Nofap Challenge - Let's See If It Really Works.

[pegasus2]

A wet dream once a week is far different from sexual activity for hours every day. It's only when it's excessive that it becomes a problem.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Ejaculatuin has nothing to do with hair loss. In fact you Will have wet dreams whether you know it or not if you don't.

How would you not know? You should wake up dirty ...

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

A wet dream once a week is far different from sexual activity for hours every day. It's only when it's excessive that it becomes a problem.

Hours every day of masturbation?

Damn, some of you are f*****g horny.

 

[Rdx]

Nutritional deficiencies play no role in genetic hairloss. Genetics do.. Other types of hair loss have nothing to do what it.

Your testicles produce sperm whether and it gets stored in the prostate. When you ejaculate it's called the refractory period. This has no effect on your body's zinc levels...

You're being a troll spitting on broscience.

1.Don't yell like a girl.
2.I wrote "too much masturbation ",not masturbation
3.Google search about too much masturbation and zinc deficiency
4.You are right that there is no role of nutritional deficiencies in Androgenetic Alopecia.I never talked about Androgenetic Alopecia.
5.Nutritional deficiencies may have a role in hair loss.
6.Not everybody eat as healthy as you.Many people have zinc deficiency and masturbating 4-5 times can makes you more deficit.
7.If you wanna point out someone's mistake u can politely say it.Everybody is not as perfect and knowledgeable as you are.
8.I may be wrong cause i dont know everything so i should not comment anywhere? According to you this forum is only for people who know everything but according to me this forum is for people who are seeking help and know less than you.So pls if someone is wrong try to correct him at least once or just AVOID,don't be a troll.

 

[Yoshi3Mario]

Nofap Arguments in a nut shell:

1) Masturbation causes male pattern baldness
False, male pattern baldness is only effected by your DNA (gene code) and is set to occur on a pre-determined time in your life in a predetermined fashion at a predetermined speed. The only way to alter this fate is by medicating it BEFORE it occurs, or by having surgery.

Why Nofap is won't stop male pattern baldness:
1) Plenty of guys jerk off excessively and have full heads of hair. Look at pornstars. Many of these guys will go bald eventually, like when they are 60, and it's not because they are jerking off!. If anything there seems to be a correlation the other way around. The older a man gets the less his libido and the less he jerks off... Whereas younger hornier men jerk off all the time and keep their hair while the older deadwood men lose it. I could make just a pathetic of an argument to say that jerking off helps you keep your hair. The proof is in the shedding. Just like hair loss meds the shedding is a sign that it is working. If you don't jerk off you put your body through sexual frustration and it is the stress and sexual frustration that causes hair loss.

Now I don't believe any of the sh*t I just posted up here. I just want you think about it. Really really ponder the notion of how male pattern baldness is simply genetics. You're not going have brown skin cause you don't masturbate (unless you were born with it). You're not going to change your eyes green. You're not all of a sudden going to sport a chuck norris beard, or have grizzly chest hair. You have what you have when you have it. Got it? If not, sorry, I can't fix stupidity.

 

[Yoshi3Mario]

1.Don't yell like a girl.

5.Nutritional deficiencies may have a role in hair loss.

Not male pattern baldness! A nutritional deficiency (which doesn't cause hair loss by the way) has nothing to do with male pattern baldness.

 

[pegasus2]

1. That's funny, I thought DHT caused hair loss.
2. Plenty of guys smoke cigarettes every day and never get cancer, therefore smoking doesn't cause cancer. Your logic is bad.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Nofap Arguments in a nut shell:

1) Masturbation causes male pattern baldness
False, male pattern baldness is only effected by your DNA (gene code) and is set to occur on a pre-determined time in your life in a predetermined fashion at a predetermined speed. The only way to alter this fate is by medicating it BEFORE it occurs, or by having surgery.

Why Nofap is won't stop male pattern baldness:
1) Plenty of guys jerk off excessively and have full heads of hair. Look at pornstars. Many of these guys will go bald eventually, like when they are 60, and it's not because they are jerking off!. If anything there seems to be a correlation the other way around. The older a man gets the less his libido and the less he jerks off... Whereas younger hornier men jerk off all the time and keep their hair while the older deadwood men lose it. I could make just a pathetic of an argument to say that jerking off helps you keep your hair. The proof is in the shedding. Just like hair loss meds the shedding is a sign that it is working. If you don't jerk off you put your body through sexual frustration and it is the stress and sexual frustration that causes hair loss.

Now I don't believe any of the sh*t I just posted up here. I just want you think about it. Really really ponder the notion of how male pattern baldness is simply genetics. You're not going have brown skin cause you don't masturbate (unless you were born with it). You're not going to change your eyes green. You're not all of a sudden going to sport a chuck norris beard, or have grizzly chest hair. You have what you have when you have it. Got it? If not, sorry, I can't fix stupidity.

There was a twin study posted a while back.

In general, the twins didn't all have exactly the same male pattern baldness, so the "it's all genetics" theory is falsified.

 

[Yoshi3Mario]

There was a twin study posted a while back.

In general, the twins didn't all have exactly the same male pattern baldness, so the "it's all genetics" theory is falsified.

Yeah, one twin was taking propecia?

 

[Rdx]

Not male pattern baldness! A nutritional deficiency (which doesn't cause hair loss by the way) has nothing to do with male pattern baldness.

Read 4th point.

 

[pegasus2]

Yeah, one twin was taking propecia?

No, but it's funny how you think lowering DHT levels via drugs will slow hair loss, but lowering it through other means won't. Another logic fail.

 

[Yoshi3Mario]

Read 4th point.

Ok, but anytime people post in here they are in denial of having Androgenetic Alopecia.

 

[Yoshi3Mario]

No, but it's funny how you think lowering DHT levels via drugs will slow hair loss, but lowering it through other means won't. Another logic fail.

Lol, there is nothing you can do naturally that will lower your DHT hormones or block it like propecia.

 

[pegasus2]

Lol, there is nothing you can do naturally that will lower your DHT hormones or block it like propecia.

Who said you have to lower it as much as Propecia does? Any reduction would help.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Yeah, one twin was taking propecia?

No.The relevant traits were things like alcohol, body composition, etc.

 

[abcdefg]

There was a twin study posted a while back.

In general, the twins didn't all have exactly the same male pattern baldness, so the "it's all genetics" theory is falsified.

This isnt really true. For one there is a dutasteride study between identical twins where one is Norwood 6/7 and the other is literally like Norwood 1. One was on dutasteride for 7 years at first sign of male pattern baldness and the other did nothing.
There is a study that shows even identical twins have varying numbers of copies of the same genes. So twin A has one copy of gene 1 but twin B has 3 copies of the same gene 1 so even though previously everyone assumed identical twins were exactly the same they really never were. So a lot of studies about twins were based on false assumptions. Could they still be right? yes but its not certain if its genetics or the environmental factors especially if that study your referring to was before 2008 when this was discovered. Not only to you have to check studies but also cross reference them to see if they are accurate since things constantly change

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

This isnt really true. For one there is a dutasteride study between identical twins where one is Norwood 6/7 and the other is literally like Norwood 1. One was on dutasteride for 7 years at first sign of male pattern baldness and the other did nothing.
There is a study that shows even identical twins have varying numbers of copies of the same genes. So twin A has one copy of gene 1 but twin B has 3 copies of the same gene 1 so even though previously everyone assumed identical twins were exactly the same they really never were. So a lot of studies about twins were based on false assumptions. Could they still be right? yes but its not certain if its genetics or the environmental factors

Twins have identical genetics, and if there's a small number of genes that change due to random mutations that is extremely unlikely to affect anything you're concerned with. In case you have not noticed most identical twins look and sound the same.

By the way the "it's all genetics" theory is also falsified by dutasteride, finasteride, and minoxidil. If it were all genetics, drugs wouldn't work.

Which is not to say that masturbation has any impact. The fact is that nobody has investigated that properly, so it's pure speculation. Speculation is fine.

 

[abcdefg]

Twins have identical genetics, and if there's a small number of genes that change due to random mutations that is extremely unlikely to affect anything you're concerned with.

By the way the "it's all genetics" theory is also falsified by dutasteride, finasteride, and minoxidil. If it were all genetics, drugs wouldn't work.

We arent talking genetic mutations did you read the article? It easily could affect previous study results that concern any kind of identical twins that were used because it was assumed they were genetically identical to help spot differences. They never go back and redo older ones in light of new findings
I guess all I was saying is sometimes studies are not 100 percent right thats all

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

We arent talking genetic mutations did you read the article? It easily could affect previous study results that concern any kind of identical twins that were used because it was assumed they were genetically identical to help spot differences. They never go back and redo older ones in light of new findings
I guess all I was saying is sometimes studies are not 100 percent right thats all

I read it, it's interesting, but you're pointing to a very small integrated effect that doesn't contradict what I wrote earlier at all.

 

[pegasus2]

We arent talking genetic mutations did you read the article? It easily could affect previous study results that concern any kind of identical twins that were used because it was assumed they were genetically identical to help spot differences. They never go back and redo older ones in light of new findings
I guess all I was saying is sometimes studies are not 100 percent right thats all

It actually looks like you're the one doesn't read it. Here are some snippets you must have missed if you did:

"It's pretty unlikely they're going to significantly change any of the results found so far,"

"Bruder speculates that such variation is a natural occurrence that accumulates with age in everyone. "I believe that the genome that you're born with is not the genome that you die with—at least not for all the cells in your body," he says."

"Genetic variations can arise after a double strand of DNA breaks when exposed to ionizing radiation or carcinogens."

They can be born with genetic differences, but the most differences are accommodated through life. The actual number of genes that vary between identical twins are very few, and unlikely to be significant when studying correlations among many sets of twins. If you were only looking at one set of twins then it would be plausible that one of the few genetic differences was actually responsible for hair loss, but when you see the same difference in balding ladysmith amine dozens of sets of twins it becomes highly unlikely that enough of them have genetic differences in the same genes to be statistically relevant.