Sunday 10 November 2013

HOW EFFECTIVE IS SEXERCISE?


The pressure on me to discuss sex (from married people) has been so much on me lately. I am happy for the honesty of those that have called me. Sex is something we in Nigeria really don’t want to talk about in the open but since “OSES IS TALKING “is here to help……I’ll talk about it! Lack of sexual vibrancy (if I should put it that way) is hurting more marriages than one can count. I reproduce a report here by Luisa Dillner and she asks the same question I have been asked again and again.

Is sex good exercise?”

It’s more enjoyable than hitting the treadmill – and there are many documented health benefits. But is making love really an alternative to aerobic exercise? Research has revealed that sex, which is rated as moderately intense exercise, uses up 4.2 calories in men a minute and 3.1 in women. The study, published in the American journal PLOS ONE, took 21 young couples and used a Sense Wear armband to measure the effects of moderate exercise on a treadmill, compared with sex. Sex took on average 24.7 minutes, with men using up 101 calories and women using 70. Almost everyone in the study found the sex more enjoyable than the treadmill. So shouldn't you hang up your running shoes and try "sexercise" instead?

Sex is credited with having many health benefits. They're not all scientifically proven because it's difficult for researchers to measure the effects of sex on different health outcomes in a standardized way. Most research is also of heterosexual sex. But claims include reductions in heart disease and diabetes and improvements in sleep, appearance and immunity.

But this latest study really shows that sex uses only a few calories – the treadmill used about three times as many. The sex was also likely to be more energetic than usual because people knew they were being monitored.Sex is an indicator of good health as well as contributing to it. But the research generally suggests more is not necessarily better and that quality what matters.
Source:
Luisa Dillner, www.theguardian.com


1 comment: