that would go along way to informing all of
> us if there is really no change to men.
Well, I agree with this, Steve, but as you seem not to accept other
medical studies showing no correlation between vasectomy and prostate
cancer, would you accept studies showing no correlation between
vasectomy and testosterone loss? I mean, this stuff works both ways.
In any event, thanks for being on the sceptical side...we need a few
more like you :-).
--Dez.
David
> > - Testosterone changes from normal (with loss being a common theme)
>
> Is this true? David, are there any studies that back this up? Is
> there anyone on this newsgroup who has had a measured loss in
> testosterone himself?
I wasn't going to contribute further to this thread, but will answer this
point as it was a direct question.
I suppose the answer to this depends on what you term "evidence" to be. I
have a "stock answer" to this question posted below. It mainly discusses the
problems of taking accurate measurements, what factors vary the measurements
and points to the dangers of mis-interpretation.
There is evidence that testosterone is higher in vasectomised men some 20
plus years after the vasectomy using age matched controls. This 1995 study
supported the prostate cancer hypothesis, which later research finds
against. However, if they controlled for all of the major factors that *do*
affect T levels below is debatable.
The evidence that vasectomy lowers testosterone is mainly anecdotal. There
are as many small studies that say vasectomy raises T as there are that say
it lowers T. Again, the controls were probably inadequate in most of them so
make of that what you will.
There are two major online sources of the "vasectomy lowers testosterone"
theory. Malcolm Carutthers and Lou Zaninovich. Both have published books on
this topic. It should be noted that both of them are/were involved in
heavily prescribing Testosterone replacement products. It's also worth
noting that the evidence in their books is in the main not clinical, but
"Evidence from my practice". Both do use some clinical references, but they
tend to be small obscure studies, and they manage to mould the results to
suit. It's also worth noting that Caruthers had his licence to practice
removed for serious professional misconduct involving prescribing
testosterone therapy online - despite several disciplinary warnings from
the GMC that he would be struck off unless he desisted. He didn't and he
was. He now publishes the same book rehashed with a different title and no
"Dr" in the title.
Has anyone in the group had a measured loss? Mr. Law has posted his reading
in the past. He claims an increase post reversal. He also freely admits he
had no baseline check to act as a comparison, and that he takes Zinc and
vitamin C supplements. In the case of zinc defficiency, supplements can
increase T levels by 90% in older men with marginal zinc status (study
below). Whilst not questioning the readings he has posted, I would say that
the effects of the supplements cannot be ruled out, nor can the fact that if
the reversal cured the pain, the increased "Wellness" would bring with it an
increase in T.
It also needs to be remembered that doctors use T readings as an aid to
diagnosis - NOT the actual diagnosis. If you have a testicle removed for
cancer you will NOT automatically get TRT - even if the readings are lower.
Doctors look for symptoms of low testosterone and also look at the readings,
because TRT is often far worse for you than living with the condition you
have as a result of the cancer surgery.
My personal viewpoint is that whilst there are studies that have opinions
ether way, none of them have adequate controls, and a nominal analysis of
the studies results would find overall no difference. I don't regard the
hype on the web as evidence either.
To be honest, I think it's being used exactly as the prostate cancer issue
is - scare tactics.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
************
OK - there is the frequent complaint that any studies into vasectomy and
hormones (excepting ASA'a) usually come back with the result "Within normal
range" despite most studies showing some variation either way. I thought it
might be an idea to examine why this might be.
Firstly, testosterone varies greatly from man to man, from season to season,
time of day (30% higher in the morning compared to the evening), age and a
whole raft of other factors including smoking, alchohol, diet, age, stress,
body mass (obesity), pesticides, female growth hormone in beef (banned in
the EU but used regularly in the US), drugs, marijuana, industrial process,
diabetes - the list goes on.
Any researcher studying changes in testosterone would need to control for
many of the above factors - a very difficult task. Many don't, hence the
results of most studies into vasectomy and testosterone are pretty
inconclusive.
What's normal? According to www.acor.org (an excellent resource for
testicular cancer) "Testosterone is usually measured on a scale of 0-1000.
If you fall within 300-700, you're average and OK - cool, right? Well, maybe
not. Remember these are averages, and therefore not all guys are the same.
So if you didn't have a baseline check done, and you come in at 400, but for
you normal is 700, you could be experiencing some of the low Testosterone
symptoms (see below) but have no basis for knowing where you should be
(Note: testosterone can also be measured on a scale of 0-10 as well,
depending on the denominator - but the same ratios apply). "
Note that if you were plotting a graph using the above, on a scale of 1-10,
3 to 7 inclusive means that the plotted line would take up no less that 50%
of the white space on the graph!
Age factors:- http://www.lef.org/protocols/abstracts/abstr-130.html is a
very good resource on this topic.
Seasonal variation. Believe it or not testosterone levels are seasonal.
Study #1 explains the reasons this may be, and the French study in the
"Vasectomy and hormones" section of the website concurrs. There are other
human studies, and a fair few mammalian ones - anyone interested in more can
use MEDLINE to find more. Any study needs to avoide seasonal variations -
IE if you measure some men in the spring, and some in the autumn (fall for
you over-the-ponders) then the results are probably meaningless.
OK - at this point it should be noted that any study into variations in
hormone levels and other factors (be it vasectomy, smoking, diet, alchohol -
whatever) it's necessary to ensure that the subjects and controls are
matched for age, the measurements are all taken at the same time to avoid
seasonal variation and most importantly baseline checks on all controls and
subjects are recorded, and accounted for in the findings.
How many studies do this?
Diet, exercise, stress, obesity, weight loss and mineral supplements.
http://www.medlean.com/ML_testosteronerestoring.html is an excellent article
detailing how diet, exercise and stress can affect testosterone levels. The
preamble to the section reads "Although the most common reason for decreased
testosterone levels is aging, levels also commonly decrease during acute and
chronic emotional stress, over training, physical inactivity, after the use
of anabolic steroids, excessive use of alcohol, prescription or recreational
medication and certain diseases.
Testosterone levels are also affected by bio-social events. Your
testosterone will go up before a sporting event (whether you are competing
or not) and sexual stimulation (sight or touch). And interestingly, levels
significantly decrease in both the competitors and fans of losers of
athletic events. (So forget about having a strong sex drive if the
cheerleaders don't show up and your team loses the Super Bowl).
Normally testosterone is the 30% higher in the morning than the evening.
This may explain why men are more interested in sex in the morning and is
part of the reason for spontaneous morning erections. In fact, the loss of
morning erections is a sure sign that testosterone is declining.
By eliminating or reducing these factors, improving you diet, beginning or
modifying your exercise program , reducing stress and restoring nutritional
status you can improve your hormonal balance and most importantly
dramatically improve the way you look, feel and perform."
There are many studies into obesity and low testosterone. Anyone interested
in more can find them on MEDLINE. I've picked Study #2 that shows how shows
how testosterone increases as weight reduces. Study #3 demonstrates how
testosterone can vary to give sportsmen a competitive edge. There are other
studies that demonstrate the link between exercise and testosterone, but I
picked this one as it shows just how fast testosterone levels can vary
(within minutes).
There are many aspects of our daily diet that can vary hormone levels.
Again, there are many studies at MEDLINE on this topic, but I've picked one
that shows how eating soya flour as a supplement can lower testosterone.
Study #4:- "CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that soya supplements reduce serum
testosterone and improve markers of oxidative stress. These findings provide
a putative mechanism by which soya supplements could protect against
prostatic disease and atherosclerosis. Further dietary studies with clinical
end points are warranted."
Study #5 demonstrates that lowering cholesterol by the use of a
mediterranian diet and a drug will alter hormone levels (including
testosterone).
There are other elements of diet that can increase testosterone - either in
the form of dietary change or supplement. See
http://www.medlean.com/ML_testosteroneenhancers.html The text details
several vitamins, minerals and herbs that are proven to raise testosterone.
The following is clipped from the section on zinc.
"Of all the minerals in the body zinc is most important in the production of
testosterone. Studies show that without adequate zinc, the testicular cells
lose the ability to convert lipids, concentration of androgen receptors
decrease and levels of aromatase in the liver are inhibited. In clinical
practice, many men have restored healthy testosterone to estrogen ratios
just with zinc replacement.
Studies with young men on restricted zinc diets show testosterone decreased
73% after 20 weeks. While older men with marginal zinc status increased
testosterone 90% when given zinc. And these levels were 50% more than the
young men with decreased zinc.
<snip>
Remember zinc will only increase testosterone if you are deficient in zinc."
What about other factors? Study #6 shows how smoking affects testosterone,
studies #7 and# 8 show the effect of agrichemicals and harmful substances in
the workplace. Again, there are many many studies into this at Medline -
these are just a sample.
So how do the studies on vasectomy and testosterone at the website relate to
the above?
Int J Androl. 1983 Apr;6(2):125-34. Related Articles, Links
Lack of effect of vasectomy on peripheral gonadotrophin and steroid levels.
Sample size 20
baseline taken - yes
age matched sample/controls not stated
weight matched sample/controls not stated
seasonal variation - accounted for due to the bimonthly sampling over two
years
smoking/alchohol not stated
diet/exercise factors not stated
Tests:- LH, FSH, DHT-S before and bi monthly for two years post vasectomy
Conclusion:- "No significant alterations were observed in the levels of any
of the hormones studied. The results are interpreted as indicating that in
the first 2 years following vasectomy in men there is no consistent or
progressive change in the peripheral plasma levels of gonadotrophins or in a
variety of steroids of testicular and/or adrenocortical origin."
******
Fertil Steril. 1988 Feb;49(2):309-15. Related Articles, Links
Annual variation in semen characteristics and plasma hormone levels in men
undergoing vasectomy.
Sample size 260
baseline taken - yes
age matched sample/controls not stated
weight matched sample/controls not stated
seasonal variation - purpose of study
smoking/alchohol not stated
diet/exercise factors not stated
Tests:- LH, FSH, T, estradiol (E2), and 20alpha-dihydroprogesterone
(20alpha-DHP), as well as semen analyses including semen volume, sperm
count, and sperm motility from 260 healthy men were evaluated for annual
changes
Conclusion:- Compared with the prevasectomy group annual mean, that for each
of the endocrine values was unchanged, except for that of LH and T, which
was slightly, yet statistically significantly, elevated. The existence of
prominent annual variation implicates their consideration in the design of
research protocols involving investigation of reproductive phenomena in
humans.
*******
Int J Androl. 1987 Apr;10(2):471-9. Related Articles, Links
Plasma reproductive hormones in normal and vasectomized Chinese males.
Sample size 298 controls, 505 subjects aged 30-73, time since vasectomy 1-25
years
baseline taken - no
age matched sample/controls yes
weight matched sample/controls not stated
seasonal variation - not stated
smoking/alchohol not stated
diet/exercise factors not stated
Tests:- Plasma reproductive hormones (testosterone, LH, FSH and prolactin)
Conclusion:- Study findings revealed a significant increase in plasma
testosterone and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) with time since
vasectomy, but no difference was observed between the vasectomized men and
nonvasectomized controls when age effects were controlled. Age-related
increases in LH and FSH but not in testosterone or prolactin were noted in
normal men. No adverse effects of vasectomy were observed apart from a 16%
increase in mean LH levels in the vasectomized compared to non-vasectomized
men of similar ages.
******
J Urol. 1995 Dec;154(6):2065-9. Related Articles, Links
Comment in:
J Urol. 1996 Nov;156(5):1784-5.
Early and late long-term effects of vasectomy on serum testosterone,
dihydrotestosterone, luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone
levels. PURPOSE: We investigated whether the association between vasectomy
and prostate cancer has a hormonal basis.
Sample size 182 - 91 controls, 91 subjects 10-20+ years since vasectomy
baseline taken - no
age matched sample/controls yes
weight matched sample/controls not stated
seasonal variation - not stated
smoking/alchohol not stated
diet/exercise factors not stated
Tests:- serum testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, luteinizing hormone and
follicle-stimulating hormone levels by radioimmunoassay on 91 pairs of men
who did and did not undergo vasectomy.
RESULTS: Men who underwent vasectomy 10 to 19 years previously had higher
dihydrotestosterone levels than age matched controls. In men who underwent
vasectomy 20 years or more ago testosterone was higher than in corresponding
controls. No statistically significant difference in luteinizing hormone and
follicle-stimulating hormone levels was noted between the men who had had
vasectomy and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indirectly support the
hypothesis that there is an elevated risk of prostate cancer among men who
underwent vasectomy 20 or more years previously.
********
STUDY #1
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Feb;88(2):932-7. Related Articles, Links
Variation in levels of serum inhibin B, testosterone, estradiol, luteinizing
hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, and sex hormone-binding globulin in
monthly samples from healthy men during a 17-month period: possible effects
of seasons.
Andersson AM, Carlsen E, Petersen JH, Skakkebaek NE.
Department of Growth and Reproduction, Copenhagen University Hospital,
DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. an...@rh.dk
To obtain information on the scale of the intraindividual variation in
testicular hormone, blood samples for inhibin B determination were collected
monthly in 27 healthy male volunteers during a 17-month period. In addition,
the traditional reproductive hormones FSH, LH, testosterone, estradiol, and
SHBG were measured. The intraindividual variation in inhibin B over the
study period was, on the average, 10%, corresponding to the assay variation
of the inhibin B assay, indicating that most of the observed day to day
variation in inhibin B levels in men could be explained by assay variation.
A seasonal variation was observed in LH and testosterone levels, but not in
the levels of the other hormones. The seasonal variation in testosterone
levels could be explained by the variation in LH levels. The seasonal
variation in LH levels seemed to be related to the mean air temperature
during the month before blood sampling, but not to the length of daylight or
the hours of sunshine. In conclusion, our data showed that day to day levels
of inhibin B are relatively constant in men and do not seem to be influenced
by seasonal factors. In contrast, we found a seasonal variation in LH and
testosterone levels in men. The peak levels of both LH and testosterone were
observed during June-July, with minimum levels present during winter-early
spring. Air temperature, rather than light exposure, seems to be a possible
climatic variable explaining the seasonal variation in LH levels.
********
STUDY #2
Obes Res. 2003 Jun;11(6):689-94. Related Articles, Links
Sex hormones and sexual function in obese men losing weight.
Kaukua J, Pekkarinen T, Sane T, Mustajoki P.
Department of Internal Medicine, Helsinki University Central Hospital,
Peijas Hospital, Vantaa, Finland and. Department of Endocrinology, Helsinki
University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of a weight-loss program on sex hormones and
sexual function among 38 middle-aged obese men (BMI >/=35 kg/m(2)). RESEARCH
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A randomized controlled clinical trial was
conducted. The treatment group (n = 19) participated in a 4-month
weight-loss program including 10 weeks on a very-low-energy diet (VLED) and
17 behavior modification visits. There was no intervention in the control
group (n = 19). Both groups were followed for 8 months, i.e., 22 weeks after
the active weight loss in the treatment group. The outcome measures (weight,
sex hormones, sexual function, leptin, and metabolic variables) were
obtained at baseline and at three time-points during follow-up. RESULTS: The
mean weight loss in the treatment group was 21 kg at the end of the 10-week
VLED. At the end of follow-up, the maintained weight loss was 17 kg of
baseline weight. The control group was weight stable throughout the study.
In the treatment group, increases in sex hormone-binding globulin,
testosterone, and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, as well as decreases
in insulin and leptin, were maintained until the end of follow-up, although
with VLED, the level of several hormones and metabolic variables improved
transiently during the rapid weight loss. There were no significant changes
in the questionnaire scores on sexual function in either group. DISCUSSION:
We conclude that obese men lose weight and increase their serum testosterone
level on a weight-loss program with VLED and behavior modification. However,
they do not change their sexual function scores.
******
STUDY #3
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2003 Apr;28(3):364-75. Related Articles, Links
Anticipatory cortisol, testosterone and psychological responses to judo
competition in young men.
Salvador A, Suay F, Gonzalez-Bono E, Serrano MA.
Departamento de Psicobiologia y Psicologia Social, Facultad de Psicologia,
Universidad de Valencia, Apartado 22109 Blasco Ibanez, Spain.
alicia....@uv.es
This study compares the anticipatory hormonal and psychological responses of
17 male judo players to an official competition with the data obtained
during eight resting sessions carried out at the same time of day,
throughout an entire sports season. Testosterone (T) and cortisol (C) levels
were determined 1 h and 30 min before competition, and mood, anxiety and
expectancies were also evaluated. C levels and anxiety scores were
concurrently higher before the contest than in resting conditions; however,
non-significant correlations between them were found. The anticipatory T
response was not significant for the whole group. However, one group of
subjects did display T increases, higher C levels, and higher motivation to
win scores than the other group. Furthermore, this group also obtained a
better outcome. Thus, this hormonal pattern and its relationships with
psychological variables suggest an adaptive psychobiological response to a
competition. Results are discussed in the context that neuroendocrine
response to competition is associated with cognitive appraisal.
******
STUDY #4
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;57(1):100-6. Related Articles, Links
Dietary supplements of soya flour lower serum testosterone concentrations
and improve markers of oxidative stress in men.
Gardner-Thorpe D, O'Hagen C, Young I, Lewis SJ.
Department of Medicine, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the effects on serum sex steroids, lipids and markers
of oxidative stress of supplementing the diets of healthy male volunteers
with scones made with soya flour. DESIGN: A randomized placebo controlled
cross-over trial. SETTING: University Hospital of Wales. SUBJECTS: Twenty
volunteers recruited by advertisement. INTERVENTIONS: Male volunteers ate
three scones a day in addition to their normal diet for a period of 6 weeks.
The scones were made with either wheat or soya flour (containing 120 mg/day
of isoflavones). Blood was analysed for sex steroids (testosterone,
dihydro-testosterone, oestradiol, oestrone, sex hormone binding globulin,
albumin and the concentration of non-protein bound sex steroids were
calculated), lipid profile (total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein
cholesterol and triglycerides) and measures of oxidative stress
(hydroperoxides, susceptibility of LDL to oxidation with copper and
myeloperoxidase). RESULTS: The volunteers' mean age was 35.6 (s.d. 11.2) y.
Total serum testosterone fell in volunteers taking the soya scones
(19.3-18.2 nmol/l; 95% CI 1.01, 1.12; P=0.03). No significant changes were
seen in the concentrations of the other serum sex steroids, albumin or sex
hormone binding globulin throughout the study. Significant improvements in
two of the three markers of oxidative stress were seen in volunteers taking
soya scones. Lag time for myeloperoxidase rose from 55.0 to 68.0 min (95%
CI -16.0, -3.5; P=0.009) and the presence of hydroperoxides decreased from
2.69 to 2.34 micro mol/l (95% CI 0.12, 0.71; P=0.009). There were no changes
seen in serum triglycerides or cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that
soya supplements reduce serum testosterone and improve markers of oxidative
stress. These findings provide a putative mechanism by which soya
supplements could protect against prostatic disease and atherosclerosis.
Further dietary studies with clinical end points are warranted.
******
STUDY #5
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2003 Feb;28(2):181-94. Related Articles, Links
Does simvastatin affect mood and steroid hormone levels in
hypercholesterolemic men? A randomized double-blind trial.
Hyyppa MT, Kronholm E, Virtanen A, Leino A, Jula A.
Research and Development Centre of the Social Insurance Institution of
Finland, FIN-20720 Turku, Finland. markku...@kela.memonet.fi
Epidemiological and clinical studies have suggested that powerful
cholesterol lowering may have adverse effects on mood and psychological
well-being. Inhibition of cholesterol biosynthesis by simvastatin (a
hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor) may also reduce
steroid hormone biosynthesis. To explore if mood changes are related with
steroid hormone levels, we designed a randomized double-blind
placebo-controlled crossover trial. The separate and combined effects of a
Mediterranean-type diet intervention and treatment with simvastatin 20
mg/day PO for 12 weeks were studied in 120 hypercholesterolemic but
otherwise healthy middle-aged men. Psychological functioning was assessed
with questionnaires, and steroid hormone levels in blood were assayed
radioimmunologically before and after the treatments. Simvastatin resulted
in a statistically significant increase of depression and somatization
without changes in the anxiety, hostility or aggression scores. Mood changes
seemed to be unrelated with the statistically significant but clinically
insignificant decline in serum testosterone levels and unrelated with the
increase in serum dehydroepiandrosterone levels.
******
STUDY 6
36: Hum Reprod. 2002 Jun;17(6):1554-9. Related Articles, Links
Comment in:
Hum Reprod. 2002 Dec;17(12):3275-6.
The impact of cigarette smoking on human semen parameters and hormones.
Trummer H, Habermann H, Haas J, Pummer K.
Department of Urology, Karl-Franzens University Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.
harald....@uni-graz.at
BACKGROUND: In this prospective study, semen parameters and hormone
concentrations of infertile smokers were compared with infertile non- and
ex-smokers. We also determined how many men with idiopathic infertility
would stop smoking in an attempt to improve their fertility. METHODS: 1104
men (517 non-smokers, 109 ex-smokers and 478 smokers) with infertility for
at least 1 year were evaluated. Evaluation included medical history,
physical examination, hormone analysis and two semen analyses. Prior to the
second semen analysis, smokers were urged to quit smoking. RESULTS: Smokers
were significantly younger (P < 0.001), had significantly more round cells
in their ejaculates (P = 0.003), and the percentage of ejaculates with > 1 x
10(6)/ml leukocytes was higher in smokers (P < 0.001). Increased free and
total serum testosterone (P < 0.001) and decreased prolactin levels (P <
0.001) were found in smokers. No differences were found between non-smokers
and ex-smokers. Only 23.1% of the smokers versus 46% non-smokers (P < 0.001)
returned for a second semen analysis, 14 of whom reduced and 15 of whom quit
smoking completely. Testosterone levels were significantly lower in those
who were able to stop or reduce smoking (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking
does not affect conventional semen parameters, but significantly increases
round cells and leukocytes. Only a few idiopathic infertile smokers were
able to quit smoking.
************
STUDY #7
38: J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2002 Apr 12;65(7):513-21. Related Articles,
Links
Alterations of serum hormone levels in male workers occupationally exposed
to cadmium.
Zeng X, Lin T, Zhou Y, Kong Q.
Department of Occupational Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
In order to investigate the influence of occupational exposure to cadmium
(Cd) on the levels of serum hormone, a cross-sectional study was undertaken
in male workers. Creatinine-adjusted urinary cadmium (UCd) was used as the
indicator of cadmium body burden in workers. The levels of serum
testosterone (T), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing
hormone (LH) were determined by radioimmunoassay and enzyme immunoassay,
respectively. The results showed that with cadmium exposure, the levels of
serum testosterone and LH were significantly increased after controlling for
confounding factors such as age, smoking habits, and alcohol consumption.
However, no significant cadmium-associated changes in the levels of serum
FSH were found. At the same time, a significant negative correlation of
serum testosterone levels with age was detected. In contrast, the levels of
serum FSH and LH were significantly elevated with increasing age. When
taking the marital status into consideration, only significantly elevated
FSH levels were noted in married workers after controlling for confounding
factors. These results indicate that occupational cadmium exposure and other
factors such as age and marital status may independently contribute to
alterations in the levels of serum sex hormones in males.
******
STUDY #8
J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2003 Jun 13;66(11):965-86. Related Articles,
Links
Male reproductive hormones and thyroid function in pesticide applicators in
the Red River Valley of Minnesota.
Garry VF, Holland SE, Erickson LL, Burroughs BL.
Pathology Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414,
USA. garr...@umn.edu
In the present effort, 144 pesticide applicators and 49 urban control
subjects who reported no chronic disease were studied. Applicators provided
records of the season's pesticides used by product, volumes, dates, and
methods of application. Blood specimens for examination of hormone levels
were obtained in summer and fall. In the herbicide-only applicator group,
significant increases in testosterone levels in fall compared to summer and
also elevated levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing
hormone (LH) in the fall were noted. With respect to fungicide use, in an
earlier cross-sectional epidemiologic study, data demonstrated that historic
fungicide use was associated with a significant alteration of the sex ratio
of children borne to applicators. As before, among current study subjects it
was noted that historic fungicide use was associated with increased numbers
of girls being born. Lower mean total testosterone concentrations by
quartile were also correlated with increased numbers of live-born female
infants. A downward summer to fall seasonal shift in thyroid-stimulating
hormone (TSH) concentrations occurred among applicators but not among
controls. Farmers who had aerial application of fungicides to their land in
the current season showed a significant shift in TSH values (from 1.75 to
1.11 mU/L). Subclinical hypothyroidism was noted in 5/144 applicators (TSH
values >4.5 mU/L), but not in urban control subjects. Based on current and
past studies, it was concluded that, in addition to pesticide exposure,
individual susceptibility and perhaps economic factors may play a supporting
role in the reported results.
******
David
> > Vasectomy is associated with the following:
> > - increased rate of prostrate cancer (more studies indicate this then
> > don't)
>
>
> Well, I'm new to this newsgroup...but I think that from what I've
> read, this does not appear to be the case.
I was looking at a page that tells you how to interpret "Relative risk" that
is interesting - not because of this issue, but the explanation of the term.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-chapter2.html
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
David
trifold
> problems with my vasectomy because I am not completely philosophically
> comfortable about it?
Nope. What I said is that philosophical objection to vasectomy (or
"philosophical ambivalence" for that matter) is a good predictor of
trouble. That doesn't mean trouble is inevitable.
> --Dez.
>
> PS: Please don't suggest (like you did above) that I am
> philosophically opposed to vasectomy. I have used the words
> "philosophically ambivalent" and "philosophically disturbing" -- and
> they were always put in a personal -- and not universal context.
As I said before, I don't know what you mean by "philosophical
ambivalence." If it's something that would incline you to jump to
reversal right away if you develop trouble, without doing research or
considering whether reversal would solve the problem, then I imagine
it has something to do with ambivalence about being sterile, since one
reason others would hesitate is that they would not want a return to
fertility. Of course, I admit there may be other reasons for
ambivalence about vasectomy, including reasons that may derive from
fundamental convictions about "costs." I do believe such convictions
could generate anxieties that could find expression in physical
symptoms.
Steve Law
Agree, character assasination should not be part of the discussion.
So, who was it that brought up past mistakes and tried to assasinate
who?
If you look at my original post I characterized two camps, as I
perceive them. Opinions are allowed and differing opinions are
welcome, I am sure. Right?
I then said to use a search to see all the points and counter points
and mentioned names without any characterization assigned to them.
Other than imply they will get a different view than mine so they will
have both point and counter point.
Yes, the discussions have not been bad, but when it seems a sufferer
seems to be given the story that seems to indicate that the sufferer's
mind is more to blame than the procedure I decided to post.
I will agree that once a person has had a vasectomy, a person will
have heightened awareness to the area. Some folks seem to want to take
that to an extreme and begin to dismiss a sufferers seeking of help
and point to that as the main area of the problem. Plus the usual
downplaying that reversal plays in alleviating the problems.
Keep up the good work,
Steve L
Steve Law
I see that David has again mis-stated my experience somewhat, but is
close in some respects. If you want the point & counter-point use the
search in Google. There is no reason to re-type what can be sought by
a person who is willing to read through some threads by using a
careful search criteria.
As to the 1995 article, my recent re-reading seems to indicate David
may have overstated the conclusions of the study. Total T was reported
for the group after 20 years, not at the 5, 10, or 15 year points. In
fact, the study said that DHT was higher over the first 20 years - a
sign that vasectomy affected endocrine function. The study does not
break down the differences to measurable DHT, Total T, and Free T
which would give men some idea of the actual changes occurring.
Agree with David that medical establishment has not done an adequate
job of reporting the true testosterone affects despite the number of
men who have undergone the ease to get matched or correlated groups so
that a true endocrine comparison could be done.
Agree with David, a new thread should be started if you have further
questions.
As stated previously, the main posters here prefer to believe the
risks are minimal, afer all they have had a vasectomy - there is a
psychological element in that that may be greater than the
pyschological element 'causing' pain.
Good Luck in your understanding,
Steve L
David
> I see that David has again mis-stated my experience somewhat.
Steve, you frequently mis-understand what I say. Your position has always
been that the act of severing the vas deferens lowers T level, and the act
of re-joining it subsequently raises it again. You have always dismissed the
idea that variation in T levels *may* be influenced by a variety of factors.
I don't dispute your posted readings, I'm not in a position to dispute your
claim that vasectomy lowered *your* T level, any more than you are in a
position to quote it as a fact. I have in fact in the past indicated an
indirect mechanism that would explain your situation. Your point has always
been dismissal of anything contrary to your assertion that it was as a
result of snipping and rejoining the tubes - nothing more. The suggestion
that doing things that are known to increase T levels *may* have had an
influence in the documented levels have always been dismissed.
What you assert happened to you as an individual isn't borne out by
statistical data as the norm you claim it is. I'm not saying it didn't
happen in your case - I'm saying it may have been influenced by other
factors as well as an indirect causal mechanism.
>
> As to the 1995 article, my recent re-reading seems to indicate David
> may have overstated the conclusions of the study. Total T was reported
> for the group after 20 years, not at the 5, 10, or 15 year points. In
> fact, the study said that DHT was higher over the first 20 years - a
> sign that vasectomy affected endocrine function.
Your point was that this study had not been done. You repeated yet again in
the other thread on the 18th March "You will not be able to find a post
vasectomy study that gives men the testosterone levels of vasectomized
verus non-vasectomized men 10 years after the procedure" yet here it is. I
did make the point that the controls in this study may well have been
inadequate, as it probably was in other T studies that tried to ascertain
the same thing.
>
> As stated previously, the main posters here prefer to believe the
> risks are minimal, afer all they have had a vasectomy - there is a
> psychological element in that that may be greater than the
> pyschological element 'causing' pain.
I was under the impression that you too had had a vasectomy, so I'm not sure
of your point. Are you trying to say that I have PVP but am in denial?????
Sean said that one of the reasons he posts here is to counter the scare
stories. The impession I get is that you feel that there shouldn't be *any*
countering of negative stories, nor any scrutiny or analysis of studies that
indicate a negative aspect. I also get the feeling you think I underplay the
risks in order to bang the drum for vasectomy. You are entitled to your
opinion, but what I seem to achieve paints a different picture, and is
inconsistent with this.
The website gets on average 15,000-16,000 visitors per month. Virtually all
of the new traffic comes in on the search "vasectomy". The pages most read
(excluding the pictures and humour sections) are the ones that contain
information about negative aspects of the procedure. Those considering
vasectomy primarily read specific/problem stories (50% approx). Some 43% of
men considering vasectomy and reading the stories say that the experience
has made them realise they need to do more research before going ahead, or
they cancel the procedure as a result of reading the section.
If I am the fact denying, "drum banging" vasectomy recruiter I'm often
painted as, why on earth would I allow something contrary to my beliefs on a
website I personally fund out of my beer money budget? Even stranger, why
would I be actually pleased that the site content has the effect of changing
peoples mind about the procedure, having just "wandered in off the street"
using a very general search term???
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Steve Law
You have misstated my position. Something that is a common rhetorical tactic.
Nor am
Steve Law
You mistate again, a common rhetorical tactic you employ.
Where have I said you were a drum beating vasectomy recruiter?? I you
had stated that I claim you minimize the risks, I would agree. If you
stated that I believe your justification for the safety seems as
psychological as you seem to accuse pain sufferers, I would probably
agree.
I have never dismissed that testosterone levels can varying due to
factors other than vasectomy. Just that this being a vasectomy support
group I am more likely to discuss risks associated with vasectomy, and
less likely to discuss testosterone levels being affected by zinc,
castration, break-ups, stress, or dating a young woman with the body
of B. Spears the libido of Cleopatra. I would post in the appropriate
newsgroup, such as 'alt.fan.britneyspears.cleopatra.testosterone.upupup'
I said you lean toward minimizing the risk, thus encouraging
vasectomy. I am glad that your glad that you have provided information
that has made some men question the risk factors and opt for no
vasectomy, even as you minimize them. Just think how many more men
might be spared risk of PVP, prostate cancer, etc. if you did not
minimize the risk factors.
As to your mistatements about my experience or detailed views - folks
that really care to see the point & counter-point can use the Google
Group Search if any one is really interested in what my statements
really were.
David
> Where have I said you were a drum beating vasectomy recruiter??
It's the picture you paint - read your posts.
> I have never dismissed that testosterone levels can varying due to
> factors other than vasectomy. Just that this being a vasectomy support
> group I am more likely to discuss risks associated with vasectomy, and
> less likely to discuss testosterone levels being affected by zinc,
> castration, break-ups, stress, or dating a young woman with the body
> of B. Spears the libido of Cleopatra. I would post in the appropriate
> newsgroup, such as 'alt.fan.britneyspears.cleopatra.testosterone.upupup'
I think this states your position well, and it's exactly what you have done
in the past. When we have tried to discuss what other factors are risks for
diseases such as prostate cancer, and factors associated with T levels, you
come back with the above line. You don't want to discuss it, I'd suggest the
reasdon being that it makes "Overstatement" more difficult. Discussing other
risk factors, and relevant mens health issues are bang on charter.
>
> I said you lean toward minimizing the risk, thus encouraging
> vasectomy. I am glad that your glad that you have provided information
> that has made some men question the risk factors and opt for no
> vasectomy, even as you minimize them. Just think how many more men
> might be spared risk of PVP, prostate cancer, etc. if you did not
> minimize the risk factors.
Steve - discouraging men is not the point. If by finding out accurate
information about vasectomy they didn't know changes their mind the that's
fine by me - it's a decision for them. We owe other men some sort of
accuracy in our discussions, and pointing out that the actual findings of a
study and headlines used are vastly different isn't "downplaying" anything -
it's called being accurate. I'd suggest this is also being honest. It's
information people *are* entitled to know, and the reason I point it out is
that many people would read the headline and not the article.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Steve Law
This is a vasectomy support group. Certainly other factors can be
discussed to put into context with the vasectomy risks. No different
than discussing lower cholesteral as means of further reducing heart
disease in a smoking newsgroup. But the discussion in a smoking
newsgroup is going to focus on the risks related to smoking. Same
here. But it should not be used to divert or try to imply the risks of
vasectomy are less than they are.
There is no doubt that mens risk of prostate cancer or lower
testosterone could be affected by many factors. Men should use all the
factors to reduce their risk to an acceptable level. Like eating
tomatoes, getting exercise, weight lifting and keeping their weight
low, and by not having a vasectomy. Men should do all they can to keep
their bodies healthy. But some men will have vasectomies or hate
tomatoes or not get off the couch. They should be given the true risk
factors for those decisions, even more so for vasectomy because it is
a medical procedure.
trifold
> dez,
>
> I see that David has again mis-stated my experience somewhat, but is
> close in some respects. If you want the point & counter-point use the
> search in Google. There is no reason to re-type what can be sought by
> a person who is willing to read through some threads by using a
> careful search criteria.
This is good advice.
>
> As to the 1995 article, my recent re-reading seems to indicate David
> may have overstated the conclusions of the study. Total T was reported
> for the group after 20 years, not at the 5, 10, or 15 year points.
If total T after 20 years was not affected, why do you imagine
snapshots earlier would have shown differences between vasectomised
and non vasectomised men? What mechanism do you think would cause
such an effect? Can you point us to any studies that do show a
reduction?
trifold
As you know, not having a vasectomy will not reduce a man's risk of
developing prostate cancer. Nor will it lower his testosterone.
trifold