It’s hard to ignore an advertising pitch backed up by numbers. That’s why people in sales and marketing use statistics. It’s called numerical persuasion, and it can influence your choices and decisions. If you’ve ever heard a toothpaste ad claiming that nine out of ten dentists recommend this brand, you know what I’m talking about. You may wonder if that’s really true (did the writers really interview ten dentists, and did nine of them actually agree on the brand?) but it has the ring of authority. It lodges in your brain, and the next time you run out of toothpaste, you may unconsciously buy that very product.

Research statistics, however, are based in objective results or facts. The numbers are credible because they are the product of carefully designed studies that generate data, and the data is tested by putting it through at least one established analytic process. The quality of the statistics is evaluated according to two concepts: reliability and validity.

• Reliable – This has to do with consistency. No matter how many times an experiment or study is reproduced, the statistical results are always the same.
• Valid – The study results reflect true findings if tested on others outside the study.

In both cases, the larger the study population, the greater the likelihood that the results are both reliable and valid.

One of the largest men’s health study populations in the U.S. is the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). It began in 1986 with 51,529 healthcare professionals who have been followed by questionnaires at 2-year intervals (questions about diseases and topics like medications, smoking, exercise, etc.) and at 4-year intervals (questions about detailed dietary information). Currently, there are still over 21,000 men in the study—still a large number, especially considering they have been followed for 37 years. The information gathered from these questionnaires has the potential to legitimately influence men’s health choices, so HPFS has spawned thousands of articles by researchers around the world (notably, many out of Harvard University).

Three ingredients that lower PCa risk

One of the most recent papers is a December 2023 study out of Harvard, “Modifiable risk factors for subsequent lethal prostate cancer among men with an initially negative prostate biopsy.”^[i] It has persuasive implications for men at risk for prostate cancer (PCa). The authors identified a pool of 10,396 HPFS participants who had an initial negative prostate biopsy (no PCa) after 1994 and were followed for PCa diagnosis until 2017 (23 years of follow up). Out of that number, 1851 cases were diagnosed, of which 168 were lethal (death specifically due to PCa).

By analyzing modifiable lifestyle factors and correlating them with the incidence of diagnosed lethal and nonlethal PCa, the authors found three particular patterns of association. Nonlethal PCa was linked with coffee intake, statin use, and dietary lycopene. You might consider that these are three ingredients in a recipe to minimize chances of developing high-risk PCa.

Given the number of men for whom these patterns were evident, I can safely say the results are statistically reliable. As for valid, the authors write, “Risk factors for future prostate cancer among men with a negative biopsy were generally consistent with those for the general population, supporting their validity…” In addition, they note that if future studies confirm these findings, they offer action steps that more men can integrate into their lifestyles. Three cheers for the HPFS and the real-life guidance it offers to reduce PCa risk. With coffee, statins and lycopene, let’s get cooking!

NOTE: This content is solely for purposes of information and does not substitute for diagnostic or medical advice. Talk to your doctor if you are experiencing pelvic pain, or have any other health concerns or questions of a personal medical nature.

References

[i] Feng X, Zhang Y, Vaselkiv JB, Li R et al. Modifiable risk factors for subsequent lethal prostate cancer among men with an initially negative prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer. 2023 Dec;129(12):1988-2002.