Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chronic Pain Shrinks The Brain

Posted by timothy on from the as-long-as-it-doesn't-touch-my-10-percent dept.

An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience is reporting on a study showing that people with chronic lower back pain have 5 to 11 percent less gray matter than pain-free folks. Its not known for sure why, but the thinking is that neurons just get worn out as the mind deals with the pain."

60 comments

  1. pain = shrinkage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess that means pleasure should make thingse GROW

    ugggh - nasty thought here on /. geeks pleasuring themselves.

    Their MINDS you fool - pleasuring THE MIND.

    Get you head out of the gutter!

    1. Re:pain = shrinkage by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Check this <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/science/03/01/0<nobr>3<wbr></wbr></nobr> <nobr> <wbr></wbr></nobr>/1336238.shtml?tid=134">out</a>

      --
  2. one of the system used by evolution by xutopia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If a system is inadequately evolved it would probably have to suffer through more pain to walk, jog, hunt, gather, etc.. By reducing the brain it could have a bigger impact on reproduction and survival. Perhaps we evolved a trait that helped one another evolve faster.

    1. Re:one of the system used by evolution by sailforsingapore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well...back pain comes from our specific upright posture, where small problems in the stride can be amplified up the body, causing damage in the lower back. I highly doubt that the shrinkage (if it exists) is anything but the brains adverse reaction to high stress, or possibly indicative of some deeper neurological issue that either causes/is caused by the pain.

    2. Re:one of the system used by evolution by drachton · · Score: 1

      This doesn't actually make sense, though. Natural selection dictates that organisms that are more fit have better chances to survive and thus to reproduce. The level of fitness, however, is logically evaluated by the environment, not by the organism itself. Your hypothesis implies that somehow the organism can detect by itself what traits are defective and then actually take steps to remove *itself* from the gene pool. IMO, this is more akin to a form of self-sacrificial Lamarckism than to evolution.

    3. Re:one of the system used by evolution by pkhuong · · Score: 1

      Think of it on a larger scale. It wouldn't trigger all the time, so it's not immediately a disadvantage. However, once the group has gotten large enough, it could evolve faster by quickening the death of weaker elements. And, then, the group could become dominant.

      --
      Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
    4. Re:one of the system used by evolution by xutopia · · Score: 1
      I'm not saying that organisms can detect by themselves just that they may have a trait which hinders them more if they don't make the cut.

      I'm in the process of reading the extended phenotype (a follow up to the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins). It makes sense that we develop such a thing if you look at genes rather than organisms as the elements which are affected by natural selection. Organisms are the vehicule for reproduction of these genes. A meta ecosystem of sorts.

      Pain is actually a good thing. It's a system which gives us some feedback on the exterior world and the state of our organism. If it can have an effect on our intelligence directly the feedback might go so far as give more chances to the most fit. It's not Lamarckism. Lamarckism says that offsprings have the acquired traits of their parents which is a fallacy. I'm just saying that evolution can work with this process and is completely compatible with what we currently know about evolutionary biology.

    5. Re:one of the system used by evolution by nomel · · Score: 1

      or...it could be from all the pain medications that these people most likely take.

  3. Study Problems by sailforsingapore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm inheriently distrustful of these studies, if simply because of the sheer number of flaws that could be present in their design. I remember, in the space of one week last year, hearing three different studies; "Eggs are good for you", "Eggs are bad for you" and finally back to "Eggs are good for you". Without huge problems in the study, they couldn't have come up with such disparate results. Take this with a grain of salt.

    1. Re:Study Problems by NiceGeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      Salt is bad for you.

    2. Re:Study Problems by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without huge problems in the study, they couldn't have come up with such disparate results.

      Not at all. The study (or studies) may be perfectly valid, and the problem may be that you're trying to draw a conclusion that's so simple it doesn't reflect the truth. Or different people interpret the results of the study differently.

      Taking the egg example, it's pretty clear that eggs are good for you and eggs are bad for you. They're a rich source of protein, but they're high in cholesterol and fat. Same study, same data, two different interpretations of "good."

      You don't need to be "inherently distrustful" of scientific studies, particularly if they really are scientific. A better place for your distrust is in the oversimplified interpretations we get from the media, which likes to boil things down to a third grade reading level, and from people and corporations with a vested interest in the interpretation who twist data to suit their own agendas.

    3. Re:Study Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. Taking things with a "grain of salt" helps people keep a level head in cases like this. Therefore salt is good for you.

    4. Re:Study Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You appariently have no inherient taste for dry humour.

    5. Re:Study Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The eggs good/bad for you thing was an Onion article. JFYI.

    6. Re:Study Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much water is bad for you too... ...it's called "drowning"...

    7. Re:Study Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should always take your eggs with a grain of salt, yum yum ... try some pepper too

  4. In soviet russia... by nerd256 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shrinking grey matter causes chronic pain

    Seriously, how do we know what the dependent variable is.

    (and the flaming ensues)

    1. Re:In soviet russia... by sailforsingapore · · Score: 1

      ...You are right, but it need not even be that black and white. What if all the people they sampled came from an area with some sort of pollution, they only had a sample size of 26. So many variables, and such a small group. Such drastic findings have to be looked at skeptically.

    2. Re:In soviet russia... by Flaming_cows · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you can safely assume that it isn't a bunch of idiots doing this. If it's counted as a 'study' one can assume that it has at least some credibility, although by no means an aura of infallibility.

    3. Re:In soviet russia... by sailforsingapore · · Score: 1, Informative

      True...but remembering my biology training, it becomes very clear how easy it would be to completely flub such a small scale thing. I remember carrying out much simpler and seemingly straight foreward experiments and getting frightening divergent data. The best example of which was in carrying out an experiment involving fertilizer and cyanobacteria, I was amazed to find that they were all dead, even at the lowest level added of the chemical fertillizers. I later realized that I had created a mild acid with the proportions of fertilizers I added to the water, causing my entire sample to perish. It would have happened every time the eperiment was repeated, had I not caught that fundimental flaw. Thats why I remain skeptical, even of very well trained and qualified scientists...simply because everyone can make silly mistakes.

    4. Re:In soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Go look up the Helena, Montana smoking ban study. Some doctors here found a one time anomalous fall in the number of heart attack admissions to the hospital. By about 60%. It happens to be the study period occured during the period of time when the heart attack rate is down seasonally (proven that the season has an effect on the rate of heart attacks), and the study occurred only over the immediately proceeding, during and after the public smoking ban was in effect (it was thrown out in the courts a few months after it passed).

      Now the CDC uses this study as difinitive proof that smoking bans reduce the rate of heart attack and in fact have run public service announcements based on it.

      Anybody with half a brain could see that the study is flawed just by looking at the results. The rate of heart attack could not drop by 60% just by banning public smoking--and the results almost immediately. I mean, what is it? Public smoking causes heart attacks and private smoking does not?

      No, there were obviously other circumstances involved that were not considered.

  5. geesh by huber · · Score: 1

    thats the dumbest thing ive heard all week. of couse cold case hasn't been on yet.

  6. Interestingly enough... by jwriney · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can remove the word "Pain" from the article title, and still have an accurate statement.

    "You have smoked yourself retarded."

    --riney

    1. Re:Interestingly enough... by fourtwo · · Score: 1
      Responsible use of marijuana can be very effective at dealing with chronic pain. Some would argue that being high all the time may have adverse cognitive effects, however, it appears chronic pain can as well.

      I would rather a person go through life with a mild buzz, hell, blitzed out of their minds even, then suffer the pains of MS (either one :)), seizures, IBS, back injuries, etc.

      There are many intelligent, successful people who use marijuana medically and recreationally. The typical image of a burned out hippie is not an accurate reflection of marijuana use. Sure, not everyone who uses marijuana is a genius, but neither is everyone who abstains.

    2. Re:Interestingly enough... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      One could also substitute "drink"; although there seem to be an awful lot of people who don't need drugs of any sort for an excuse to be ignorant.

      One could just as well, IMO, substitute "TV" for pain. So I fail to see your point.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:Interestingly enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just to add some balance here:

      Richard Feynman, one of, if not the greatest genius of the 20th century and famous physicist, was according to numberous reports a user of Pot.
      So was Carl Sagan - genius, astromomer, and science fiction author.

      Many many highly intelegent people without whom the world today would have been different have been fond of the misunderstood plant. William Shakespear is also suspected to have smoked Cannabis.

    4. Re:Interestingly enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, removing simply the word pain would render an inaccurate statement. The myth that marijuana smoking shrinks the brain, or causes toxic effects to the brain stems from several fundamentally flawed studies, and the temporary short term memory defecits users experience. The popular drug that is proven to cause brain damage and shrink the brain would be alcohol.

      Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to avoid marijuana, especially because the common method of administration - smoking - is proven to be harmful. Still, spreading misinformation does nothing to alleviate the drug problems we face.

      Proven brain damage from alcohol:
      http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/9416.html /

      Debunking the marijuana-brain damage myth:
      http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/70/8 0972.htm/

  7. Obviously. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Its not known for sure why, but the thinking is that neurons just get worn out as the mind deals with the pain."

    Right. Either that or being stupid hurts.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    1. Re:Obviously. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Either that or being stupid hurts.

      Unfortunately being stupid seems only to hurt those around the stupid person, not the stupid person themselves...

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  8. Ow, the article! by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 1

    It hurts just thinking about it...

  9. Cause and effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is is possible that people with small brains are too stupid to avoid pain?

    Small-brained Individual: "Hey, look at the pretty sparkles... AHHHRHHHHHHR IT'S A HIGH VOLTAGE WIRE AAAAAA HELP!!!! HELP!! AHHH HERE'S A RUNNING CHAINSAW I'LL GRAB IT FOR STABILITY.. AHHHHHHHHHH MY HAND!!!"

    Normal-brained Onlooker: "Wow. I'm glad my brain is normal-sized. I probably avoid a lot of unnecessary pain."

  10. Hahaha I totally read that wrong. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 0
    A cold shiver ran down my spine as I read "chronic shrinks the brain" as the story title.

    Phew!!

    --

    Liberty.

    1. Re:Hahaha I totally read that wrong. by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 3, Funny

      It just shrinks the short term memory. Like when you can't remember that you opened a bold tag only four words ago.

  11. Not Known Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Its not known for sure why, but the thinking is that neurons just get worn out as the mind deals with the pain.

    Maybe it's just attrition of the complainers.

  12. Re: or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Only stupid people have lower back pain!

    Yeah, it must be something like that, because my back is killing me...

  13. Or, perhaps by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Taking painkillers constantly rots your brain.

    Who could've guessed...

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Or, perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking painkillers constantly rots your brain.

      No, the pain itself rots the brain. No doubt you're taking a stab at Rush Limbaugh. (and Matthew Perry, and Brett Buttler, etc.)
      No, the painkillers actually saved Rush from brain damage, thus he didn't convert over to becoming a liberal !
      Flame on baby, I'm anonymous. Just F'n with you anyway.

    2. Re:Or, perhaps by happyemoticon · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I know two people who supposedly have fibromyalgia (a chronic pain disorder) - one is doing fine and she's on homeopathic medicine, therapy and acupuncture, and the other is having seizures because she's on such a bizarre coctail of drugs.

      The pharmo-medical complex has made doctors more likely to give a pill for a given problem than refer somebody to a therapist, and the drugs which my friend has been prescribed are highly addictive and cause the body to adapt quickly: the prescription runs out, and the pain comes back even worse.

    3. Re:Or, perhaps by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1
      Homeopathic "medicine" is provably worthless. See this site for the details. If your friend thinks she's doing better, it's because of a) the placebo effect, b) the other therapies she's getting.

      Even opioids are rarely addictive when properly used for pain management under the supervision of a doctor. Do not mistake physical dependence (a routine, expected and manageable occurrence with long-term opioid use) for "addiction", by definition a harmful psychological disorder. Countless people suffer needlessly from chronic pain because of unfounded fears of addiction. Opioids are actually much less toxic than many over-the-counter pain drugs, especially acetaminophen (Tylenol).

  14. Alice Cooper sang about this... by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 2, Informative

    He knew about the real cause way back in 1980!

    .

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
  15. Read the title as... by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

    On first scan I read the title as: Chronic Pain Shrieks The Brain.

    I wonder how many death-metal bands begin as nothing more than a too-good-to-waste name? (and yes, I know a lot end there)

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  16. A smaller brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a lighter brain- less weight on the aching back.

  17. /.'s Chronic Problems with Causality by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It is unfortunately a common occurrence here that causality is implied in the stories. This story implies that chronic pain causes the brain to shrink, however the article only links lessor amounts of gray matter with greater amounts of pain.

    Possible causes? Perhaps the pain does cause the brain to shrink. Perhaps people who are predisposed to pain are also born with smaller brains. Perhaps their brains shrunk due to another cause and the shrinkage is causing the pain. Or perhaps with such a small study (26 people) they happened to choose people who just happened to have smaller amount of gray matter.

    I would also like to note that brain functions that make humans able to reason more effectively are located in the gray matter part of the brain, which is the region that was found to be reduced. However, it is also known that the amount of gray matter is not strongly correlated with intelligence. (Actually, it has been found that the amount of folding, that is the number of creases on the brain, affects intelligence much more.) So, there is no reason yet to think that these people are actually suffering any loss of function.

    So while interesting, until more research is done, these results should not be over-interpreted.

    1. Re:/.'s Chronic Problems with Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you!! It's nice to know there is at least 1 other person in the universe who has a full-sized brain! I don't know how I haven't exploded from all the bottled frustration over people's inability to see cause and effect reversals.

      Just tonight I was chatting with a bright older gentleman who said his wife had just thrown away all their vitamin "E" supplies because she had heard a report of studies and statistics which said people who take vitamin "E" live 10% shorter lives. Duh! Maybe people who are ill and will die sooner take more vitamin "E"!!!!! (The gentleman was a retired systems analyst AND chemical engineer and he smiled broadly and deeply when I told him my angle.)

      OK- I feel better now- thanks for listening, and I hope it starts a revolutionary concept: thinking.

    2. Re:/.'s Chronic Problems with Causality by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope it starts a revolutionary concept: thinking

      You know it'll never happen.

    3. Re:/.'s Chronic Problems with Causality by Captain+Chad · · Score: 1
      From the article:
      • "Another possibility is that people born with smaller numbers of neurons are predisposed to suffering chronic pain."
      Perhaps we should have fully read the article before ranting?
      --
      Check out Chad's News
    4. Re:/.'s Chronic Problems with Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just think geeks love to chant "correlation does not imply causation." What's worse is when they fume over an article that even says that or something along those lines. Then again, that's not saying much, because hardly anyone ever reads the articles.

    5. Re:/.'s Chronic Problems with Causality by VendingMenace · · Score: 1

      perhaps it wouldn't have mattered if he had fully read the article before ranting?

      Seriously, his rant was against the EDITORS not the article. The parent's point was that the editors should not imply causality when the article does not. HELLO! McFly!

      Perhaps YOU should have understood the parent before posting a snide anti-rant comment?

    6. Re:/.'s Chronic Problems with Causality by Captain+Chad · · Score: 1

      I deserved that and wish to apologize for the tone of my post. Should have omitted that last sentence.

      --
      Check out Chad's News
  18. Maybe it isn't the pain itself? by toddestan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps it's not the pain that causes the brain to shrink, but rather while the brain is occupied with the constant pain it is unable to think about other things and grow?

  19. No Pain No Gain by gCGBD · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is why so many jocks are so dumb.

    --

    O=='=++
  20. suspect statistics by mopomi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    As a chronic back pain sufferer, this article was of interest to me. So, instead of just reading the posted link, I found the actual article.
    Most of the method that others are complaining about (only 26 people, etc.--read the article, they're doing things just fine) seems fine to me, but what really bothers me is this:


    Skull-normalized whole-brain neocortical gray matter volume (excluding the cerebellum, deep gray matter, and brainstem; SIENAX analysis) was 528 +- 44 cm^3 (mean SD; n 26) in the CBP brain and 559 +- 42 cm^3 (n 26) in controls, matched for
    age, sex, and scan type (Fig. 1 A). The 30 cm^3 difference in gray matter volume, a 5.4% decrease, was highly significant (paired t test=3.7; p less than .001). A similar measure was derived from the VBM regional analysis: whole-brain mean gray matter density per voxel (VBM modulation analysis). This measure showed a 5.9% decrease in overall gray matter density (0.251 +- 0.031 in CBP subjects; 0.267 +- 0.027 in controls;



    They're claiming that a 30 cm^3 decrease is significant when their 1 sigma error is 42-44 cm^3! 1 sigma! In my field of science, nobody believes you unless the error bars don't overlap (much) with two or three sigma. Basically, everything is essentially the same to within one sigma:
    528+44=572>569;
    569-42=527528.

    Anyway, I'm sure there's some stuff that I missed, but until a larger study is done with better error analysis, I'll take what they've done as probably correct, but with some doubt. . .
  21. Did they ever consider... by syukton · · Score: 0

    ooh! I have a hypothesis!

    People with back pain get said pain through laborious work. Who works with their back instead of their brain? Why, stupid people of course! So a bunch of people with small brains but hurt backs, seriously, what kind of no-brainer (haha) is this?

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  22. Pain adaptation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    No brain, no headache.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  23. how's your back pain doing? by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    still hurting?

  24. It's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It rhymes too,
    so it must be true!

  25. Right... tell that to the people at EA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    80 hour work weeks programming, jesus, who here hasn't pulled those?


    I think we "mind workers" are much more likely to have chronic lower back pain. At least body workers keep their back muscles strong.

  26. Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Care to post a link?

    1. Re:Link? by mopomi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry I forgot to do that.

      http://www.jneurosci.org/content/vol24/issue46/
      http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/24/46/10410

      Unfortunately, unless you have a subscription to J. Neuro. Sci., or you attend a university (or other institution; or at least have access to a computer from such an institution) that does, you can only get the abstract.