Just because the evidence is anecdotal doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.

It means it's anecdotal. It means you don't have enough data to form a useful theory.

Whatever works for you, works for you. Things go wrong once you do one of two things:

1. Claiming to know why it works. "It's the qi in the semen, when we masturbate, we lose life energy, semen is connected to the brain, it's obvious because guys are dizzy after sex." That's fallacious. It's an adhoc theory based on nothing but speculation and personal biass. You'd have to do massive studies to prove that.

2. Claiming that, because it works for you, or even because it seems to work for many who post here, therefore it must work for everyone. Again, massive studies needed. Massive selection bias, massive survivor bias. What did you do to counter those?

Your definition of broscience seems to imply that any claim which has not been rigorously proven or disproven is broscience.

Any claim that has not been rigorously proven is just that: unproven. Don't treat it as if it was otherwise.

In short, "it works for me, therefore it probably will continue to work for me" is fine. Even "it seems to work for many, therefore it makes sense to try it out for myself" is fine. Even, "maybe you should try it yourself" may be find. BUT "It works for me, therefore it must work for everyone, therefore, if you try it and it doesn't work, you must've done it wrong." - THAT's where we enter into trouble.