Most intriguing sex lessons of 2009

December 19, 2009

By Sally Law, LiveScience’s Science of Sex Columnist

As 2009 comes to a close, LiveScience looks back at the year’s nine most intriguing sex lessons. We’ve loved. We’ve learned. And we’ve had some of our sexual suspicions confirmed by scientific research.

Pulling out works:

Well, most of the time. In a paper published in the June issue of Conception magazine, researchers claimed that withdrawal was "almost as effective as the male condom" when it came to pregnancy prevention

Growing pains:

According to a study from the University of Turin, penis extenders might work  — a particular brand that used traction to gradually stretch the penis over time was found to increase flaccid members’ length by almost one inch.

Pill popping:

In February, the Federal Drug Administration mandated that Bayer, the manufacturer of Yaz birth-control pills, fix their commercials that promoted Yaz as a weapon against acne and PMS and downplayed its potential health risks.

The pursuit of pleasure:

Men who are very sexually active in their 20s and 30s — especially those who masturbate frequently — are at higher risk for prostate cancer , said researchers at the University of Nottingham. But that risk decreases as a man ages, and once he’s in his 50s, even small levels of sexual activity can help protect him from the disease.

This is a test:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released new guidelines for cervical-cancer screenings: Women should wait until age 21 to get their first Pap smear, and should be checked every three years (instead of annually) if they have a history of normal test results.

Sweat smells:

A man’s sweat smells different when he’s sexually aroused - and women can tell the difference between the smell of sexual sweat and the regular stuff, according to a study in The Journal of Neuroscience.

Spending Excessive time in gym can reduce women’s fertility

November 9, 2009

Researchers found that ’superwoman work-outs’ made fertility problems three times more likely.Spending too much time in the gym can reduce a woman’s chances of having children, a study shows.The findings were made by Norwegian University of Science and Technology after a study of 3,000 women.While experts agree that a certain amount of physical exercise has obvious health benefits, it is believed that too much saps the body of the energy it needs for a successful pregnancy.

In a survey, the women were questioned about the frequency, duration and intensity of their fitness regimes between 1984 and 1986.In a follow-up ten years later, they were asked about their pregnancies.There were those who trained almost every day, and there were those who trained until they were completely exhausted.’Sigridur Lara Gudmundsdottir, who led the study, said: ‘Among all these women, we found two groups who experienced an increased risk of infertility.

Those who did both had the highest risk of infertility.’Even after taking other factors such as age, weight, marital status and smoking into account, figures showed those who trained the hardest were three times more likely to have fertility problems than those who exercised moderately.

Younger women appeared to be more vulnerable to the risk. Among the under-30s who exercised the most, a quarter were unable to conceive during their first year of trying, compared to the national average of roughly seven per cent.It was not known whether this was because the women had simply changed their activity levels or because their hormone profile improved with time.

There was no evidence of impaired fertility through moderate amounts of exercise.Gudmundsdottir advised that women who want babies should still maintain their fitness - but ‘ease off a bit’ and avoid extremes.We believe it is likely that physical activity at a very high or very low level has a negative effect on fertility, while moderate activity is beneficial,’ she said.

(Re edited by Tim)
(Refered from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk)

 

Robotic Surgery may reduce impotence

October 24, 2009
‘’Professor Costello’s website says the use of this procedure may reduce impotence and urinary incontinence,'’ professor Chapman said. ‘’The use of the word ‘may’ is very important. Obviously, it may not, either.
The study, published in the Journal of the Amercian Medical Association, has sparked renewed debate over robotically assisted surgery, and over how much surgeons should be obliged to tell patients about their success rates.Evidence suggests that robotic prostate cancer surgery, far from being the saviour of men, is leaving them with more incontinence and impotence than traditional techniques.However, the pioneers of robotic surgery in Australia have defended the procedure, saying the research was flawed.

It found that robotic assistance meant men left hospital a day earlier and they were 10 times less likely to need a blood transfusion.However, more than twice as many (4.7 per cent) suffered ‘’genitourinary'’ complications. Almost a third more (16 per cent) were diagnosed with urinary incontinence, and the rate of erectile dysfunction rose by 40 per cent (to 27 per cent).

Professor Simon Chapman, a public health expert from the University of Sydney, said the study casts strong doubts on the claims made on behalf of the robots by proponents such as the Epworth Hospital’s Tony Costello.The Epworth, in Richmond, pioneered robotic-assisted surgery in Australia in 2003, and now runs two of the country’s five da Vinci robots.

‘’Men are in an enormously vulnerable position. They are not in a position at all to adequately evaluate the claims put to them by a doctor. The issues of urinary incontinence and sexual impotence are really very important for a lot of men, especially now men as young as 40 are being screened [for prostate cancer].'’

The Epworth’s associate professor, David Webb, recently published a paper that found robotic-assisted prostatectomies had completely eliminated ‘’bladder neck'’ problems - previously almost one in 10 prostate surgery patients had experienced a bladder neck contracture.

Neuroscientist Janet Keast, from the University of Sydney, said it was almost impossible to avoid nerve damage during a prostate operation.

‘’I am concerned that people get unrealistic expectations because it is called ‘nerve sparing’ surgery,'’ she said. The skill of the surgeon, rather than use or otherwise of a robot, was a better guide to how likely major nerve damage would be.

Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here