For centuries, the notion that abstaining from sex increases physical performance has been widely debated. From ancient Greek athletes to modern-day boxing legends such as Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson, have practiced sexual restraint in the expectation of increasing strength, stamina, and hope. The famous scene in Rocky where trainer Mickey Goldmill tells Rocky Balboa to "lay off that pet shop dame", “women weaken legs,” further fueled this belief, reinforcing the belief that sex before competition weakens the body. But does science back this up, or is it merely an outdated myth?

The theory that sex saps energy and impairs performance goes back almost 2,000 years. Abstaining, ancient Greek athletes believed, would enhance aggression and concentration, leading them to become stronger competitors. Even today in the world of sports, people stick to this hypothesis despite the changing scientific findings. But during the Rio 2016 Olympics, officials gave away a staggering half a million condoms to participants—far from a indication that sex was being thought of as a performance-sapping activity.

Although some continue to abstain prior to major events, the real effect of sex on sports performance is still controversial. Is there any basis to the belief that sex inhibits strength and endurance, or is it merely an old wives' tale?

Role of Testosterone in Athletic Performance

Testosterone is an essential hormone that is essential for muscle growth, power, and overall athletic performance. Although men naturally produce more than women, both sexes need testosterone for energy and recovery. Some athletes think not having sex maintains their testosterone levels, providing them with an advantage in the gym or on the field. But is this statement scientifically accurate?

Studies indicate that testosterone levels are not consistent throughout the day but are constantly being produced in the body. Unlike glycogen, which can be stored and used as energy, testosterone is controlled according to the needs of the body. Research does not indicate that having sex depletes testosterone levels significantly—if anything, it can increase them slightly through endorphin and dopamine release.

Does Abstinence Make One Stronger and More Enduring?

Some fitness enthusiasts skip sex before hard workouts because they think it takes away their energy. Although intense physical exercise (including sex) can cause temporary tiredness, there is no scientific evidence to support that sex deteriorates long-term strength or endurance.

A 2016 review article in Frontiers in Physiology reviewed nine studies of sex and performance in sports, and concluded there was no basis to believe sexual activity prior to competition would cause the body to be weakened. Another study, published in 2019 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, found no statistically significant effect of sex on performance.

Whereas sex shortly before intense exercise may make you momentarily lethargic, it will not impair general performance, stamina, or muscular power. As an alternative, taking sufficient rest, eating appropriately, and exercising with a standard program are many more significant variables.

Can Men 'Save' Their Testosterone Through Abstinence?

It is long believed by some men that ejaculation abstinence will result in a dramatic increase in testosterone. In 2003, researchers from China claimed that men who did not ejaculate for seven days experienced a short-term 45% rise in testosterone. Yet this response was not found to last past the seventh day, and subsequent experiments have been unable to duplicate this effect regularly.

Conversely, some studies show that testosterone levels actually increase slightly after sex, undermining the idea that abstinence is required for optimal performance. The bottom line? The body has a fine balance of hormone production, and sex abstinence is not likely to give any real athletic benefit.

Even though there is no scientific basis, most athletes still feel that sex impacts their performance. It may be because of the placebo effect—if a player believes that not having sex makes him or her stronger, he or she will be more confident and play better. Some players may also feel relaxed and more alert after sex, and this clears their minds for the competition.

Finally, the psychological effect of sexual activity can differ from individual to individual. Sports persons who believe abstinence allows them to remain aggressive may decide to abstain from sex prior to a big event. There are others who believe that sex helps in reducing stress and enhancing sleep and may gain from intimacy pre-competition.

So, Should You Avoid Sex to Enhance your Performance at Gym?

Although the concept of forgoing sex to enhance gym performance has been around for generations, new research indicates that it does not have any noticeable effect on physical ability. Strength, stamina, and overall performance are more affected by training, nutrition, recovery, and psychological readiness than by sex.

If you think that abstinence makes you more aggressive and focused, you can do so without any ill effects. If sex makes you sleep better and relax, you might be increasing your performance rather than diminishing it. The message here is that there's no one-size-fits-all principle—players have to listen to their bodies and play in whatever way best suits them.

Ultimately, there is no scientific rationale for not having sex before you go to the gym or to compete. Whether you abstain or not, therefore, the outcome of your workout will come down to the effort you make, not the activity in the bedroom.

For years, body mass index (BMI) has been a key health marker to track obesity. But a recent study suggests that not everyone classified as obese based on their BMI may have obesity-related health problems. Researchers say just considering BMI alone may lead to incorrect diagnosis in some people while overlooking others with excess body fat and related health risks.

The international study, involving more than 844,000 adults across China, the UK, the US and Spain, supports a different approach that considers body fat distribution, waist measurement and the impact of excess fat on organ function.

Researchers propose distinguishing between two categories: pre-clinical obesity, in which excess body fat increases health risks but has not impaired organ function, and clinical obesity, in which excess fat is already affecting the body's ability to function.

BMI Alone Not Enough To Diagnose Obesity

Also read: Why WHO Wants To Use Smartwatches To Track Physical Activity & Sedentary Behaviour At A Population Level?

BMI is calculated by dividing a person's weight in kilograms by their height in metres squared. It is used to classify people as underweight, normal weight, overweight or obese.

However, BMI does not directly measure body fat or show where fat is distributed. It also cannot distinguish between fat and muscle mass. Consequently, two people with the same BMI may have very different body compositions and health risks.

The researchers found that adding waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio to BMI helped identify people whose excess body fat might otherwise be missed.

The analysis suggested that BMI alone missed obesity level body fat in up to 8.6% of participants, while incorrectly classifying up to 3.1% as having obesity in the study groups.

Professor Francesco Rubino, senior author of the study and Chair of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery at King's College London, said, “Body mass index alone cannot tell us whether someone is already ill or at risk of illness, or what care they need, leaving people vulnerable to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Difference Between Clinical And Pre-Clinical Obesity

Also read: Loud Snoring Is Not Always Harmless: Sleep Apnoea can Become a Stroke-Risk Concern

The researchers used a framework proposed by the Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology Commission in 2025. It separates obesity into two categories based on whether excess body fat has affected a person's health.

• Pre-clinical obesity: A person has excess body fat that increases their risk of developing health problems, but their organ function and everyday activities remain unaffected.

• Clinical obesity: Excess body fat has impaired organ function or affected a person's ability to perform daily activities. It is considered an active disease that requires clinical assessment.

The study estimated that only around 23% to 31% of people classified as having obesity across the four study populations had clinical obesity. This represented approximately 5.6% to 10.9% of the overall adult populations studied.

When Do People With Pre-Clinical Obesity Develop Health Problems?

The researchers followed participants over time to examine how often pre-clinical obesity progressed to clinical obesity.

They found that approximately 77% to 91% of people classified as having pre-clinical obesity did not progress to clinical obesity over 10 years. However, progression rates differed across the study populations.

Clinical obesity was linked with a higher risk of death while pre-clinical obesity had a more modest increase in risk.

Professor Rubino said, “Preclinical obesity should therefore be neither treated automatically as active disease nor dismissed as harmless. Some people may need preventive treatment, but its intensity should match their individual risk.”

The findings do not mean that people with pre-clinical obesity should ignore excess body fat. Rather, they highlight the importance of assessing individual health risks instead of making treatment decisions based on BMI alone.

People with excess body fat may still benefit from lifestyle hanges, treatment and preventive care even if they have not developed organ dysfunction.

Smartwatches and fitness trackers are widely used for counting daily steps and tracking workouts by millions. But the World Health Organization (WHO) is now seeking to task these wearables with bigger responsibilities. The global health body has issued proposals for wearable devices that could help countries measure physical activity and sedentary behaviour across populations.

In a notice published on November 8, WHO invited researchers, health authorities, technology developers and other stakeholders to review a draft Target Product Profile (TPP) for wearable devices worn on wrists. The aim is to ascertain what these devices should be capable of measuring before they are incorporated into national and subnational public health monitoring systems.

The proposal will remain open until December 6, 2026. WHO will use the feedback to revise and finalise the document and inform future implementation guidance.

WHO Want To Use Smartwatches For Public Health Monitoring

Also read: Lancet Study Says Obesity Drug Mazdutide Shows 18% Weight Loss In 32 Weeks: How Does It Compare To Wegovy?

Physical inactivity is a major risk factor for non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and certain cancers. Sedentary behaviour, which involves spending prolonged periods sitting is also the cause of various adverse health outcomes.

Countries currently rely heavily on surveys to understand how physically active people are. However, these often depend on people reporting their own activity, which can lead to inaccurate data.

Wearable devices could provide a more objective way to collect information over a certain period of time. Instead of relying entirely on questionnaires, health authorities could use data from these devices to understand how much people move, how long they remain sedentary and how activity patterns vary across different population groups.

WHO says wearable technology could complement existing surveillance methods as countries work towards improving global physical activity targets.

WHO's Proposed Standards

Also read: Weight Loss Without Extreme Diets: What Sustainable Medical Weight Management Looks Like

The draft TPP outlines minimum specifications for smartwatches intended for population-level monitoring. It considers what makes a device suitable for collecting data across different populations.

The proposed framework covers:

• Measurement capabilities: What physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators a device should be able to capture.
• Technical specifications: The minimum and additional features required for devices to be suitable for public health surveillance.
• Data access: How information can be retrieved, processed and used by health monitoring systems.
• Implementation: Practical considerations involved in deploying devices across communities and integrating them into existing surveillance programmes.
• Scalability and sustainability: Whether the technology can be used consistently across countries with different resources and technical capacities.

WHO is interested in feedback on whether the specifications proposed are practical and relevant to countries with limited resources.

Why Can't Countries Use Existing Smartwatches?

Although such wearables are widely available, their measurements are not interchangeable. Different manufacturers use different sensors, algorithms and methods to calculate steps, activity levels and sedentary time. As a result, two devices worn by the same person may produce different estimates.

A systematic review published in npj Digital Medicine in January 2026 examined 82 studies evaluating Apple Watch measurements across 14 health metrics. It found that measurement accuracy varied depending on the metric and testing conditions. While heart-rate measurements showed good overall agreement, step counts had moderate accuracy and energy expenditure data was inconsistent too.

This illustrates the need for standardisation. If countries use different devices and measurement methods, comparing physical activity data across populations becomes needlessly challenging.

WHO's proposed framework is intended to address these differences by identifying the device characteristics and protocols needed for consistent data collection.

Cost, access, privacy and digital literacy remain important challenges when it comes to implementing WHO's proposal. People without smartphones, reliable internet access or the ability to buy wearable devices could be underrepresented.

There are also questions about how personal movement data would be stored, shared and protected. Governments would need clear safeguards to ensure that participation is voluntary, data is handled responsibly and findings represent the wider population.

Mazdutide, an experimental weight-loss drug, could soon join the ever-expanding market of GLP-1 medications. The results from a recent clinical trial funded by Eli Lilly has found that mazdutide has shown an average reduction of 18.1% in body weight over 32 weeks. The trial was published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings have drawn attention because the experimental drug produced significant weight loss in less than eight months, establishing its position among existing medicines like Wegovy.

However, the findings come from a phase 2 trial involving 179 participants. Its comparison with existing players like Wegovy are yet to be done formally.

What Did The Mazdutide Study Find?

Also read: Ozempic, Mounjaro Users Report Burning Skin Sensation: What Is Allodynia?

Published in November 2026, the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated mazdutide in 179 overweight or obese adults with overweight but without type 2 diabetes.

Participants, who were recruited from 24 centres in the United States, received the once-weekly injections of different doses of the drug or a placebo. At 32 weeks, the average weight changes were:

• Mazdutide 16 mg: 18.1% reduction in body weight
• Mazdutide 10 mg: 15.6% reduction
• Mazdutide 3–6 mg: 7.3% reduction
• Placebo: 0.9% reduction

The study also reported further weight reductions by week 48, suggesting that weight loss had not reached its maximum by the primary assessment.

However, tolerability of the drug drew attention too. Gastrointestinal problems, including nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, were among the most common side effects.

Around 20% of participants receiving the highest 16 mg dose quit the treatment because of adverse events, primarily gastrointestinal disorders.

How Does Mazdutide Work?

Also read: Australia Approves First GLP-1 Weight Loss Pill: How It Works & Who Is Eligible

Mazdutide works differently from semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy. It activates two hormone receptors involved in regulating appetite and metabolism: glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucagon.

GLP-1 helps regulate blood sugar, which slows down emptying of the stomach and increases feelings of fullness, which can reduce food intake.

Glucagon is another hormone involved in regulating blood glucose and energy metabolism. By activating glucagon receptors along with GLP-1 receptors, mazdutide can affect energy expenditure and metabolism in addition to regulating appetite.

This dual action distinguishes it from semaglutide, which primarily targets the GLP-1 receptor.

Mazdutide Vs Wegovy

Also read: GLP-1 Drugs May Be More Effective Than Metformin At Preventing Diabetes: Study

Ozempic and Wegovy contain the same active ingredient, semaglutide, but have different approved uses and dosing.

Ozempic is primarily prescribed for type 2 diabetes and certain cardiovascular and kidney conditions, while Wegovy is approved for weight management.Here is how the trial results compare:

Mazdutide 16 mg showed 18.1% weight reduction in 32 weeks. Wegovy 2.4 mg showed 14.9% in 68 weeks.

In the STEP 1 trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2021, participants with overweight or obesity who received semaglutide 2.4 mg lost an average of 14.9% of their body weight over 68 weeks. Participants did not have diabetes.

Although mazdutide's 18.1% result seems higher than the 14.9% reported with Wegovy, the comparison has limitations. The trials differed in duration, participant characteristics, doses and study design. A direct head-to-head trial would be needed to establish which treatment produces greater weight loss.

Is Mazdutide A Promising Weight-Loss Drug?

Mazdutide has also been studied in China. In the phase 3 GLORY-2 trial, participants receiving 9 mg lost an average of 16.65% of their body weight over 60 weeks, compared to 1.50% in the placebo group.

Its recent findings are promising but it is too early to call mazdutide more effective than existing treatments. The US study was a relatively small phase 2 trial, and its highest dose led to a high rate of discontinuation due to adverse events. Larger phase 3 trials are important to establish its long-term effectiveness, safety and tolerability.