"Nofap" Mechanism

[Explorer]

PMO makes:
my voice softer / more feminine
my general anxiety increase
me feel low DHT
more emotionally numb. It makes your life's failures bother you less, which is why it can be so addicting to many

This happens in a matter of hours. I suppose that Nofap should really be a mandatory habit for anyone with an un-optimal metabolism, just like taking exogenous thyroid hormones.

I too get weakening from that in some things like at mental clarity etc. but I have the Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome so I don't know how many of those are due to my POIS and which are due to lack of abstinence benefits I wonder why none of those have improved despite eating low PUFA and overall having good calorie and nutrient intake including many forms of animal products despite the type of nutrition I have in theory being very prometabolic and proandrogenic and proThyroid even though I have good markers in areas like height (190cm), leanness (around 10% bodyfat on 63kg weight, Norwood level 0 and other statistics my beard is still growing and very subtle and hairs will need to appear more for it to fill out despite it having started growing since early 2019 now and now having not shaved it for months the growth is slow maybe once a week three new hairs appear and existing ones maybe grow very slightly in length and that's more or less it which is weird because my face and chest hair are very little and chest hair almost nonexistant and only visible if looking closely in presence of light however I do have a very slight naval strip but that too is lighter in color as my general hair color is on blondeish side however other body hairs especially leg hair I already grew quite early and they are dense so idk why towards the upper areas of my body the androgenic hairs seem to grow less and started appearing later in my life and my voice is moderate it is not high but not deep either and I feel like on my abstinence streak my voice sounded better kind of deeper or at least more clear and confident sounding or at least it seems that the perception of the good qualities one has gets increased on abstinence streak at least it did for me for example I always felt like I was more muscular, androgenic, confident and overall just better developed when looking at myself in the mirror or in general in the daily life when on an abstinence streak like it sort of enhances your perception of the good qualities in you and you lowkey feel like "the ***t" idk if that is the best and closest explanation I could make.

 

[TheSir]

Common fact of biological systems: use it or lose it.

How does this answer to the question? I asked for evidence that orgasming is a physiological need. You answered that not orgasming will make you unable to orgasm. How does this prove that orgasming is a physiological need (it seems to suggest the opposite!), let alone that abstinence from orgasm reduces health/longevity?

And now with the linked study even longevity is indicated to suffer if you don't use your reproductive capabilities.

Aren't you drawing unjustifiable conclusions from suggestive evidence of one study? What about eunuchs living 15-20 years longer than non-castrated men? What about worms living 50% longer after sperm production is stopped? Have you considered that diminishing the activity of the reproductive system might actually be a good thing in regards to overall health? After all, reproduction and the maintenance of the reproductive system is a significant stress to the body -- to such extent that many organisms even die after mating.

 

[rei]

Explorer: I would see it somewhat analogous to having such physical condition that prevents exercise for them. Something to correct as fast as possible so that the body does not deteriorate further due to lack of use.

GreekDemiGod: do you have same result from having sex, or is this also some magical effect that only happens from PMO? If both do you also advocate celibacy except when trying to have children?

TheSir: You can draw your conclusion from worms, i take mine from mole rats. Guess which is closer to human? Also, castrated or hystectomized cats live much shorter lives than intact ones, probably applicable to all mammals. I don't know about eunuchs or the study and how properly made it was, when were they castrated (possible it was prevention of puberty that made the difference? It is well known the later you enter puberty the longer you live) but in any case castration is pretty significantly different from just abstinence.

 

[TheSir]

I would see it somewhat analogous to having such physical condition that prevents exercise for them. Something to correct as fast as possible so that the body does not deteriorate further due to lack of use.

On what basis? Through what kind of mechanisms would not orgasming deteriorate the body in the first place?

 

[rei]

Same one that makes mole rats die younger. Use it or lose it, basic concept. Here maybe cooperative evolution causing "paradoxical" altruism by leaving the habitat to members of your species that are successful in reproduction? Altruism is a widely researched concept and the conclusion is that it has evolved because it helps the species, even if it hurts you. So it supports the RP view on evolution and seems to talk against the darwinian view.

 

[MrGilbert]

@rei You can use it without cooming. I have sex regularly while practicing semen retention. Best of both worlds.

 

[TheSir]

Same one that makes mole rats die younger.

But no such mechanism has really been established. The earlier study merely provided a hypothesis for one. Not to mention how this hypothesis has little to do with your theory of abstinence-induced bodily deterioration -- a claim for which I doubt you're ever going to be providing much evidence.

Also, castrated or hystectomized cats live much shorter lives than intact ones

It appears that neutered cats live significantly longer (up to 60%!) than unneutered ones. As far as I know, the same is true for all animals. As I said, reproductive functions are major stressors. There is a reason most animals embark on reproduction only once a year, or why a breeding bull is usually replaced after just a few years of service: it takes a lot out of them. It takes a lot out of you too!

Newsroom | Banfield Pet Hospital®

Stay up to date on the latest Banfield news and announcements, from community outreach to professional partnerships. Know more.

www.banfield.com

castration is pretty significantly different from just abstinence.

At face value, you are right, it is. Consider though that prolonged abstinence is comparable to soft-castration, as the outcome would be vastly reduced (though reversible) rate of sperm production. Which would translate to significant amounts of resources freed for other metabolic functions.

Same one that makes mole rats die younger. Use it or lose it, basic concept. Here maybe cooperative evolution causing "paradoxical" altruism by leaving the habitat to members of your species that are successful in reproduction? Altruism is a widely researched concept and the conclusion is that it has evolved because it helps the species, even if it hurts you. So it supports the RP view on evolution and seems to talk against the darwinian view.

'Use it or lose it' is a saying, rather than a scientifically valid concept. Why I'm prodding you with these questions is that for all your talk about religious views, it seems that neither is the actual meat behind your views based on much else than blind faith and bias. Perhaps this is the reason you vehemently reject these same qualities in the arguments of others?

 

[rei]

But no such mechanism has really been established. The earlier study merely provided a hypothesis for one. Not to mention how this hypothesis has little to do with your theory of abstinence-induced bodily deterioration -- a claim for which I doubt you're ever going to be providing much evidence.


It appears that neutered cats live significantly longer (up to 60%!) than unneutered ones. As far as I know, the same is true for all animals. As I said, reproductive functions are major stressors. There is a reason most animals embark on reproduction only once a year, or why a breeding bull is usually replaced after just a few years of service: it takes a lot out of them. It takes a lot out of you too!

Newsroom | Banfield Pet Hospital®

Stay up to date on the latest Banfield news and announcements, from community outreach to professional partnerships. Know more.

www.banfield.com

At face value, you are right, it is. Consider though that prolonged abstinence is comparable to soft-castration, as the outcome would be vastly reduced (though reversible) rate of sperm production. Which would translate to significant amounts of resources freed for other metabolic functions.


'Use it or lose it' is a saying, rather than a scientifically valid concept. Why I'm prodding you with these questions is that for all your talk about religious views, it seems that neither is the actual meat behind your views based on much else than blind faith and bias. Perhaps this is the reason you vehemently reject these same qualities in the arguments of others?

In a 2009 study https://beta.vin.com/apputil/image/handler.ashx?docid=5808186 , Waters and colleagues studied the impact of sex and sterilization on longevity of Rottweilers. They found that intact female Rottweilers were more likely to achieve “exceptional longevity”

Dr. Benjamin Hart, a professor emeritus in the Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, and colleagues analyzed the medical records of 759 golden retrievers seen at the UC Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital during a 10-year period.

They discovered that neutering increased the chances of a dog developing certain bone disorders or cancers.

In an interview, Hart said, “Clearly there needs to be a shift in the discussion. There is a huge, powerful lobby that makes early spay/neuter politically correct.”

You need to have some source critique and see from what kind of culture the study comes and who is the author and financier. You would not look for an impartial view on the health effect of pork from a muslim study group in a muslim country?

'Use it or lose it' is a fundamental fact that has so much evidence behind it from all areas of biology denying it is a religious stance. For instance, do you believe in the dogma of "lactase deficiency" or do you accept RP's stance that milk intolerance is due to going a long time without consuming it, so ability to digest was temporarily impaired?

As is the stance that a human or animal becomes healthier from removing body parts. Or denying normal activity all healthy individuals take part in, like sex. The bolded part in my quote displays how it is religious stance that leads people to those kind of thinking. And it is mainly prevalent in the very religious USA.

 

[TheSir]

You need to have some source critique and see from what kind of culture the study comes and who is the author and financier.

Unless you have direct critique of the source I used, this is mere cop out, and an insidious attempt at justifying the dismissal of anything that stands in opposition to your views or sources -- which ironically is religious-fundamentalist behavior.

Waters and colleagues studied the impact of sex and sterilization on longevity of Rottweilers. They found that intact female Rottweilers were more likely to achieve “exceptional longevity”

Note that spaying =/= neutering. As such this has little to do with the subject.

They discovered that neutering increased the chances of a dog developing certain bone disorders or cancers.

...yet still increased lifespan. Similar results were found in a study featuring 40 000 dogs: Reproductive Capability Is Associated with Lifespan and Cause of Death in Companion Dogs .. and dozens of more can be found online.

'Use it or lose it' is a fundamental fact that has so much evidence behind it from all areas of biology denying it is a religious stance.

Presenting juvenile platitudes as fundamental facts is borderline delusional. 'Use it or lose it' conveys no scientific meaning nor stands as an arguement in itself. Your insistence to vaguely refer to indefinite 'facts' is further testament to your inability to defend your point of view with actual substance -- another trait of a religious fundamentalist.

As is the stance that a human or animal becomes healthier from removing body parts. Or denying normal activity all healthy individuals take part in, like sex.

Such comparison (removing body parts vs modifying behavior) is yet another example of borderline delusionality. I ask you once more, after which I will leave you alone: can you demonstrate that sexual release is a physiological need, or even healthy? Mainstream science has not been able to demonstrate so, maybe you know something others don't? But if not, I see no reason to put much weight on anything you say.

 

[Explorer]

Explorer: I would see it somewhat analogous to having such physical condition that prevents exercise for them. Something to correct as fast as possible so that the body does not deteriorate further due to lack of use.

GreekDemiGod: do you have same result from having sex, or is this also some magical effect that only happens from PMO? If both do you also advocate celibacy except when trying to have children?

TheSir: You can draw your conclusion from worms, i take mine from mole rats. Guess which is closer to human? Also, castrated or hystectomized cats live much shorter lives than intact ones, probably applicable to all mammals. I don't know about eunuchs or the study and how properly made it was, when were they castrated (possible it was prevention of puberty that made the difference? It is well known the later you enter puberty the longer you live) but in any case castration is pretty significantly different from just abstinence.

I always had it even since puberty and doing it more often makes it even worse the only time I had relief from it was when I was sick with a cold so I believe it might be autoimmune some chemical released during those activities is probably attacked by immunity causing inflammation or something with the limbic system.

 

[rei]

Unless you have direct critique of the source I used, this is mere cop out, and an insidious attempt at justifying the dismissal of anything that stands in opposition to your views or sources -- which ironically is religious-fundamentalist behavior.

Note that spaying =/= neutering. As such this has little to do with the subject.


...yet still increased lifespan. Similar results were found in a study featuring 40 000 dogs: Reproductive Capability Is Associated with Lifespan and Cause of Death in Companion Dogs .. and dozens of more can be found online.


Presenting juvenile platitudes as fundamental facts is borderline delusional. 'Use it or lose it' conveys no scientific meaning nor stands as an arguement in itself. Your insistence to vaguely refer to indefinite 'facts' is further testament to your inability to defend your point of view with actual substance -- another trait of a religious fundamentalist.


Such comparison (removing body parts vs modifying behavior) is yet another example of borderline delusionality. I ask you once more, after which I will leave you alone: can you demonstrate that sexual release is a physiological need, or even healthy? Mainstream science has not been able to demonstrate so, maybe you know something others don't? But if not, I see no reason to put much weight on anything you say.

"This is the best data to date that shows women undergoing hysterectomy have a risk of long-term disease -- even when both ovaries are conserved," Laughlin-Tommaso said in a Mayo news release. "While women are increasingly aware that removing their ovaries poses health risks, this study suggests hysterectomy alone has risks, especially for women who undergo hysterectomy prior to age 35."

Women's Health

Find information on women's health issues, fitness, and lifestyle at the Women's Health Center

www.webmd.com

Stop cherrypicking studies from a militantly religious country that downright discriminate a dog and their owner if they see the balls are intact (even when they have no way to know if it is sterilized by vasectomy). Prime example of the delusional lengths religious nutjobs can be driven to even when it has nothing to do with them. Again, you need to learn to analyze studies and not merely regurgitate the result. This is a prime perspective RP tries to teach people.

Let's keep to humans and forget the animals. I'm surprised you are not aware of the numerous health benefits documented from sex or ejaculation. But in addition to that even i was not aware of the remarkable effect on longevity:

Result: Mortality risk was 50% lower in the group with high orgasmic frequency than in the group with low orgasmic frequency, with evidence of a dose-response relation across the groups.

Sex and death: are they related? Findings from the Caerphilly cohort study | The BMJ

www.bmj.com

That's the highest level of evidence such a study design can achieve, dose-response. No need to reference mole rats except as additional confirmation of the effect being valid across species.

 

[lvysaur]

It's correlative not causative.

The real problem isn't masturbation or even porn, it's that western culture is inherently outrageous, emotional, distracting, and short-term.

overmasturbation is simply the sexual manifestation of this overarching problem

 

[Harryo]

According to traditional Chinese medicine, ejaculation lowers vitality. It may make sense to lower it when it is too high but exaggerating I think the opposite effect is obtained. Surely the excess of the practice lowers the vital energy and the low level of this gives problems. Here we would need an expert in traditional Chinese medicine to talk about it because it is an important and delicate subject. A plant that helps the recovery of Qi and Ginseng but should only be taken when the Qi is low and not blocked otherwise even more damage is done.

 

[Highserotonin90]

According to traditional Chinese medicine, ejaculation lowers vitality. It may make sense to lower it when it is too high but exaggerating I think the opposite effect is obtained. Surely the excess of the practice lowers the vital energy and the low level of this gives problems. Here we would need an expert in traditional Chinese medicine to talk about it because it is an important and delicate subject. A plant that helps the recovery of Qi and Ginseng but should only be taken when the Qi is low and not blocked otherwise even more damage is done.

What is Qi?

 

[Harryo]

Here

 

[GelatinGoblin]

THE LIST OF GREATS. Looking through through this should give someome the idea.

I think having sex at an older age is protective. Generally, abstinence, especially during adolescence and puberty is very valuable. If you completely disregard sex in your life you get to special places, now I see how much of the people and things I see are just "sex", this is true especially to 10-30 year olds. If you just forget about it a lot of time and other things open up. If you are interested in a girl be interested in her personality and not for sex, completely forget it until you get very intimate, then naturally... Just forget about it. Sometimes "sex" is used to exploit you. Just some things of my mind, I encourage people to come to their own reasons for abstinence but I very much recommend it...

 

[TheSir]

Sex and death: are they related? Findings from the Caerphilly cohort study | The BMJ

www.bmj.com

That's the highest level of evidence such a study design can achieve, dose-response.

There is a simple explanation: higher libido tends to be a reflection of a higher state of health. In other words, frequency of ejaculation and mortality are both results of the same cause, rather than one being the cause to the other. An identical fallacy is used to justify the prostate cancer study as an argument for frequent ejaculations. It's just mid-witted nonsense.

I'm surprised you are not aware of the numerous health benefits documented from sex or ejaculation.

There isn't really evidence of any. The proposed benefits of ejaculation are almost mockery, boiling down to superficially scientific sentiments like "reduces cortisol" -- similar argumentation could be used to justify dosing morphine.

 

[rei]

There is a simple explanation: higher libido tends to be a reflection of a higher state of health. In other words, frequency of ejaculation and mortality are both results of the same cause, rather than one being the cause to the other. An identical fallacy is used to justify the prostate cancer study as an argument for frequent ejaculations. It's just mid-witted nonsense.


There isn't really evidence of any. The proposed benefits of ejaculation are almost mockery, boiling down to superficially scientific sentiments like "reduces cortisol" -- similar argumentation could be used to justify dosing morphine.

they controlled for health among many other factors and still found the effect stood true. And like they say, most other studies of the same topic found the same.

 

[TheSir]

they controlled for health among many other factors and still found the effect stood true. And like they say,

Controlling for risk factors amounts to little in the context of systemic health, and we both know how incompetent mainstream medicine is at determining the true state of an individual's health. Even more importantly, the study did not control for whether or not the participants were voluntarily abstaining. Being subjected to involuntary/forceful celibacy no doubt has harmful effects on the individual, whereas expressing a voluntary, organically cultivated desire for celibacy is unlikely to have any systemic downsides at all when properly managed.

most other studies of the same topic found the same.

These studies tend to indulge in the aforementioned fallacy almost as a rule. Even the authors of this study admit how due to this the association may not be clear enough to prove the proposed causality.

 

[rei]

yes, the study design is not able to show causality. But when most studies done in numerous ways find the same, then it is a good assumption to live under. Especially when none find the opposite, only no effect if they don't agree.