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!"
...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
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?
I'm betting that taking a couple minute break every 30 minutes wasn't hurting anything either ;)
If not drinking water amplifies pain, wouldn't the same be true from a not-so-distant-cousin, pleasure?
If getting shot causes pain, wouldn't the same be true for its not-so-distant-cousin, pleasure?
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.
You wouldn't even make it to getting people to consent to something like that because no institutional review board would ever approve it. It's considered unethical regardless of their consent, for so many reasons anyone with any experience in a field that researched on humans should be aware of. And furthermore it's alot easier to get permission to conduct a study with deception, as long as its not deception that's going to really harm them.
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 dunno, but where can I sign up for the study?
There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death.-Asimov
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"
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.
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"
Drink more water ?