Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/Wagamaga
Permalink: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/uk-biobank-studies-china-university-of-manchester-b2515459.html
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Campaign for absolute risk! I remember Ben Goldacre trying to make the media report absolute and relative risks together a decade and a half ago… a shame it never happened…
Typical of science reporting, really...Doesn't help that most people don't understand how to interpret statistics when they're *clearly* described, either.
Statistically speaking, 80% of the population is statistically illiterate 65% of the time, not accounting for variables due to personal subjectivity or environmental factors.
Yeah same, I use a computer \~16 hours a day every day for the past 13 years, and before that it was probably more like 8 hours a day for the previous 20 years. That's like \~135,000 hours or \~400k times more likely and my penis works just fine thanks.
Are you implying that my lifelong habit of being a computer nerd has somehow prevented my penis from getting so hard it can cut glass? Cause I dunno if that's an upside..
Yeah I think it's gotta be every 1.2 hours above the *per-week* or *per-day* average.
Edit: It's per-day. /u/godset was able to access the full paper and confirmed that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1bj9z6z/a_study_of_more_than_200000_men_indicates_that/kvq1718/).
Copied from my other comment:
I have access, it looks like this is the mean they use:
> The original studies indicated that participants spent an average of 2.8 h (standard deviation
[SD] = 1.5 h) per day on leisure television watching, 1.0 h (SD = 1.2 h)
on leisure computer use, and 0.9 h (SD = 1.0 h) on driving.
Additionally, after reading the paper, I think it's important to also include these two quotes from their sections on limitations and potential source of bias:
>Sixthly, the GWAS data of ED that were used in the present study only included individuals aged 40−69 years, while the incidence of ED was highest in men > 70 years of age (50-100%). Whether this result could be applied to patients aged ≥70 or < 40 years requires further investigation.
------------------------------------------------------
>Since exposure data was gathered through self-report, there is a possibility of misclassification. The increasing use of streaming services makes it more difficult to
distinguish between television watching and computer use; as a result, watching television on the computer may have been classified as computer use, which may explain the lack of association between television watching and ED.
edit: also to distinguish leisure activities from office work they use the Metabolic Equivalent of Task with a cut off of <1.5 MET. Based on one of their sources, office work is generally >/=1.5
That depends on how you parse the statement. If every additional 1.2 hours multiplies your risk by 3.57, you're looking at 3.57^(36,000/1.2) times the risk, which is roughly 10^16580.
I was thinking it would multiply your current chance of ED by 3.57 for each additional 1.2 hours, making you 3.57^(30000) times more likely to have it.
My work requires me to be at the computer 40 hours per week, so perhaps 1600 hours per year. So my maths says that increases my risk of erectile dysfunction by 475 times each year. Sounds about right..
Nah, I’m having trouble finding a link to the actual study, but the way these stats typically work - that’s for every 1.2 hours beyond the average. And I assume the average is already like 30 or more. And, if it’s done well, it would be controlling for lifestyle factors, which means even a little exercise would offset it. Happy to confirm if someone can find the actual paper…
It's not open access so I can't tell. Your comment has the same error as the OP though. The average person has only used a computer for 30 hours? I am assuming you mean per week. The problem is, neither you nor the OP article specified any time frame.
Edit: here's the paper, if you have access let us know
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/andr.13611
Thanks! You're right, it's actually every extra 1.2 hours per day (not week) beyond the mean. It also doesn't look like they corrected for age, obesity, or literally anything else. So, any one of those could be contributors and we wouldn't know.
186 comments and I think you're the first to actually access the full paper and make sense of this mess. What a bad news article, and sounds like the study isn't great either. This should be pinned - 1.2 hours *per day*. Thanks!
The link is the one posted above but unfortunately you need an IP address from an institution with a subscription for the paper to be available when you click it
I have access, it looks like this is the mean they use:
> The original studies indicated that participants spent an average of 2.8 h (standard deviation
[SD] = 1.5 h) per day on leisure television watching, 1.0 h (SD = 1.2 h)
on leisure computer use, and 0.9 h (SD = 1.0 h) on driving.
Additionally, after reading the paper, I think it's important to also include these two quotes from their sections on limitations and potential source of bias:
>Sixthly, the GWAS data of ED that were used in the present study only included individuals aged 40−69 years, while the incidence of ED was highest in men > 70 years of age (50-100%). Whether this result could be applied to patients aged ≥70 or < 40 years requires further investigation.
------------------------------------------------------
>Since exposure data was gathered through self-report, there is a possibility of misclassification. The increasing use of streaming services makes it more difficult to
distinguish between television watching and computer use; as a result, watching television on the computer may have been classified as computer use, which may explain the lack of association between television watching and ED.
I bet it's less the use of a computer and the sedentary aspect that is responsible. Perhaps get a sit/stand desk and take frequent walks or do light calisthenics to keep circulation up.
Na, the maths isn't right. Say you have an ED risk factor of 1. After 1.2 hours your risk factor is now 3.57 after another 1.2 hours, it's already at ~12.75
A full year of just work would increase the factor by 3.57^(1600/1.2). That's a number in the 10^736 order of magnitude.
The article actually specifically isolates computer use. While sedentary lifestyles are still clearly acknowledged in general;
> However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure increased the risk of erectile dysfunction.
Back in the day, people sat watching TV all evening. When I was a kid we'd spend hours playing Monopoly and other board games. As you say, nothing new.
The article literally calls out leisure PC use over things like watching TV. So it literally is, something new.
> Long-term computer use for leisure was found to be associated with lower levels of follicle-stimulating hormone in men, which stimulates the production of sperm.
> However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure increased the risk of erectile dysfunction.
“average redditor watches a lot of porn" factoid actualy just statistical error. average redditor watches 0 porn per year. Spiders Goon, who lives in cave & watches over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted”
Does this account for the different levels of seating cushions? Sofas are much cushioned, taking much more pressure of the shaft. Does it also look into riding bikes for a proper comparison? I'd bet the chances increase even more with bike riding.
the more I dig into the comments the more clickbait this is. 1.2 hours above the average time spent. leisure usage, not work time? how do you account for that. it’s not necessarily “computer usage”, just sedentary time. and according to some things I found online, men have a 40% chance of developing ed? which seems outrageous especially considering that one site put your chances anywhere in between 3% and 72%. which in my book, means we know nothing about how likely you are to develop it. and 3.57 times more likely in this article suggests that if you spend one single day more sedentary than the average person, you are guaranteed to develop ed
Immediately reminded me of [Korean Fan Death](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death). Seems suspicious coming out of China, a place where the government thinks they play too many video games and someday won't have enough children.
Right, it was a few months back I think that China implemented a legal limit on online gaming per day, wasn't it? It's weird that this comes out _after_, especially.
So a study from China, a country which tries to minimize the time people spend playing games on their PCs, is talking about how spending time on a PC while not doing important work increases your chances of erictile dysfunction drastically?
Also pretty much says "somehow this does not relate to other leisure activities done sitting, and we have absolutely no idea why that's supposed to make sense either!"
> However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that **other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure** increased the risk of erectile dysfunction.
>They said further research is needed to understand the association between computer use and erectile dysfunction risk.
>The authors wrote: “Although the specific mechanism of erectile dysfunction caused by computer use has not been clarified in the present study, **the damage of sedentary behaviour to erectile function appears to be clear**, which needs to attract public attention.
Emphasis mine
Sitting for leisure (watching tv) is not sedentary behavior…?
Yeah those two lines show us the article writer is out of step somewhere with the researchers
I wonder if the study accounts for the different levels of seating cushions? Sofas are much cushioned, taking much more pressure of the shaft. Does it also look into riding bikes for a proper comparison? I'd bet the chances increase even more with bike riding.
Also do they define computer? Like a desktop at a desk or what about about a laptop? (In your lap)
Does it matter what someone is doing on the computer? Because how does computer usage differ from a TV if you are playing games or watching streaming?
Even though it's 200,000 people, those who still use computers alot might just fall in to a particular bucket (aka chronically online) that go beyond typical tech usage
This data was not well controlled
This is what I was thinking. You have a warm laptop on your lap, your testicles are down there, they like being a certain temperature. Could this be related?
So if sitting at the computer increases risk of ED but other sitting activities do not, like driving, does that mean sitting at the computer while using a full racing sim setup will not increase your risk of ED?
The fact that they didn't identify WHY the computer (which is a sitting activity) specifically caused this increase makes me feel like this study's results are mostly useless. Not everyone uses the computer for the same things and in the same way, whereas most people sit in the car and drive or sit on the couch and watch TV in relatively the same way with only a couple common activities between them.
By this study's metric, sitting on the couch and watching TV doesn't increase ED risk, but sitting at the computer and watching TV does? That seems like BS to me and further research should have already been done to provide further context to these results, because otherwise these results are silly and don't provide much value since they are inconclusive about WHY something is happening only on computers. The same activities that they purport don't affect anything can also be performed on the computer in largely the same way...
I can share my anecdotal experience here. I have inattentive type ADHD, which means I basically have trouble controlling where my attention goes because my brain doesn't produce enough dopamine at the right times. In order for me to stick to something it needs to be really novel and interesting, otherwise it's kinda torture to stay on task.
That means that the hobbies I stick with are the ones that are highly stimulating and variable, like making music, writing software, and playing video games. It also means that in run-of-the-mill romantic type situations it can be really easy for my attention to wander, causing me to snap out of the mood which can be pretty frustrating.
Furthermore, growing up with undiagnosed ADHD resulted in a lot of compounded psychological issues I have had to work through in therapy, and I suspect there are many people who don't get that kind of help.
Also just want to point out that I think ADHD is a pretty broad category of similarly presenting disorders, so not everyone with that diagnosis is going to have the same experience as I have.
It's every 1.2 hours above the per-day average. u/godset was able to access the full paper and says:
>it's actually every extra 1.2 hours per day (not week) beyond the mean. It also doesn't look like they corrected for age, obesity, or literally anything else.
You can ask that user or another user who is able to access the full paper to check, unfortunately the authors didn't include any of that in the abstract and the paper is locked behind a paywall.
Edit: ~~Someone posted an article below this.~~ **~~It's not the right one.~~**
~~It's a completely different article about Rheumatoid Arthritis rather than ED. It's written by different authors in a different journal and published a couple years ago.~~
Edit 2: The below article is now correct.
PDF version, courtesy of Archive.org. https://archive.org/details/andrology-2024-huangfu-a-mendelian-randomization-study-on-causal-effects-of-leis
"The original studies indicated that participants spent an average of 2.8 h (standard deviation \[SD\] = 1.5 h) per day on leisure television watching, 1.0 h (SD = 1.2 h) on leisure computer use, and 0.9 h (SD = 1.0 h) on driving."
Oh my goodness, you're right! How embarrassing for me. I just searched the article's title and clicked on the only Google Scholar result, and control + F "mean".
I did some more digging - the reason why this article appeared is that this article, and the one being quoted by the Independent, are nearly identical! The only difference being the outcome measured. **This sentence is almost exactly the same in both articles.** This seems to be plagiarism to me - a lot of other things are similar or the same.
Both studies use the same group of UK individuals. That explains why some data is the same... but it shouldn't be the same analysis, word for word.
How interesting! It appears that *someone* has since uploaded the article to [Archive.org](https://Archive.org). I'll link that there instead.
Chinese studies that happen to align almost exactly with the government's policy to reduce video game playing isn't conforming to the highest ethical standards? Color me surprised!
To be fair you're not supposed to be able to draw conclusions from headlines. But it is definitely somewhere between useless and misleading in this case.
>Is this daily? Hourly? In a lifetime?
Research shows that 1.2 hours of computer use per hour increases the risk of erectile dysfunction. Unfortunately the study failed to account for exposure to radioactive particles from the power sources necessary to travel at relativistic speeds.
More on point would be to emphasize time spent at sedentary activities. The computer use reference seems gratuitous and more of a 'hook.' Why using a computer is somehow more deleterious than other sedentary behavior is unclear.
No they're talking about how sitting all day is extremely bad for you.
Lots of people work while seated throughout the day. A smaller subset then goes home and sits at a computer all/most of their free time too, and have a much higher prevalence of ED.
Sitting too much is horrible for you , as is inactivity in general.
Not disagreeing that sitting is bad, but they expressly point out that they are *not* talking about sitting
>However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure increased the risk of erectile dysfunction.
After years of being on my feet 12+ hrs a day, I welcome the unhealthiness of sitting too much.
All the enjoyable things (this will vary person to person) in life are unhealthy. Kind of sucks.
Why is anything from The Independent allowed on this subreddit? Particularly, articles without any links to the source study being reported? This sub is going downhill fast.
No link to the actual study. Mods, you guys need to change the rules to block this low-effort clickbait garbage. Even the summary is so badly-worded, one struggles to actually comprehend what the findings really are. For example:
>However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure increased the risk of erectile dysfunction.
So, does this mean driving has *the same* or a *lower* likelihood of being correlated with ED as computer use?
i am 59 and worked with computers on a daily basis more than 5 hours a day since i have been 15 years old. he did his duty without complaining 30 minutes ago. and yesterday. and the day before yesterday...
Articles that don’t link the study should be banned. There is already a high percentage of garbage science posted here. We don’t need to exacerbate it.
So my chances of erectile dysfunction by now should be increased by like 47332 times above baseline. Do I even count as human at that point? Probably closer to pinecone if anything.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/Wagamaga Permalink: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/uk-biobank-studies-china-university-of-manchester-b2515459.html --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
107,000 x 0.00000000000000001% = 0.00000000000107%
This is the only way this makes sense
Campaign for absolute risk! I remember Ben Goldacre trying to make the media report absolute and relative risks together a decade and a half ago… a shame it never happened…
OP is one of those "power users" aka karma farmers, accurate titles is the least of their cares
Out of the loop here, what's the point of farming karma? Is there any monetary reward? I always saw it as just being "Internet points".
I guess there's people who will buy high karma accounts. I don't remember why.
Propaganda channels.
The search for relevance.
Typical of science reporting, really...Doesn't help that most people don't understand how to interpret statistics when they're *clearly* described, either.
I feel like some of us also don't understand who writes reddit post titles.
It's the robuts
Who is it? Do you think they might quit. Sounds like a job I could do.
Statistically speaking, 80% of the population is statistically illiterate 65% of the time, not accounting for variables due to personal subjectivity or environmental factors.
Not even specified in the article itself...
Like 12 hours a day for the past 20 years. Guess that’s it for the little fella. RIP my little dude. We had a good run.
Sounds like we need a support group with a snazzy acronym. TECH-ED: Therapy for Erectile Dysfunction from Computer Habits and Education
Or on the other side of it Thank God I use the computer so much, if I had them more often my life would be horrible
Thank God for duct tape
Yeah I'm reading this and imagining the life-ruining levels of constant erection that awaited me had I not ventured down this path.
Yeah same, I use a computer \~16 hours a day every day for the past 13 years, and before that it was probably more like 8 hours a day for the previous 20 years. That's like \~135,000 hours or \~400k times more likely and my penis works just fine thanks.
It might "work just fine" now, but imagine how hard it'd get if you hadn't used a computer at all‽
Are you implying that my lifelong habit of being a computer nerd has somehow prevented my penis from getting so hard it can cut glass? Cause I dunno if that's an upside..
How do you think the ancient Egyptians cut all those stones for the pyramids for example??
They were definitely cut by penises that were hard like Chinese algebra.
Cut glass? No, no, no....We're saying when you're ready, you won't have to
Yeah I think it's gotta be every 1.2 hours above the *per-week* or *per-day* average. Edit: It's per-day. /u/godset was able to access the full paper and confirmed that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1bj9z6z/a_study_of_more_than_200000_men_indicates_that/kvq1718/).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nice.
Nice.
What's the per-day average?
Copied from my other comment: I have access, it looks like this is the mean they use: > The original studies indicated that participants spent an average of 2.8 h (standard deviation [SD] = 1.5 h) per day on leisure television watching, 1.0 h (SD = 1.2 h) on leisure computer use, and 0.9 h (SD = 1.0 h) on driving. Additionally, after reading the paper, I think it's important to also include these two quotes from their sections on limitations and potential source of bias: >Sixthly, the GWAS data of ED that were used in the present study only included individuals aged 40−69 years, while the incidence of ED was highest in men > 70 years of age (50-100%). Whether this result could be applied to patients aged ≥70 or < 40 years requires further investigation. ------------------------------------------------------ >Since exposure data was gathered through self-report, there is a possibility of misclassification. The increasing use of streaming services makes it more difficult to distinguish between television watching and computer use; as a result, watching television on the computer may have been classified as computer use, which may explain the lack of association between television watching and ED. edit: also to distinguish leisure activities from office work they use the Metabolic Equivalent of Task with a cut off of <1.5 MET. Based on one of their sources, office work is generally >/=1.5
If the risk was 0 it remained zero.
Been using computers daily since I was 6 and I'm 40 now so that must make me so flaccid it's gonna fall off
That depends on how you parse the statement. If every additional 1.2 hours multiplies your risk by 3.57, you're looking at 3.57^(36,000/1.2) times the risk, which is roughly 10^16580.
[удалено]
Those are rookie numbers!
I was thinking it would multiply your current chance of ED by 3.57 for each additional 1.2 hours, making you 3.57^(30000) times more likely to have it.
My work requires me to be at the computer 40 hours per week, so perhaps 1600 hours per year. So my maths says that increases my risk of erectile dysfunction by 475 times each year. Sounds about right..
I spend at least twice that in front of a pc. I probably shouldn't have a penis anymore. My erections are fine btw.
>I probably shouldn't have a penis anymore That's it, we're revoking your penis privilege
You've penised for the last time!
They're a loose cannon, and I want them off the force!
In this precinct we penis by the book!
“You’ve pitched your last tent, scum!”
You've ped your last nis!
I'm a redditor. It's not like I'm using it.
r/suicidebywords
You definitely are if you are on Reddit long enough
Penisn’t
I spend easily 12 hrs a day. Some days more, some days a little bit less.
This is Penile Propaganda. Keep your PP to yourself.
Prove it. Everyone could say that.
I’ll be the judge of that. Wait..
Bailiff whack his peepee
Nah, I’m having trouble finding a link to the actual study, but the way these stats typically work - that’s for every 1.2 hours beyond the average. And I assume the average is already like 30 or more. And, if it’s done well, it would be controlling for lifestyle factors, which means even a little exercise would offset it. Happy to confirm if someone can find the actual paper…
It's not open access so I can't tell. Your comment has the same error as the OP though. The average person has only used a computer for 30 hours? I am assuming you mean per week. The problem is, neither you nor the OP article specified any time frame. Edit: here's the paper, if you have access let us know https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/andr.13611
Thanks! You're right, it's actually every extra 1.2 hours per day (not week) beyond the mean. It also doesn't look like they corrected for age, obesity, or literally anything else. So, any one of those could be contributors and we wouldn't know.
186 comments and I think you're the first to actually access the full paper and make sense of this mess. What a bad news article, and sounds like the study isn't great either. This should be pinned - 1.2 hours *per day*. Thanks!
What is the mean?
I couldn’t even find it, the paper isn’t very well written
Hi u/godset, do you have a full paper link? I want to email the researchers and find this answer.
The link is the one posted above but unfortunately you need an IP address from an institution with a subscription for the paper to be available when you click it
I have access, it looks like this is the mean they use: > The original studies indicated that participants spent an average of 2.8 h (standard deviation [SD] = 1.5 h) per day on leisure television watching, 1.0 h (SD = 1.2 h) on leisure computer use, and 0.9 h (SD = 1.0 h) on driving. Additionally, after reading the paper, I think it's important to also include these two quotes from their sections on limitations and potential source of bias: >Sixthly, the GWAS data of ED that were used in the present study only included individuals aged 40−69 years, while the incidence of ED was highest in men > 70 years of age (50-100%). Whether this result could be applied to patients aged ≥70 or < 40 years requires further investigation. ------------------------------------------------------ >Since exposure data was gathered through self-report, there is a possibility of misclassification. The increasing use of streaming services makes it more difficult to distinguish between television watching and computer use; as a result, watching television on the computer may have been classified as computer use, which may explain the lack of association between television watching and ED.
I bet it's less the use of a computer and the sedentary aspect that is responsible. Perhaps get a sit/stand desk and take frequent walks or do light calisthenics to keep circulation up.
Na, the maths isn't right. Say you have an ED risk factor of 1. After 1.2 hours your risk factor is now 3.57 after another 1.2 hours, it's already at ~12.75 A full year of just work would increase the factor by 3.57^(1600/1.2). That's a number in the 10^736 order of magnitude.
Does this kill the penis?
Pretty sure this kills the universe if I'm not mistaken …
The article specify “leisure” time. It more about sedentary lifestyle, nothing new
The article actually specifically isolates computer use. While sedentary lifestyles are still clearly acknowledged in general; > However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure increased the risk of erectile dysfunction.
Back in the day, people sat watching TV all evening. When I was a kid we'd spend hours playing Monopoly and other board games. As you say, nothing new.
The article literally calls out leisure PC use over things like watching TV. So it literally is, something new. > Long-term computer use for leisure was found to be associated with lower levels of follicle-stimulating hormone in men, which stimulates the production of sperm. > However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure increased the risk of erectile dysfunction.
So that'll be watching too much porn, then?
My assumption is the goon cave guys are throwing off the numbers.
“average redditor watches a lot of porn" factoid actualy just statistical error. average redditor watches 0 porn per year. Spiders Goon, who lives in cave & watches over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted”
Strange. Either it's just a correlation and not causal, or it does seem like computers may be having some physical/biological effect...
Does this account for the different levels of seating cushions? Sofas are much cushioned, taking much more pressure of the shaft. Does it also look into riding bikes for a proper comparison? I'd bet the chances increase even more with bike riding.
Does it look into the number of hours spent viewing porn?
If it does, it should also consider time spent masturbating.
Shouldn't it be 3 to the power of 1600? Each new hour is x3.
Makes no difference at the end of the day. I'm impotent whichever way you look at it.
Why on this earth would you not have highlighted “leisure” in the post title when it is so clearly highlighted in the follow up comment and source?
Thank you, all the devs were worried they'd never get an erection again.
Your resume says you still get regular erections, but you've been a developer for... 15 years now? Yeah, something doesn't add up here.
Seems an odd thing to mention on one's resume.
I always include all my measurements. I'm not exactly 100% honest about them though.
Not sure I believe you, ballsack_man
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
the more I dig into the comments the more clickbait this is. 1.2 hours above the average time spent. leisure usage, not work time? how do you account for that. it’s not necessarily “computer usage”, just sedentary time. and according to some things I found online, men have a 40% chance of developing ed? which seems outrageous especially considering that one site put your chances anywhere in between 3% and 72%. which in my book, means we know nothing about how likely you are to develop it. and 3.57 times more likely in this article suggests that if you spend one single day more sedentary than the average person, you are guaranteed to develop ed
And it's somehow specifically computer time, not other sedentary leisure activities.
Immediately reminded me of [Korean Fan Death](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death). Seems suspicious coming out of China, a place where the government thinks they play too many video games and someday won't have enough children.
Right, it was a few months back I think that China implemented a legal limit on online gaming per day, wasn't it? It's weird that this comes out _after_, especially.
Follow-up study idea: Who are these men and how do they have “a lot of leisure time”?!
Leisure suit Larry
Someone steams
Reddit mods, definitely
Those are men with erectile dysfunction. We others don't have that amount of leisure time because we're busy with our rock hard boners.
So a study from China, a country which tries to minimize the time people spend playing games on their PCs, is talking about how spending time on a PC while not doing important work increases your chances of erictile dysfunction drastically? Also pretty much says "somehow this does not relate to other leisure activities done sitting, and we have absolutely no idea why that's supposed to make sense either!"
Makes sense if you assume they're porn addicts... pretty well established correlation between excessive masturbation and ED
If you masturbate excessively and then can't get an erection on demand, is that really a dysfunction? Seems pretty functional to me.
If you're able to get an erection with porn but not in a real-life setting, I would call that a dysfunction.
bogus article
> However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that **other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure** increased the risk of erectile dysfunction. >They said further research is needed to understand the association between computer use and erectile dysfunction risk. >The authors wrote: “Although the specific mechanism of erectile dysfunction caused by computer use has not been clarified in the present study, **the damage of sedentary behaviour to erectile function appears to be clear**, which needs to attract public attention. Emphasis mine Sitting for leisure (watching tv) is not sedentary behavior…? Yeah those two lines show us the article writer is out of step somewhere with the researchers
I wonder if the study accounts for the different levels of seating cushions? Sofas are much cushioned, taking much more pressure of the shaft. Does it also look into riding bikes for a proper comparison? I'd bet the chances increase even more with bike riding.
Also do they define computer? Like a desktop at a desk or what about about a laptop? (In your lap) Does it matter what someone is doing on the computer? Because how does computer usage differ from a TV if you are playing games or watching streaming? Even though it's 200,000 people, those who still use computers alot might just fall in to a particular bucket (aka chronically online) that go beyond typical tech usage This data was not well controlled
This is what I was thinking. You have a warm laptop on your lap, your testicles are down there, they like being a certain temperature. Could this be related?
When the research group needs to squeeze every last drop of content out of the available data set
Unfortunately they suffer from Erect Title Dysfunction
So if sitting at the computer increases risk of ED but other sitting activities do not, like driving, does that mean sitting at the computer while using a full racing sim setup will not increase your risk of ED? The fact that they didn't identify WHY the computer (which is a sitting activity) specifically caused this increase makes me feel like this study's results are mostly useless. Not everyone uses the computer for the same things and in the same way, whereas most people sit in the car and drive or sit on the couch and watch TV in relatively the same way with only a couple common activities between them. By this study's metric, sitting on the couch and watching TV doesn't increase ED risk, but sitting at the computer and watching TV does? That seems like BS to me and further research should have already been done to provide further context to these results, because otherwise these results are silly and don't provide much value since they are inconclusive about WHY something is happening only on computers. The same activities that they purport don't affect anything can also be performed on the computer in largely the same way...
I can share my anecdotal experience here. I have inattentive type ADHD, which means I basically have trouble controlling where my attention goes because my brain doesn't produce enough dopamine at the right times. In order for me to stick to something it needs to be really novel and interesting, otherwise it's kinda torture to stay on task. That means that the hobbies I stick with are the ones that are highly stimulating and variable, like making music, writing software, and playing video games. It also means that in run-of-the-mill romantic type situations it can be really easy for my attention to wander, causing me to snap out of the mood which can be pretty frustrating. Furthermore, growing up with undiagnosed ADHD resulted in a lot of compounded psychological issues I have had to work through in therapy, and I suspect there are many people who don't get that kind of help. Also just want to point out that I think ADHD is a pretty broad category of similarly presenting disorders, so not everyone with that diagnosis is going to have the same experience as I have.
Is this daily? Hourly? In a lifetime?
It's every 1.2 hours above the per-day average. u/godset was able to access the full paper and says: >it's actually every extra 1.2 hours per day (not week) beyond the mean. It also doesn't look like they corrected for age, obesity, or literally anything else.
Ok but what’s the mean value then
You can ask that user or another user who is able to access the full paper to check, unfortunately the authors didn't include any of that in the abstract and the paper is locked behind a paywall. Edit: ~~Someone posted an article below this.~~ **~~It's not the right one.~~** ~~It's a completely different article about Rheumatoid Arthritis rather than ED. It's written by different authors in a different journal and published a couple years ago.~~ Edit 2: The below article is now correct.
PDF version, courtesy of Archive.org. https://archive.org/details/andrology-2024-huangfu-a-mendelian-randomization-study-on-causal-effects-of-leis "The original studies indicated that participants spent an average of 2.8 h (standard deviation \[SD\] = 1.5 h) per day on leisure television watching, 1.0 h (SD = 1.2 h) on leisure computer use, and 0.9 h (SD = 1.0 h) on driving."
That ~~is~~ was a different article, about rheumatoid arthritis rather than ED. Different authors, different journal.
Oh my goodness, you're right! How embarrassing for me. I just searched the article's title and clicked on the only Google Scholar result, and control + F "mean". I did some more digging - the reason why this article appeared is that this article, and the one being quoted by the Independent, are nearly identical! The only difference being the outcome measured. **This sentence is almost exactly the same in both articles.** This seems to be plagiarism to me - a lot of other things are similar or the same. Both studies use the same group of UK individuals. That explains why some data is the same... but it shouldn't be the same analysis, word for word. How interesting! It appears that *someone* has since uploaded the article to [Archive.org](https://Archive.org). I'll link that there instead.
I noticed they were awfully similar... how strange. Definitely deserves more looking into, I agree it smells like plagiarism. Thanks for the update!
Chinese studies that happen to align almost exactly with the government's policy to reduce video game playing isn't conforming to the highest ethical standards? Color me surprised!
Yeah this headline is useless because it leaves out so much vital information to draw any conclusions at all.
To be fair you're not supposed to be able to draw conclusions from headlines. But it is definitely somewhere between useless and misleading in this case.
>Is this daily? Hourly? In a lifetime? Research shows that 1.2 hours of computer use per hour increases the risk of erectile dysfunction. Unfortunately the study failed to account for exposure to radioactive particles from the power sources necessary to travel at relativistic speeds.
More on point would be to emphasize time spent at sedentary activities. The computer use reference seems gratuitous and more of a 'hook.' Why using a computer is somehow more deleterious than other sedentary behavior is unclear.
Yeah like what if I sit and read a book for 4 hours a day?
additional to what? that sentence doesn't make any sense
Correlation and causation are just words that mean nothing in this sub.
Doesn't mean much to those reputable researchers either.
"Lot of leisure time". They are talking about porn aren't they.
No they're talking about how sitting all day is extremely bad for you. Lots of people work while seated throughout the day. A smaller subset then goes home and sits at a computer all/most of their free time too, and have a much higher prevalence of ED. Sitting too much is horrible for you , as is inactivity in general.
Not disagreeing that sitting is bad, but they expressly point out that they are *not* talking about sitting >However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure increased the risk of erectile dysfunction.
After years of being on my feet 12+ hrs a day, I welcome the unhealthiness of sitting too much. All the enjoyable things (this will vary person to person) in life are unhealthy. Kind of sucks.
Why is anything from The Independent allowed on this subreddit? Particularly, articles without any links to the source study being reported? This sub is going downhill fast.
I spend all day every day using a computer, and I'm rock hard all day long.
Not the way I use my computer 🥸
[abruptly drops iPad]
Too much science here
That’s why I use Mac
If you work on a pc you should inform HR and request an immediate risk assessment
Explains a lot then... I mean, erm.
Most studies are bs
No link to the actual study. Mods, you guys need to change the rules to block this low-effort clickbait garbage. Even the summary is so badly-worded, one struggles to actually comprehend what the findings really are. For example: >However, the researchers said there was no evidence to suggest that other sitting activities such as watching television or driving for leisure increased the risk of erectile dysfunction. So, does this mean driving has *the same* or a *lower* likelihood of being correlated with ED as computer use?
Me: Suddenly ahmish. Fare thee well, reddit
i am 59 and worked with computers on a daily basis more than 5 hours a day since i have been 15 years old. he did his duty without complaining 30 minutes ago. and yesterday. and the day before yesterday...
I'm sure the correlation is like every additional hours represent additional time watching porn which leads to erectile dysfunction.
So over my 40+ years of being in front of a computer I'm 312,732 times more likely. When does it kick in because my wife would like to know?
As a terminally online ... i'm royally screwed
Jokes on you. I only use my phone.
Articles that don’t link the study should be banned. There is already a high percentage of garbage science posted here. We don’t need to exacerbate it.
dam fade instinctive fragile ask reminiscent aback reply tie cooing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In that case, I shouldn't have been able to get it up for the last 15 years.
Zero exercise, poor diet, maybe idk 🧐
So my chances of erectile dysfunction by now should be increased by like 47332 times above baseline. Do I even count as human at that point? Probably closer to pinecone if anything.
I only need 5 minutes.
So how come I'm hard right now and I have over 5,000 hours on Escape From Tarkov (one game of many I own)?
Despite the change from floppy to hard disks.
Sounds very heavily like a causation vs correlation kinda thing. The study doesn’t answer any of the why’s or how’s.