Viagra improves brain blood flow and could help to prevent dementia
ox.ac.uk
ox.ac.uk
Each to his own I guess..
...so yes, probably.
I think that's the case for Cialis but Viagra should make you "pop" regardless of what activity you're doing.
It takes about an hour to take effect (usually less for me) and lasts a little over 4 hours with some lingering effects for several hours later, with diminishing effects towards the 4 and above hours.
If I’m sexually stimulated during that time physically and or mentally, everything works like it should (erection). If during that time even when I would normally see peak effects around the 50 min to 90 min mark I’m driving or doing taxes or whatever non-sexually stimulating activity one might do, no erection at all.
No it doesn't. It simply makes the effect of sexual stimulation more effective. If you body is not trying to engorge the penis it has little to no effect on that part of you.
At least that is my experience of taking it.
Adult males in their 30s or older very rarely just get a random erection with no physical or mental stimulation while going about their business.
Bodybuilders (in the months before competing, while cutting) can't get it up even if they wanted to.
Normal natural bodybuilders get them if they have a low enough BF%.
I mean, steroids are worse but you can get perfectly disfunctional naturally .
Was news to me to read in a sibling that it also requires mental stimulation. I thought it was purely a physical inducement by the drug, as many drugs for other purposes induce a physical response without requiring mental effort.
Aside from the lifting the desk part, that's exactly how I imagine it working - and how it should work. You mean it also requires special sexual arousal? Well, even that it shouldn't be that difficult.
Most male bodybuilders wear loose shorts (or e.g., track pants) for workouts, the tight trunks being worn on the contest stage.
However, it seems that there was at least theoretical consideration that it could be used to treat ED
A nice overview is here:
Somehow reminds me of another joke...
What do they call a testicle transplant in the US?
"Shooting someone else's children"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S205011611...
Slightly off topic, but this is why I don't really trust these "no tolerance" claims. That claim is usually very specific, while people's understanding of "tolerance" is often quite a bit wider.
I take 3 medications which each make "no tolerance" claims based on scientific studies. But my subjective experience is that all of them do build tolerance in some way - the subjective effect does wear off with time and taking a break does reduce the tolerance. One possible cause is mistaking the intended effect (ED) with side-effects (boner all day).
“ Panelists pointed to flawed studies that could have skewed the results, missing follow-up data on patient outcomes and a lack of diversity among participants. The vast majority of patients were white, with only five Black patients receiving MDMA, raising questions about the generalizability of the results.
“The fact that this study has so many white participants is problematic because I don’t want something to roll out that only helps this one group,” said Elizabeth Joniak-Grant, the group’s patient representative. “
Hopefully the VA can lead the way.
https://apnews.com/article/mdma-psychedelics-fda-ptsd-ecstas...
Marketing is the key to business success. (Talking to you, tech people)
drug research is worse than training an LLM. you feed it to random people and then compare effects with initial conditions and of something looks good you try with more control.
But I’d rather tinnitus and focus, than silence but scattered!
I feel like dudes will know if they got Viagra or not? It doesn't seem like cilostazol has the same kind of effects on them, or does it? So is it really a placebo?
It definitely was automatic and persistent.
It was terrible. It wouldn’t even go away when I was done with it.
Yeah, you can say “well just don’t take it if it’s not prescribed.”
But don’t bury the truth. If you don’t have ED and you take it, the GP is wrong.
It definitely does.
> you still need sexual stimulus.
Not really, or to a much lesser extent.
What does this mean?
> Conclusions: Niacin alone can improve the erectile function in patients suffering from moderate to severe ED and dyslipidemia.
and for me, a stuffy nose and splitting headache.
That's Cialis, Viagra should make you hard even when you're in the confession booth talking to a priest.
To have no placebo effect, the random patients in the brain blood flow trial would need to all be unable to get erections, or something.
Which is a motte-and-bailey type of argument.
So I think they can do better then "here is a pill give me more money".
... Sorry
Seems high to me, but I've never taken the drug. I assume most people take it just a few times a week for it's intended use? Is anyone aware of research that shows positive benefits to health at recreational doses?
> Is anyone aware of research that shows positive benefits to health at recreational doses?
Recreational doses? What does that mean? Excessive vasodilation isn’t going to be fun. You actually need some vasoconstriction to balance your blood pressure. Too much and you’re just going to get headaches and lightheaded. Excessive vasodilation would be expected to worsen cognition.
I mean, we don't need to act obtuse here in the name of pedantry. Commenter was clearly referring to occasional use for on-label indication.
Reminds of me how ER Guanfacine was brought to market as and ADHD drugs.
Why invent new drugs when you can put new wrappers on old ones?
Also, extremelly stuffy nose, to the point where basically I need to breath by the mouth. And the red eyes, eyes as red as if had just smoke the biggest and strongest joint ever.
Yes, I tried to use it recreationally a few times. It is not worth the pain for me.
And then the dosage in the study: 50mg 3X times a day? I am not sure I could even survive the first day.
Did I mention the headaches too?
EDIT: Before someone asks... At least the on-label effect works really well in a recreational setting for me. But it is kind of funny to have persistent carbon-steel erections when you're feeling miserable with stomach pain and can't breath well. Doing oral sex with a stuffy nose is... interesting.
Tadalafil (Cialis) would probably be a better choice, and is used at daily (but reduced) dosing for prostrate issues.
Ive gone through a decent amount of generics over the years, from several sources, and even though the label is the same, they almost all act differently on me. Some give me a flushed red face. Some cause a dull headache. Some don't cause anything negative thank God. They all work though.
I think the Indian/Chinese ones are laced with garbage and what I feel depends on what else was in there.
Unscientific conclusion, but the nights I took it when with my new gf at the time, nightmares followed. Binned the remaining pills, nightmares vanished. Possibly the generic additives factor, or maybe the drug itself. Who knows, never tried it again after that.
I'm sure the real drug has some mild side effects too for some people, but the fact that I can distinctively tell the difference between sources makes me think a lot of other stuff is making it into the generics.
That "pump" in your nose you may feel just prior to a good sneeze? That's those tissues swelling with blood.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/4200-nissen...
Talk to your doctor about whether you can combine with a proton pump inhibitor like Omeprazole. There's are downsides (in particular, sustained use can mask other things, including serious issues) but I've not had a single episode of heartburn since I was out on it.
Looks like an allergic reaction; it could be not so much in sildenafil itself, but what they use as filler for the pills.
I think a lot of people do. Viagra is slightly different of course.
Both "hims" and "blue chew" now offer a daily mint "multivitamin" of tadalafil.
I went on a yacht for the weekend, drank quite a few beers and crashed to sleep.
I awoke to find out I couldn't pee at all. I can't describe how painful things were by the time I staggered into the emergency department that evening. Definitely the worst experience of my life. A few weeks later a guy was winched off a boat by helicopter with the same condition - one of his mates had been tasked with catheterising him using the rubber fuel hose from the boat's engine, but was unsuccessful.
If you are having trouble urinating, seek medical attention - don't ignore it.
...and a low dose makes it so my penis functions normally.
It's fantastic, really.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/viagra-...
Then it doesn't:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-dream-stud...
Then it does:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-06-07-sildenafil-viagra-impro...
Who knows what to believe.
If medical records were public, the answers could even be in those for any medicines that are prescription based. You could then make statements like "A% of patients who took drug B within C years did/didn't develop disease D".
An RCT doesn’t prove causation, it only might observe another correlation that contributes to our causal inferences based on the convergence of evidence.
We don’t have RCTs for most things that you take for granted.
This may be a sincere statement, but I'm not sure it's a helpful one. What data do we have? A 2:1 advantage in published studies that it does help. Since there is no such thing in science as absolute proof of anything, these are pretty good odds. Certainly more work will be done in the future to try to replicate the results and figure out the one negative outcome. But until then, we cannot say that the evidence is in any way "equal" on both sides.
The second is more of that same basic kind of research, but weighing in the opposite direction: it showed no association with Alzheimer's for people with a specific other condition who got these drugs vs. ones with the same condition that didn't (also they did some cell culture testing outside the body that didn't show any effect/improvement).
This new one is an actual double-blind study giving people the drug. Equally important, it's not claiming an effect on Alzheimer's, but vascular dementia, a different form of dementia that's directly related to blood flow and therefore to Viagra's known effects. Of course it's still just really a marker for future research on if this is broadly useful.
Honest question: do we need to believe one or the other ?
Or can we get away with "it depends" or "it works on some subjects and not on others"
With an RCT, the evidence is substantially increased.
I’d conclude sildenafil reduces risk of age-associated cognitive decline
But big pharma is never going to tell you that...
About a year later I talked to some gay male friends and they all said that was ridiculous, that they freely take it multiple times per day, and I that should too. So now I do (as needed) and it's worked very well. Plus, the subscription I get through Hims sends me a giant bottle of 20mg pills (at an unreasonably high cost) so I am able to easily dose myself instead of being given a one-size-fits-all dosage, like we get with most medications. My low dose is 3 pills and my high dose is 5 pills.
Now there are many options beyond Viagra including a ton of intriguing combination drugs that use multiple erection drugs and/or other drugs with tangential effects. But I like that I know how Viagra works for me personally based on experience. I think we all underestimate how much drugs very from person to person. Plus, now that I think about the lack of warnings that come with Viagra, it actually seems like an unusually benign drug.
And these pills are pretty cheap.
I (in America) actually exercise 5-6 days a week with regular sauna use afterwards averaging about 2-2.5 hours per total session (20 minutes from sauna). I coincidentally even happen to take long hot baths frequently (3-4 times a week for an hour) as a form of stress relief, relaxation, and it further helps with muscle recovery.
Absolutely none of that helps me to a notable degree with what the specific pill in question does which I also use regularly. In addition, viagra adds an additional say 4 hours per day per pill to my normal weekly routine of increased blood flow that may help reduce risk of dementia when I’m older. That’s a big win in my book if it’s true as it’s something I already do and is additive.
You can also buy these things as research chemical but same question as above.
Always remember, made in USA is likely a misdirection. You buy this stuff in bulk off of Alibaba like sites, buy some made in USA containers, repackage it in the USA and now you can claim the whole thing is “made in USA.”
Some of these places will list chemical analysis of their drugs but who knows what they tested what they send? Also, when did they test, who tested it? Etc. would love to hear if anyone has figured this out.
Just some quick references off the top of my head,
1 - bottle of lies, book or Ted talk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=si2M93gZy1E&pp=ygU5Ym90dGxlIG9...
2-valisure, commercial entity that tests for contaminants. https://www.valisure.com/ Also labadoor, consumerlab.com and others
3- John Abramson did an interesting Rogan interview a while back
It’s so easy to get a prescription these days might be worth a shot.
With both viagra and tadalafil, they can negatively effect sleep. So it's hit or miss for a lot of people depending on depressive or anxiety symptoms.
Guys (esp!), for real-pros, Viagra is a toy - instead, they use Taladafil/etc.
(Source: Boner all day _actually_ hurts ;-)
Aren't they vasoconstrictors?
Me: I'm just trying this new technique to boost productivity
2. There's no such thing as increasing "the effect" of such a nonspecific chemical as nitrogen oxide. There's tons of effects, and it increases some of them. Also, can the active ingredient get into mitochondria?
Hard problems rarely have one simple solution, or they wouldn't be hard, would they?
I mean, I think if going for a walk were a magic bullet for stroke rehabilitation, someone would have noticed by now.
walkable cities
more time off from work
more third spaces
less air pollution
less inequality
of course none of that "increases productivity or GDP" so the ruling class won't consider it. of course when they start dying like Japan with low birth rates, their 'solution' is to have a government funded dating app instead of doing the obvious.
Btw, Japan has walkable cities of course but also has low inequality (but not so high wealth). Approximately nothing is known to increase birth rates except for being highly religious though; it seems they mostly collapse when people have anything else to do for fun besides have sex. So basically it's caused by being on your phone too much.
I'll take the Capitalism and the pills.
Taking care of kids is not that hard or much of a sacrifice really. It would be super easy if things were even more communal. There's just really not that much great stuff that you are missing out on after like 35/40+. In truth most of the stuff geared to people in that age range is designed for people with kids. I think a lot of people would prefer to have more than 2 kids. The major issue is that SO much stuff is designed for the family of four. Yeah there's 3rd row seating, but it's annoying. Furniture that comes in 2 packs, theme parks, restaurant tables, vacation accommodations, etc. Because of modern life and the things we are accustomed to the logistical management burden of more than two children is very significant.
Up here in Canada, according to statistics, only 20% of couples want to have 3+ children. If I recall it correctly, it’s not that they have it, but plan to, which might not even happen due to socioeconomic reasons.
I don’t think majority of young people want to have 3 children though, as you mentioned. Even if I do an extremely unscientific look around in my circles, the number of couples who want that is 0. I obviously might be in a bubble, but it’s a fairly common sentiment especially for my age group.
It’s way easier for me to babble, because if I was a father I wouldn’t have to go through pregnancy period. Statistically it also shows men want more children than women, and that’s fair because it affects our physical health way less.
I keep seeing this /r/antiwork crap in the most unexpected places around here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4178948/
https://www.drugwatch.com/viagra/melanoma/
"In 2014, a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that the use of sildenafil, more commonly known by its brand name Viagra, within 3 months prior to the study’s start increased the likelihood of developing melanoma by as much as 84 percent.'
> Men taking PDE5 inhibitors had a higher educational level and annual income, factors that were also significantly associated with melanoma risk.