EPTHeres another article.
Staring at breasts increases heart health - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Gao Xi
Hong Kong5178 Posts
Heres another article. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
| ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
It wouldn't surprise me if masturbating is 100 times more effective, and sex would be like 500 times more effective.. Even taking a giant crap would probably be better exercice. It kinda feels like an excuse for fat people to skip exercising and download pr0n instead lol :'( | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On March 07 2011 19:39 Euronyme wrote: I assume this is because your heart rate is supposed to go up. Personally I can't say my heart rate changes much of looking at say.. a picture of two boobs. It wouldn't surprise me if masturbating is 100 times more effective, and sex would be like 500 times more effective.. Even taking a giant crap would probably be better exercice. It kinda feels like an excuse for fat people to skip exercising and download pr0n instead lol :'( Yeah it'd be because of the heart rate going up. But even a 20-year-old would need like 150bpm for it to be useful, and it's need to be like 30 minutes in a row.... If you see breasts daily that's not going to happen <_< Might happen once after not having seen any for like 5 years and even then it won't last 30 mins. Fake imo. | ||
|
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On March 07 2011 19:59 Shikyo wrote: Yeah it'd be because of the heart rate going up. But even a 20-year-old would need like 150bpm for it to be useful, and it's need to be like 30 minutes in a row.... If you see breasts daily that's not going to happen <_< Might happen once after not having seen any for like 5 years and even then it won't last 30 mins. Fake imo. hint: check the source, don even need to go in that webpage, just look at the link  but whatever, now at least its justifiable for men to "Stare" at bewbies now! | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
| ||
|
SolHeiM
Sweden1264 Posts
| ||
|
mormonaculous
United States33 Posts
On March 07 2011 16:14 HULKAMANIA wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 07 2011 06:02 ProjectVirtue wrote: seen studies like this before. technically not baseless, as long as something is arousing. breasts just happen to be accepted as an automatic stimulant. the study can also be repeated with butts, or what have you so long as among the cohort that gets to ogle them they are all accepted to be excited by it, then its fine. It just acts in accordance to a daily increase of heart rate due to arousal. Likewise, analogous studies to this have been done with minute physical exercise and other forms of stimulants that have lead to the same conclusion. dont get all the "fail science" stuff flying around =\ Threads like this are great for determining who actually reads the threads and who just skims the OP and jumps straight on the "Post" button. Did you not see gogogadetflow's post on the first page? On March 07 2011 05:50 gogogadgetflow wrote: I'm skeptical http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/breasts.asp Sorry guys. If that's not enough, here is a search for "Karen Weatherby" on the website of the New England Journal of Medicine. And here she is under Google Scholar, which contains two actual returns! Unfortunately both of them discuss the study as a well-known hoax, one of them containing this gem: There was no such a medical research study. Dr Weatherby did not exist. None of us would take such a report seriously and some of us would trash it as a dirty joke. Similarly, we do not take seriously this kind of misinformation as in seen in some advertisements on how to lose weight, how to combat hair loss, and how magical certain medical programs or policies are. So... yeah. I don't know what studies you've heard of that are similar to this. But this is not just "fail science," it's "totally fabricated for the lols" science. Now I don't think anyone here is arguing with the accuracy of the Snopes verdict, but the actual hoax they were referring to happened in 1999. That's over a decade ago. Really, what that sketches me out about the whole "myfox sez I should look at moar boobs" thing is the fact that the OP article doesn't actually quote any study, or mention any scientists by name; simply mentioning that it's a "German study" conducted over 5 years doesn't exactly maximize credibility. That and, as was previously mentioned, the study fails to qualify as a true experiment and has no claim on establishing causality. | ||
|
Alexson
Belarus293 Posts
On March 07 2011 05:50 gogogadgetflow wrote: I'm skeptical http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/breasts.asp Sorry guys. Shut up, and watch breasts, ty. =D | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
But nevertheless hahahahahahahaha this is all so funny especially the video... what a joke | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
there is no way 250 guys stopped looking at boobs for 5 FULL years. NO way jose. | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1598 Posts
On March 07 2011 22:50 Marcus420 wrote: I cant stand stupid statistics like this. 500 people is not nearly enough for a proper sample population. there is no way 250 guys stopped looking at boobs for 5 FULL years. NO way jose. That sample size is used in MANY types of pooling. You're right about the latter part though. I doubt they lasted a full 5 minutes. | ||
|
EchoZ
Japan5041 Posts
and also explains why females have longer lifespans. | ||
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
MetalMarine
United States1559 Posts
On March 07 2011 15:46 JasperGrimm wrote: Gay men probably see more breasts than the average straight man, since women are more comfortable around them. Thats not always true, andddd when they see/feel them, they don't get the same satisfaction as straight guys do | ||
|
`Zapdos
United States935 Posts
| ||
|
MetalMarine
United States1559 Posts
| ||
|
Flik
Canada256 Posts
| ||
| ||
