File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I jerk off in the morning instead of showering, eating breakfast or bathing. is this bad for my health? Will it make working out in the afternoons pointless?
>> Anonymous
gb2/b/
>> Anonymous
workout in the morning jerkoff in the afternoon
>> Anonymous
it's good for your prostrate. try masturbating daily.
>> Anonymous
>>17146
try NOT masturbating daily. that shits impossible.
>> Anonymous
How is masturbating at all detrimental to your workout?

They two can't even be related.
>> Anonymous
>>17149
i think it termporarly lowers your testosterone which builds muscles, but i don think it makes much of a difference.
>> Anonymous
>>17156
i think masturbation releases testosterone into the blood, as does sex. so go hard. also, post pics.
>> Anonymous
jesus christ you faggots right after ejaculation your testosterone levels drop, what makes you temporarily weaker/more tired
masturbating in the morning or before working out is OM NOM NOM NOM
>> Anonymous
>>17206

I don't think you know what OM NOM NOM means.
>> Anonymous
>>17206
WRONG. It makes your tesosterone rise by a teeny weeny amount.

All the other hormones are what make you tired, moron.
>> Anonymous
>>17209
I don't think anyone ITT knows what "don't feed the troll" means
>> Anonymous
>>17206

You're wrong. see link below.

http://www.askmen.com/love/love_tip_250/271_love_tip.html
>> Anonymous
>>17231

I wonder if someday people will stop posting links to online men's mags as if they actually prove anything. You're like the lab reports my students used to give me citing wikipedia and google.
>> Anonymous
>>17238

So...you want me to find papers on the specific hormones? I've got time but will you be here?
>> Anonymous
>>17275

Not particularly. I'm already quite conversant on the nature of the human endocrine system. You're welcome to do it for your own edification if you want.

I'll tell you in advance what the answer will be, though: after sex and masturbation, sometimes androgen levels go up, sometimes they go down, and sometimes they stay the same. Hormones are funny like that.
>> Anonymous
>>17294

What exactly is your occupation? You seem to know a few things about this.
>> Anonymous
>>17302

I work in sales in the life sciences industry. Along the way towards that occupation, I got a PhD in biochemistry.
>> Hammerknife !7ITukp3Pj2
     File :-(, x)
>>17307

Is that some BIO MAJOR

L2engineering
>> Anonymous
>>17310

Actually, I was a Chem major, as an undergrad. And my PhD is actually from a chemistry department, just the biochemistry division thereof.

When I was in college, engineering students still had to take hand drafting. I'm absolutely worthless at anything even resembling drawing, so it wasn't even an option.
>> Anonymous
>>17238
>>You're like the lab reports my students used to give me citing wikipedia and google.

Why shouldn't somebody be able to give a Wikipedia article as reference material if said article itself already lists various references? Citing one reference that in turn cites several seems like a good way of being concise and efficient (two great qualities to keep in mind when it comes to puting together essays, reports, or other such papers).

I've asked plenty of people this question, but I've never once received a decent, passable answer.
>> Anonymous
>>17446

Wikipedia articles aren't peer reviewed. The content is not reviewed for accuracy in any meaningful way. It does not pass the reliability test for inclusion in academic works.
>> Anonymous
>>17451
i heard of a study one time that compared wikipedia to another encyclopedia, not sure might have been britanica, and the study found wikipedia to be almost identical in accuracy.
>> Anonymous
>>17455
also, if the students in question had any brains, they would just use the refrence links on the wiki page instead of the wiki page.
>> Anonymous
>>17455
i also heard of that study and heard that it wasn't especially scientific or reliable.
>> Anonymous
>>17455

Doesn't matter. The fact that Joe Blow can load up the wiki and edit an article to be factually incorrect, and there is no reliable way to correct it until someone else stumbles across the error and fixes it, makes it inherently unreliable. Britannica = peer reviewed. Wikipedia = internet reviewed. It's a galaxy of difference.
>> Anonymous
>>17451

Despite how you may personally feel about Wikipedia and its articles, that doesn't change the fact that they still cite and link to legitimate sources. If those references are already there and assembled in one convenient location, it makes sense just to cite that one place as your overall source, doesn't it?
>> Anonymous
>>17467
>>Britannica = peer reviewed. Wikipedia = internet reviewed. It's a galaxy of difference.

Yes, and the difference is that there are a shitload more people on the Internet to review and look over something to make sure it's correct. What does "peer reviewed" really even mean, anyway, and how do people suddenly stop being peers when they go online?
>> Anonymous
>>17479

Peers are qualified. The internets are not. Look at it this way - who would you rather have performing open heart surgery on you - your cardiologist, or /b/?
>> Anonymous
>>17469

No. Like I said, Wikipedia isn't acceptable as an academic source. If the sources used to assemble the wikipedia article meet the criteria, you would cite them, as they are the source of the information.
>> Anonymous
>>17479
>>17469
the wikifags have found us.

wiki-politics determines content more than the magical internet proleteriat of science and 'human knowledge'. jimbo wales and his circle-jerk clusterfuck of sycophants can suck my cock.
>> Anonymous
I'm>>17488
>>17487
>>17467
>>17451
As well as a ton of other posts in this thread that I'm too lazy to link.

I don't want to give you the wrong impression. I'm totally in favor of the Wikipedia. I'm one of the most prolific contributors in the biochemistry and molecular biology areas. I've written large parts of many many GAs, and had a front page article. That aside, it will still never be an academic source. Sure, it reeks of elitism, but the fact that people who have no expertise in a subject are able to edit with impunity means that so long as the experts are outnumbered, there will always be inaccuracies. And believe me, we are outnumbered. Badly.
>> Anonymous
>>17488
>>Like I said, Wikipedia isn't acceptable as an academic source.

Do you have a reason for that, or is this a "because it just isn't" kind of thing? Does "academic source" really even mean anything?

Whenever I ask people about something like this, I never get a clear answer. Basically, they just tell me that it's "wrong" because it's not the old, traditional way of citing sources. A senseless prescriptivist mentality only holds us back.
>> Anonymous
>>17510

If you would read the other posts I have made in this thread you would see the answer. An academic source is a source acceptable for use in academic works.

I kind of feel like I might be being trolled right now.
>> Anonymous
>>17510
Can we just end this wikipedia drama with following:

Wikipedia is a good place to START research, by getting the general ideas, and to be SURE, you're SUPPOSED to reference 2 or 3 other sources. DON'T USE it as a final source. Duh.

There, now stfu all of you already. This is /fit/, not :Talk.
>> Anonymous
>>17505


For some reason, I am having a very very hard time believing that an anon is "a prolific contributor in molecular biology".

R1, R2 positions I can understand, but that doesn't mean prolific contributions.
>> Anonymous
I teach some undergrad classes at a university. I alter the wikipedia article the day I gave out the first assignment of semester and change the facts to a clearly very incorrect answer. There are approximately 1500 undergraduates who take the first year class, and about 75% fail the first assignment. That teaches them why wikipedia is bad and peer reviewed books are good.
>> Anonymous
>>17531

I don't have any reason to care what you believe.
>> Anonymous
>>17532

Wow, neat. I guess anons aren't all full of shit. What class is it? You don't have to be specific. I'm not going to stalk you, but what is the general idea? Is it a basic chemistry-based assignment?