Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

False!!!

sent from bathroom using one hand

So you're saying fapping doesn't have any adverse effects on test levels?

To my know knowledge studies have shown no fappin for a lengthy period of time elevates testosterone levels

" This current study examined the effect of a 3-week period of sexual abstinence on the neuroendocrine response to masturbation-induced orgasm. Hormonal and cardiovascular parameters were examined in ten healthy adult men during sexual arousal and masturbation-induced orgasm. Blood was drawn continuously and cardiovascular parameters were constantly monitored. This procedure was conducted for each participant twice, both before and after a 3-week period of sexual abstinence. Plasma was subsequently analysed for concentrations of adrenaline, noradrenaline, cortisol, prolactin, luteinizing hormone and testosterone concentrations. Orgasm increased blood pressure, heart rate, plasma catecholamines and prolactin. These effects were observed both before and after sexual abstinence. In contrast, although plasma testosterone was unaltered by orgasm, higher testosterone concentrations were observed following the period of abstinence. These data demonstrate that acute abstinence does not change the neuroendocrine response to orgasm but does produce elevated levels of testosterone in males. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760788?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I don't agree at all.

Regardless of all the physical aspects of it, which i don't know about as i haven't researched it, you have the mental side.

And if doing it makes you feel better, and happier, and less grumpy....then i would say it's good for wellbeing

Fapping is not good for general well being anyway so its better to abstain from it all together

f**king lol.. what are you some sort of religious extremist?

Forget test and forget the fapping... dumping your load more frequently is better for your "health"

Wether you do it by hand/whore/pumpkin/vag/arse/mouth or tit is up to you.

Doesn't mean you should lock yourself up in a room with porn, tissues and cream to try and break some records.

There were guys on bodybuilding.com or whatever and they didn't fap for a month or so to see how it affected there gains, dont think it went to well.

I think it actually decreases your test if you dont 'go' for to long. Lifes to short to not fap for the sake of marginally higher test levels, cant tell me you'll actually notice a difference between a fapping bodybuilder and a non fapper.

f**king lol.. what are you some sort of religious extremist?

Forget test and forget the fapping... dumping your load more frequently is better for your "health"

Wether you do it by hand/whore/pumpkin/vag/arse/mouth or tit is up to you.

Doesn't mean you should lock yourself up in a room with porn, tissues and cream to try and break some records.

lol

it may or may not be better for your own wellbeing... but I can guarantee its better for everyone else around you

food, sleep and sex... if I don't get enough I become a rage monster... Hulk smash!

many fighters abstain before fights... claiming it keeps them focused... I reckon it just makes them angry... which probably works too

When you don't fap/have sex often, the body has less of a need to produce sperm and testosterone, therefore lowering your overall levels.

Frequent ejaculation also decreases the risk of prostate cancer.

Studies have also shown a spike in test levels after sexual activity, and there is an increase in the strength of compound movements (such as squats) while on this test spike.

Jesus Christ man, do you even have a dick?

cant tell me you'll actually notice a difference between a fapping bodybuilder and a non fapper.

So it's no longer a question of who juices and doesn't...it's now "he must fap".

Studies have also shown a spike in test levels after sexual activity, and there is an increase in the strength of compound movements (such as squats) while on this test spike.

They must be talking about like 8 hours after...

Cause straight after is snooze time.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • Well.... it's not just "de-oxygenating". If you do that you just have, most likely, ethane. So you still need to do a synthesis step to combine a number of ethanes/ethanols to make circa-8-chain hydrocarbons. And of course you don't want straight chain HCs, because n-octane actually has a negative octane rating (ie, it's worse even than the n-heptane which sets the zero on the octane scale!), so you have to do some tricky catalytic chemistry to synthesise branched HCs. That's all doable - but it doesn't come for free. And.... it starts with ethanol, which is an agricultural product, and there will almost certainly never be enough of that as a base stock to replace the liquid fuels that are in use. You really wouldn't want to be planning to be using any more ethanol for fuels than is currently already used (in E10, E85s, etc). And ideally you'd be looking to reduce such usage, as it is largely wasteful, particularly in the stupid-ole'US-of-A where the corn lobby has organised it so that it's actually primary production corn that is used to make a lot of the ethanol, not by-products and waste, like it is (mostly) elsewhere. So, what I said about needing free-ish energy probably still applies. True synth fuels would be made from H2 and CO2, in a near reversal of the combustion process. In fact, given that the H2 would be split from water first, it actually is a complete reversal of the combustion process. But...energy intensive. The human race burns something like 1 cubic MILE of crude oil, after it has been made into various fuels. Every year. That's a simply stupendous amount of energy. Just assume that the density is 900 kg/m3, and that the calorific value is 45 MJ/kg, then that is 165.9 x10^12 MJ of energy. Or more than 10^19 Joules. You get a maximum of 1 kJ/s per square meter solar radiation falling on the planet's surface, and so if you halve that for daylight, and halve it again for average weather (highly optimistic) and then take ~25% for the very best efficiency of solar panels, then you need about 85.7 billion square metres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to replace that liquid fuel energy consumption. Each panel is about 1m2. That's a rather large number of panels. We also burn about a cubic mile of coal. We also use hydroelectric power. We also use nuclear. We also use a number of other sources, both "renewable" and not. You can kind of ignore the renewable ones (except for hydro, because it will all end up getting subsumed into pumped hydro for storing other renewables, and so it won't be the standalone renewable that it originally was), so we end up needing a multiple of the ground area number that I just arrived at.
    • Corvette thread then? Don't say I didn't predict the future again. "I love the little MX5, I do, but I just want something a little easier to get in/out of, a little more cushy and some power would be nice - I miss the V8 Rumble... I found this clean red C5 for sale recently and..." I'll do you a great deal on the next step, which is one of those but you can fit people in it, too.
    • What about renewable diesel and/or gasoline? I see some projects spinning up like de-oxygenating ethanol to make drop-in compatible bio-gasoline especially in CA. I still think the future is EVs and we should've all gone full throttle on nuclear power after the 1973 oil crisis like France. Despite 15 years of work in CA to reduce the CO2 intensity of generation with renewables our electric grid is still far worse than even "low carbon" nuclear power. ICE is pretty cool when you aren't depending on the stupid thing to be practical and reliable and cheap as possible to get you to work every day. It's kind of like mechanical watches or vacuum tube amps.
    • I just rolled over "my" first 10k km in the MX5 Every time I go anywhere it always ends up in a adventure to look at houses and find some random country roads I've been on leave since early November but unfortunately need to go back to work on 19 January Luckily though I still have a fair chunk of leave left to burn until.... Not that I'm counting 😁
    • These look like S13 wheels.  And Welcome! 
×
×
  • Create New...