Slashdot Mirror
Thirsty People Feel More Pain
Bifurcati writes "Being thirsty makes you more sensitive to pain, according to a recent study. By simultaneously doing brain scans, new areas of the brain were activated when both pain and thirst were present, apparently making the pain more "painful" - perhaps a survival method so that pain is prioritized over thirst. They'd like to do more research, but ethical issues make it tough - even these subjects had to spend three hours being poked and prodded!"
I am currently reading Your Body's Many Cries for Water and it has been very eye-opening about body chemistry, and covers the subject with medical and scientific rigour. I highly recommend it to people for whom conventional medicine is at best 'managing' and not reversing their health issues. Particularly compelling in that book is Dr Batmanghelidj's thorough scientific explanation on how 'diet' sodas actually substantially contribute to weight gain.
The immediately curious can access his library of scientific papers (in PDF format).
you had me at #!
If not drinking water amplifies pain, wouldn't the same be true from a not-so-distant-cousin, pleasure?
I used to work with a fellow named Mike. He suffered from severe carpal tunnel syndrome, perhaps caused by the decades of typing he had done while programming. He would always drink massive amounts of water and juice while working, saying that it helped his wrists. We'd make fun of him because he had to piss every half hour, but perhaps he was on to something.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Why would it be unethical if the test subjects were made fully aware of what was to be done to them, and were willing to undergo the experiment? Unless somebody was deceived or coerced I don't see how ethics would even come into it.
...all true!
Whenever I've been without a beer for a while, the pain just kicks in man. Oh the terrible pain!
That's why foreplay is so important so that one can sustain prolonged poking.
Dry == Painful.
I'll probably be modded off topic since no one here would understand what I'm saying.
Uncensored Google results requested and delivered by email
For velcro-chest-hair-pockets
As a former lightweight rower I can vouch for this. Rowing a balls out 2K is hard. Doing it the day after sweating off 10 pounds is just sadistic.
Their conclusion: Be hydrated.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I am one of the least sensitive-to-pain people you'll ever meet. I used to always feel pain, because I was afraid of feeling pain. But I learned years ago how to ignore that fear -- avoid fearing entirely. Since then, my tolerance for pain is huge. I've broken bones, lost teeth (punch to the face in a bar) and had my share of other situations (cat bites, skateboard accidents, car accident, etc) and my tolerance to pain is impressive. I've even done major dental work without pain killers and passed kidney stones the same way.
I don't drink a lot of fluids. I should (considering the kidney stones), but I don't. I love water, just don't drink a lot of it. I love tea, too, but forget to drink it.
I think feeling pain is often a mind over matter kind of thing. I had a carpenter friend who cut two of his fingers off and didn't feel pain until he noticed it. I had a friend who broke a foot snowboarding and didn't feel pain until he looked at it.
Have there been studies on pain and mind-over-matter situations?
Find a self-inflicting sadist, and voila!
Fromt the article:
Survival instinct
He says pain is accentuated because it is more important to survival than mild thirst.
"The sensation with the most immediate implications for survival is pushed to the forefront of attention," he said.
Dr Farrell says the findings suggest it could be wise for people who are about to go through a painful experience should drink more water beforehand.
He says evidence from different types of studies also support this relationship between drinking water and pain.
But could people deliberately use dehydration to maximise pain, say via torture?
"We suspect if they got dehydrated enough that the overwhelming sense of thirst would probably make pain less rather than more," he said.
Previous studies in rats have shown that mild thirst makes the animals feel more pain but severe dehydration actually dulls pain, he says.
He says this too makes sense from the point of view of survival.
"If you were very dehydrated it would pay to suppress pain because it might get in the way of your search for water," he said.
Wouldn't that imply that the more hydrated you are, the more salient the pain should be, because then thirst is particularly irrelevant to your current needs? They say that "mild thirst" is not as pressing a survival need as experienced pain--well then, wouldn't NO thirst be even less pressing than the pain? I don't get it. They predict the situation switches for severe dehydration which makes sense (the thirst is more salient than the pain) but they don't explain why the pain should be more salient for mild thirst as compared to slaked thirst.
I would guess the logic in the actual PNAS paper is better. Perhaps it's the reporting here that's got something screwy.
What I mean is this:
There was an experiment where they stuck a cat and mouse in a cage. The cat ignored the mouse. Absolutely showed no interest in it. But pain was then inflicted on the cat and the cat attacked the mouse until it was dead.
Did the researchers test to see if it's not only pain that the subject feels? Maybe the subject will feel more agitated, stressed, angered, emotional, or a combination?
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
we just learned this today in anatomy and physiology. It didn't seem like ground-breaking science, just common sense. If you're thirsty, neurons in the pre-optic nucleus are shrinking (crenating) because your plasma fluid compartment is drying up. This creates a hypertonic (or hyperosmotic) environment that literally sucks the water out of your cells. Since your plasma is more concentrated (or has a higher osmolarity), the resting membrane potential goes up because the crenation of your nervous cells causes chemically-operated protein channels to open when they otherwise wouldn't be. This happens all over your body, not just in the pre-optic nucleus (also called the supra-optic nucleus). The crenation at that location (right near where the optic nerves cross eachother) causes those particular cells to pump more Anti-Diuretic Hormone through the pituitary gland, causing your urine volume to decrease (by causing the nephron tubules in your kidneys to reabsorb more water instead of making urine with it), but the same thing happens to cells all over your body when your plasma becomes too concentrated (too dry). In lab today, I had to drink 80ml of water with 7g of NaCl in it, and my feet would fall asleep whenever I stood on them for more than a few minutes. Oh, and I was thirsty and sensitive to pain. Hooray for science!
"He is arguing for a new scientific approach that turns clinical medicine on its head."
Daily Mail, London, UK
That sounds credible.
by the late Fereydoon Batmanghelidj M.D.
Does he introduce himself by saying, "I'm Batman!...ghelidj" ?
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
What few people realize is that Dr. Batmanghelidj is really Bruce Wayneghelidj's alter ego. Everybody knows that the Wayneghelidj Water has a stranglehold on the world's water distribution networks, so who really benefits if everyone drinks more water? ;)
I think this is an interesting study. When I nurse, I work hospice. When people are close to death they often tell us to allow them to become dehydrated because it decreases pain sensations. I am curious how this information fits into that.
Of course, we get orders to pump enough morphine into them that the whole thing might be considered mute.
Nothing hides evidence like a stew. -Gus Pratt
While it's interesting when somebody smart posits a contrarian view or two, the people who seem to think that essentially everything about prevailing theory is wrong are usually... well... nuts. I couldn't help but notice that very few of his papers had anything in them that indicated that they were actually published by a journal other than his own. Coincidence?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I will get first post in 30 minutes, when everyone that ran off to drink water
:)
has to go pee. My evil plan is working!
Muhahaha
haha
ha
I have also been trained as a Wilderness First Responder and can tell you that at least "extremely thirsty" people have such an incredibly deranged world view that definitions of "pain" get thrown right out the window.
Does this mean I should hold my next S&M party out in the desert?
Hmm, those are some pretty extreme examples that may not explain the problem well enough. In the above, I'm sure the jews weren't well informed and willing subjects. I doubt the orphans would be willing to contract AIDS, not if they understood what it was.
/rationally/ undertake such experiences? You'd only get people who enjoy danger and discomfort. Such people would need "help", not more danger and discomfort. These folk ought to be convinced to change this behavior since it brings about hazard to their well-being. It broaches the very controversial debate regarding suicide(Most try to convince others not to commit suicide, while some feel that under certain circumstances and a right to the self makes suicide legitimate). It's very rocky moral ground.
I would use a different example. Say the test involves some sort of danger or discomfort. What sort of people would
Take a homeless guy. The videos of the homeless people engaging in dangerous stunts and beating each other bloody for a small amount of food have circulated on the internet for awhile. A homeless guy would love to join up for a pain test for a slice of pizza. He could be well-informed and willing. The morality of offering a test that would inflict pain on the vagrant is very questionable. Such desperate folk would probably be offered many opportunities for such dangerous experiments if such prohibition was not levied. They'd probably be the majority of the subjects of these tests.
Another example is prostitution. Let's take a developing country where there is little money to be had. Many teenaged boys and girls offer themselves up for prostitution to avoid starvation. If offered, of course they'd sign up for the tests, well-informed and willing. But many would argue that such tests on them would be exploitation, much like if they were offered prostitution instead of sex.
There's no question that we'd receive great deal of useful research if we allowed such testing. The potential benefit for the world at large may even outweigh the exploitation(this is a loaded word, but I don't want it to be interpreted as such, too lazy to use a thesaurus). It's just that the moral stigma is too great of a short-term obstacle to overcome.
But there are other places in the world where such questions of morality can be ignored. Maybe the research can be accomplished over there. Personally I'd find it deplorable, but there is definitely plenty of room for argument.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp
Drinking more water, "cures many diseases like arthritis, angina, migraines, hypertension and asthma." Sure thing, Doc. Speaking of water, have I got a bridge to sell you...
English is easier said than done.
Will somebody please mod the parent comment down? I don't think I have to do much more than quote from one of the "Doctor's" papers:
From "AIDS: More Convincingly A Metabolic Disorder:"
Although the total attention of AIDS research is directed toward its predicted viral etiology, the intestinal stress and tissue cortisone release factor inducd physiology of the body, over a long period of time, and dependent on the mode and frequency of homosexual practice, can possibly be the precipitating cause of this condition. It is proposed that in homosexuals, AIDS is an intestinal stress induced metabolic disorder and, opiod peptides being markers of stress to the regulatory systems of the body, excessive use of opiates can possibly cause an indirect promotion of stress physiology that can bring about the associated immune system inhibition and disturbance"
Translated: Gay people get AIDS because they have too much anal sex.
This "doctor" is entirely incredible, possibly homophobic, and a quack in the most negative sense of the word. No creedence whatsoever should be given to anything that he's written.
AIDS develops in people infected with the HIV virus and not elsewhere, it happens in 100% of cases, given a long enough time, and it happens in all regious of the world, to peopel of all different lifestyles. Thus it's orety well proven that indeed the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS.
Now of course it's always possible that this is wrong, but you'd need some pretty major proof to make that case. My guess is you are right, the guy is a crackpot. Doesn't mean that he doesn't perhaps have a good idea or two, but I'd be wary of what he says in general.
Dr. B.: "I hold the idea that the AIDS is not a viral disease, but is a metabolic disorder precipitated by an exaggerated way of life."
Me: "I have a needle with HIV in blood sera. So you would not mind if I..."
Dr. B: "Uh, wait..."
>> Jab.
Me: "Oops."
Dr. B: "Croak."
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
As I said, it's great when somebody brings in a refreshing point of view. At the same time, when your points of view are always "refreshing" it might mean that you're just stirring up trouble to sell books (or you're simply a kook). The probability of being right given that you're unable to convince the astounding majority of experts of your case is generally not high. It happens, but I'm afraid that Dr. Batmanghelidj is not in good company on the average. Yes, he's not alone in questioning the HIV => AIDS orthodoxy, he is damn near alone, and while serious research in antiretroviral drugs has made a dent in the appearance of AIDS in HIV infected people, I'm not sure what the people who deny the link have managed to do to treat the disease.
No, certainly not. At least, not by itself. However, if you combine it with the fact that only a small portion of his work is actually published and the larger volume of it is self published, that's a little more suspect. Add to that the fact that his really controversial stuff and the work that's really central to what makes him stand out as a "scientist" is also the stuff that has never made it through peer review, and it starts smelling a little less authoritative. This is the same set of arguments creationists and other groups selling pseudoscientific nonsense tend to use. Sometimes we need to remember some of the lessons Carl Sagan taught us: But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Knocking the peer review process generally earns you some kook points as well. What percentage of peer reviewed articles do you suppose are fraudulent? What percentage of ground breaking work (which his AIDS work certainly would be) that makes it through peer review do you think is wrong? Now compare that number with the percentage of "ground breaking" work posted by random folks on the web. There's a reason good college professors try to teach their students that "got it from the web" is second only to "heard it in a bar" as a serious academic reference.
And then the appeal to the widespread conspiracy. Adding up the points...
Certainly, our society does tend to over medicate. Medication is a profitable industry, too. But don't you think you'd be seeing more whistle blowers if it were all some conspiracy to keep us taking AIDS drugs? Something doesn't smell right with that assumption. Sometimes when nobody agrees with you, you're just wrong. It doesn't always mean you're a misunderstood genius or you're tearing down The Man.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
so that's why I didn't feel a thing when I fell of the balcony at that kegger...
oh, wait...
There is simply too much glass..
by the late Fereydoon Batmanghelidj M.D.
Does he introduce himself by saying, "I'm Batman!...ghelidj" ?
I don't think he'll be introducing himself to anyone anytime soon....
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
As if that coyote didn't have it bad enough. "meep meep!" WHAM!!! "Agh....I'm so....thirsty."
Well, no matter what this guy is saying, if it helps people great. I personally think that it is all just the power of suggestion but does that make it any less valid? Now, I am not saying stop takin your meds, but if your open to suggestion....but wait...not that i said that it probbly wont work anymore.....sorry
This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
Let people assess it for themselves, try his therapies, and perhaps add to the rather impressive roster of testimonials he offers in his book!
Bullshit. Repeat after me: the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Only controlled experimental studies can show us if any of these BS "therapies" work.
Carl Sagan taught us: But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
well, Columbus turned out to be wrong, didn't he? Lucky he stumbled into America or he'd have died for it
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
Drink more water ?
I used to work at the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source at Argonne National Lab (IPNS) for a couple of years. While I was there ('96-98) one of the studies a post-doc did on the QENS instrument (iirc) was to study how anesthetics work. As it turns out, anesthetics enter between the walls of cells such that they recede so far from each other that the nerve senders/receptors can't make contact thus, the pain signals aren't transmitted to the brain.
Here's a little mind experiment: imagine having 2 balloons, one inside the other. Now, blow air into the outer balloon, leaving the inner balloon the same size. The air you push into the volume between the 2 balloons is the anesthetic. The more anesthetic, the farther apart the balloon walls get from each other and the nerves lose contact with each other.
So, it would follow that if you were to generally increase the amount of fluid in your body, the same thing would happen: the water would enter between the inner and outer cell walls such that the nerves would make less contact than normal.
Good ole Di-Hydrogen Monoxide!