Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

There are no data to support either claim because it is hard to conduct research on "mental state" of an individual. I've read that there are some data that supported male testosterone(I think?) may be lowered if male athletes have sex 2-10 hr before the competition, hence affecting the performance. But it is probably safe if sex happens days before the competition.

The bigger issue is mental state and public opinions on self-control. It's possible that certain individual's mental state gets affected if they "have fun" before serious events, but science can not prove nor disprove that. Also for people that lacks self-control, who knows if they would randomly decide to "have fun" and ruin themselves 2hr before the event too.

So even if there are no scientific evidence to prove that having sex days before the competition is bad for performance, I think it would still put athletes at an disadvantage if they choose to do that. It's more of a "better safe than sorry" kind of thing.

Now to wait to see if there's ever an interview of
"Congrats on your Gold medal Richy! Do you have plans to turn pro after this?"
"Actually, my first plan is to go jerk off. Coach said no sexytime before this event"

From political standpoint there are many hidden benefits of winning tons of medals in Olympics. Modern training required a LOT of money and technology investment, it has already gone beyond a game that it is entirely based on individual talent alone. These days if you don't have money, equipments and top training, it is much harder to compete.

For the government, Olympics is a good chance for them to promote their support and competency in sports industry, to promote technology and wealth. hence they wins more votes in the end. There ARE people who care about sports industry professionals getting food on the table and will vote for this.

Also for some country, winning Olympics metals is also tied to their political ideology. For example, China's political ideology is to replace US as No.1 nation of the world. Olympics is a way for them to show the result to their people and win support. As a result their athletes are trained by the government and they spent a lot of money on it.

It doesn't matter that you personally believe that Olympics should be for individual only. The reality is that there are many factions just don't see Olympics the way you do and they will use it as a political tool. Athletes either accept this reality and deal with the responsibility and expectations if they want government support, or don't take government money. Such choice always exist anyways.

You know that most of the coaches that Ive heard of believed that having sex before important competition is bad for performance right? They are the one who set such rules(and 400 million other rules to follow) for athletes, not I.

My opinion is just following real sports professional's opinions (coaches), lol.



Well yeah exactly, other nations don't have big enough of sports/sponsorship industry so it is tax payer's money paying them. So coaches hired by the government set strict rules on what they can or can't do or say because government pays for their training.

There is nothing wrong to setup rules and expectations if you are the one paying money.

Honestly nobody would care how athletes behave or ranked if their sponsors are private organizations. They can totally choose not to take government money if they want more freedom to do whatever they want.

What in the actual ***, the trashcolyte STILL isn't up.

Mother *** gonna make me actually watch it on D+

TODAY WE KILL CTHUN ON CLASSIC ERA HOPEFULLY ME NEED WORKS ON HANDS IF IT DROPS

WAIT WHAT THE ACTUAL ***.

So because all NFL, NBA and MLB athletes are funded by private organizations no one cares how they behave? You are so on the uninformed aspect of this topic, please stop. There's not a single government dollar that funds The Yankees, The Lakers, The 49ers....any of 'em. Oh, unless you count any tax dollars spent on stadiums, and I assure you- public critique of athletes existed long before that.

You still missed the point. I was talking about Olympics, not professional sports leagues like NFL, NBA etc where people DO pay for them.

People care about their favorite NBA team performance because they are a fan so they care. They probably paid for tickets and bought a couple of merch too. Of course they care about team and athlete performance.

Olympics doesn't work this way. A lot of participants are people that you probably don't know, unless they got metals from before. If you aren't paying nor following them then there are no emotional connection with them.

But in other countries, people do pay Olympics athletes with tax money and care about their performance emotionally. Because of the way public funded system works: athletes are the one who received money thus responsible for fulfilling people's emotional expectations.

Your opinion on "people care about NBA athletes performance" perfectly illustrated why people from different countries cared about their Olympics athletes performance. I am not sure why do you deny this fact if you already know American professional leagues like NBA works this way.

It makes sense for China, they are still a nationalist country and have a lot of pride in it since they are competing with the west. We do not have any pride left as countries at all in the west. We seem to hate ourselves and are fixated with self flagellating virtue signalling to a degree never before seen, and are sinking into mediocrity because of it. The Olympics, Fifa world cup or whatever else are a joke given the reality of the state of our nations in every other department that matters.

We don't reward greatness, intelligence, skill or beauty anymore, we reward idiocy, obesity and weakness instead. We put people into positions they have no ability to perform and clap at them like seals, smiling as the bridges fall down and the airplanes catch fire. Where we used to reward beautiful symphonies with applause, now we give standing ovations to Lizzo twerking her fat half naked *** on stage, while playing a two hundred year old cherished crystal flute. At least she didn't stick it up her *** I guess, although people would have cheered if she did no doubt.

We are moving away from merit and high standards and are belly deep in mediocrity everywhere, the hilarity of spending money and time on sports stars who just immigrated a few years ago to run around for prestige, when everything we used to excel at is in the rear view mirror. All our most prestigious colleges and universities are a joke full of highly unimpressive people with blue hair and apple iphones, all virtue signalling about whatever the current thing is today. All our academics are more concerned with saying the right thing to not get ostracized by their peers, than saying facts. Our industries are either failing or shipped off to China. All the things we used to be the best at, we are being beaten at now. We virtue signal about things that we have minimal impact on and that make our nations prosperity worse because of it, while not addressing things that are far more serious here and now and that will cause future generations lives to be far worse.

The UK used to be world leaders in many things, including Steel production and Pharmaceuticals. Now we just buy these things from China. We are paying our farmers with generations of knowledge to retire, and giving the farms to 3rd world immigrants who don't know what they are doing and destroying our food production chains.

A British runner winning at the Olympics means nothing to me, nor should it mean anything to anyone else except that runners family and friends. That anyone cares about is shows how stupid some people are and how blind they are to how bad things are quickly getting.

I think people don't understand the state of the western world cause they are still somewhat living off the fumes of past glory, the false sense of superiority we suffer from when everything is on the edge of a cliff would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating.

ITT:


But like, that's an actual opinion.

Do you also get to decide whether or not they walk under ladders, pet black cats, or hold rabbit's feet?

Just wondering what level of control you have over someone's life if you pay taxes. Are you allowed to tell your politicians they should/shouldn't get married, if you think it will affect their performance? Can you tell them which side of the bed to sleep on, if you think it will help them be more clear-minded when writing your legislation?

I think the difference is whether you can pose an objective argument indicating the behavior is detrimental to performance. If someone is receiving government funding to go to an event and represent their country, there is an expectation that they won't do things that would reduce their performance.

I am not arguing that sex is [or isn't] one of those things, but it is completely reasonable to be upset if someone in those circumstances is actively choosing to do something that hinders their performance.

Anyone making this argument in regards to sex has the burden of proof to illustrate that sex is detrimental to the athlete's performance.

I think politicians are a bad example here, because you can[and people do] vote for them based on any criteria you[they] want. 92 of 100 current senators are married, and only one past president hasn't been, so it seems being married is likely to positively correlate with electability.

I? No, you should have tell that to the coaches who are the one gets to decide when athletes are allowed to go to bed, when to wake up, when and what to eat, how many times an athlete are allowed to leave the training center per week, and if they are allowed to play video games, smoke weed and have sex one week before the toughest competition in their lives.

They ARE the professionals. Not I. As a tax payer all I did was support real professional's decisions and ask for results. It is YOU people that are are questioning coaches(aka real professionals) decisions on restrictions because omg, having sex right before Olympics is somehow on the highest priority ever.

Sure, you can choose to vote for people based on any criteria you want. Vote for people who have the hair color you prefer. You can't, after they get elected, tell them they can't shave their head or wear a bowtie. You can just not elect them a second time.

I think the difference is in the demanding vs not voting. You can't demand that any other public servant not have sex. You can't tell your local comptroller that he has to use pencils rather than pens because you think they allow him to be efficient. You can't tell your garbage men to throw the trash over their left shoulder because it helps with mechanical advantage.

Despite the fact that you "pay" these public employees with your tax dollars, it doesn't give you a right to tell them how to do their jobs or (more importantly) how to live their lives OUTSIDE of their jobs. I'm sure there's an expectation that they should eat chicken breasts and pasta and not be eating McDonalds, but you have no right (IMO) to control their bodies. Complain all you want but I sure don't want to live in a world where the general population has the ability to police the daily habits of Olympians because they paid for the facilities they train in, or are giving them a salary. Similarly, if my boss tried to tell me I couldn't have salt on my dinner because it affects my performance, I'd tell him to shove it up his ***.

Pretty sure telling them how to eat is controlling their bodies in much the same way as telling them how many hours of sleep they need or whether they should have sex. All of these effect hormone levels, which will have an impact of some kind on performance. If you accept any of them, it seems unreasonable to shoot down the rest.

I don't think anyone is expecting that Joe Nobody can call up an Olympian and tell them what to do because he paid a tiny fraction of a cent toward their eventual sponsorship. But, for a country that takes these things seriously and uses tax money to support them, the athletes should be expected to comply with reasonable requests their [trained professional] coaches are recommending.

It is not unreasonable for any person to abstain from sex for a few days prior to an event that is of extreme importance to themselves, all of the people who funded or helped them to get there, and all of the people who tried their best but didn't make the cut. If it is deemed beneficial for them to abstain, refusing to do so reflects poorly on them.

I am still not arguing that sex is detrimental. I do not personally believe there is adequate data to conclude one way or another with certainty. But, I am not a sports coach or a physiologist.

Politicians marriage is also a poor comparison v.s Olympics athletes. In most cases marriage won't affect a politician's performance as long as time management isn't hindered by it so who the hell cares anyways.

Olympics is kind of an event that you have to reach THE HIGHEST performance one can possibly reach in a very short time. There can be one million variables or distraction that makes you drop 0.1% of performance and lose.

This is why athletes have strict regulations on everything they do right before the competition to ensure their mental state is at the best. Politician's marriage is nothing like this and not even close.

I have never looked into this because I'm not an athlete but googled it and the first 10 results all said that there is absolutely no impact to athletic performance from having sex so um...I'd say those coaches should be considered a bit less professional if they're pushing this unscientific ***?

I already addressed this part in the last post.

Follow it back to the linked studies, evaluate the methodology, and decide if the studies themselves are 'scientific'. The scientific method is absolutely useful, but in the absence of high-quality data there's no reason to throw out decades of practical experience(which coaches have) and common sense.

OK so "there's no evidence but I choose to believe". I read this post, but it's meaningless.

Well it doesn't hurt to believe in this case no?

Seriously though, exactly what do you lose if you choose to focus on the competition more? I personally see no benefit to "have fun" right before the competition anyways. It's not like those athletes can't have fun AFTER the competition...they aren't losing anything with delayed gratification.

Personally I am kind of people who get distracted easily, and it is hard for me to switch mental state to another task in an environment that I can't focus. I can certainly see the benefit of getting away from all distraction before serious events personally.

It's the opposite, actually. The professionals very well could be acting on poor quality data they've personally observed and folk wisdom. If that's the case, they may be wrong in doing so.

But, you are not a professional, and the studies that come up on the first page of google are all referring to a 2022 meta-analysis of 9 studies, with a total of 132 male subjects and 1 female subject.. or a single study from that subset. Some of those studies no longer have raw data recorded. If you follow through to the data that was available, the results show a minor negative impact within the margin of error.

None of these studies aimed to measure overall athletic performance, and were instead measuring strength or endurance, with intensity far weaker than that of a professional athlete or Olympian.

You are choosing to side against professionals based on personal bias, then using a googled study to reinforce it without evaluating the content of that study or applying it to the situation at hand. This is not science, it's the type of nonsense science-worship that's gotten all too common in the media recently.

I find it funny that a lot of real professional athletes abstain before big events, it's not even rare. For example Muhammad Ali, reportedly wouldn't make love for six weeks before a fight.

This practice is also dates waaaaay back. It's practiced by a LOT of professional athletes because they religiously believed in it.

And yet non-professionals here are trying to argue that athletes should be allowed to have sex before the event because "that's what we do everyday", as if "everyday life" and "Olympics" are even the same.

I really don't know what to say lol. Can we just respect sports professional's traditions and their beliefs? I don't think they even need us to fight for their sex right if they are the one who believe in things like this.....

The idea of a possible benefit of abstinence before sports competition is ancient, based on anecdotal evidence, and not sufficiently supported by the recent scientific literature. Only one study (Fisher, 1997) promotes abstinence on the basis of a possible influence of frustration in maintaining high level sports performance. On the contrary, most studies identified support the absence of negative effects of sexual activity on sports performance (James, 1990; Thornton, 1990; Pupiš et al., 2010). Others studies often underline the importance to maintain sexual experiences within an athlete's normal sex life (Kraemer et al., 1976; Frauman, 1982; Hengevoss et al., 2015). Any possible association of sexual activity with incorrect lifestyle habits, such as abuse of alcohol or smoking, can produce adverse effects and worse performance.

From the present review, the major area of controversy concerns the principal aspect of the sexual intercourse and therefore if it can be considered correct on not, in terms of sports performance, to permit to have sexual intercourse before the sport competition. While some coaches continue to highlight the importance of abstinence, the literature does not support this belief. From the present review, only low powered studies of relatively poor scientific design have investigated the impact of sexual activity using specific tests to evaluate the effects on aerobic power and strength (Boone and Gilmore, 1995). No data are available about the possible diverse effects of sexual activity on different sports. Some data are available on the possible psychological impact of sexual activity on athletic performance (Catania and White, 1982; Vouyoukas, 2011) and all support a positive effect or at worse no impact.

This seems an awful lot like you're taking the opposite stance you took in the psych meds thread.

SSRIs are not only insufficiently supported, but have numerous high quality studies showing that they fail to beat the margin of error against placebo.

Abstinence prior to event is not sufficiently supported, but neither is there enough data to conclude it isn't beneficial.

How can you reconcile these two things? Do you consider sports professionals to be lesser? In the absence of meaningful evidence, why do you assume conventional wisdom to be false? There's a pretty large difference between 'insufficiently supported' and 'disproven' or even 'unlikely'.

I never said that I thought SSRIs were excellent in spite of any evidence, I wonder what you think my point was in that thread. I never advocated for any specific medicine, I just said that people should ask professionals for recommendations and not ask their friends if they think they should exercise their way out of depression.


Ancient athletes in Rome didn't run double-blind tests to determine results, they probably thought their humors were off if they had sex or their chakra was imbalanced or some other nonsense. Why are we giving deference to superstition because it existed sooner?

There are half a dozen studies showing that people should have sex and no high-quality studies (according to this meta-analysis) that show the opposite. Why are we giving the benefit of the doubt to the people who don't have evidence?

I already said it..... science can only measure physical capability, they can't measure mental state.

For example in combat sports industry there is a belief that having sex before a fight makes you a worse fighter because the athlete may enter "less aggressive" mental state after sexual fulfillment. It is literally impossible to measure "mental aggressiveness" using scientific methology.

Hence this belief can never be proven nor disprove. The science can only measure measurable metrics like physical state, such as strength or endurance. but their real performance in game is physical and mental state combined.

What metric should you use to measure mental state?




There are no evidence that sex before event affects performance, but there are evidence that shows people with worse ability on self-control and delayed gratification will have worse performance in school and career.


If someone has low ability on self control, it's perfectly scientific to judge this person if they also have poor performance in Olympics. So why choose to sex before an event and put yourself on a disadvantage socially? There are no benefit to do so.

To me it's just smarter to not have sex before Olympics, even for social reasons. I don't see apparent benefit to sex right before the event personally. You gain nothing except a "lacks self-control" reputation.

Panta, look what you started.

Pushing through Post Endwalker quests. I might be able to start my shounen adventure tomorrow.

If the mental state isn't affecting the physical performance, who cares about it...? If their mental state being affected by their lack of ability to have delayed gratification, but it's not showing up in their swimming results and isn't detectable in how far they can throw a shotput then...what are you on about?

Not me.

Those guys were pent up for a convo since Radial slowed down his random baiting.