| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
JA1928
USA
7 Posts |
|
|
shawnsmith
Czech Republic
2048 Posts |
 Posted - 01/05/2013 : 07:27:18
|
I tend to hold the opinion that everyone, especially in western civilization, will in their lifetime experience some kind of TMS symptom or equivalent, but that the severity of those symptoms will vary from one person to the next based on a host of considerations. Consider what Dr. Sarno says in his book "Healing Back Pain":
WHO GETS TMS?
One might almost say that TMS is a cradle-to-grave disorder since
it does occur in children, though probably not until the age of five
or six. Its manifestation in children is, of course, different from
what occurs in adults. I am convinced that what are referred to as
"growing pains" in children are manifestations of TMS.
The cause of "growing pains" has never been identified but
physicians have always been comfortable in reassuring mothers
that the condition is harmless. It occurred to me one day while
listening to a young mother describe her daughter#146;s severe leg
pain in the middle of the night that what the child had experienced
was very much like an adult attack of sciatica, and since this was
clearly one of the most common manifestations of TMS, #147;growing
pains#148; might very well represent TMS in children.
Little wonder that no one has been able to explain the nature
of "growing pains" since TMS is a condition that usually leaves no
physical evidence of its presence. There is a temporary constriction
of blood vessels, bringing on the symptoms, and then all returns to
normal.
The emotional stimulus for the attack in children is no different
from that in adults -- anxiety. One might say that the attack in a child is a paranightmare. It is a substitute for a nightmare, a command decision by the mind to produce a physical reaction rather than have the Individual experience a painful emotion, which is what
happens in adults as well.
At the other end of the spectrum, I have seen the syndrome in
men and women in their eighties. There appears to be no age limit,
and why would there be? As long as one can generate emotions
one is susceptible to the disorder.
What are the ages when it is most common, and can we learn
anything from those statistics? In a follow-up survey carried out in
1982, 177 patients were interviewed as to their then current status
following treatment for TMS. (See #147;Follow-Up Surveys#148; for results
of the survey.) We learned that 77 percent of the patients fell
between the ages of thirty and sixty, 9 percent were in their
twenties, and there were only four teenagers (2 percent). At the
other end of the spectrum, only 7 percent were in their sixties and
4 percent in their seventies.
These statistics suggest very strongly that the cause of most
back pain is emotional, for the years between thirty and sixty are
the ages that fall into what I would call the years of responsibility.
This is the period in one#146;s life when one is under the most strain to
succeed, to provide and excel, and it is logical that this is when one
would experience the highest incidence of TMS. Further, if
degenerative changes in the spine (osteoarthritis, disc degeneration
and herniation, facet arthrosis and spinal stenosis, for instance)
were a primary cause of back pain, these statistics wouldn#146;t fit at all. In that case, a gradual increase in incidence from the twenties on would occur, with the highest incidence in the oldest people. To be sure, this is only circumstantial evidence, but it is highly suggestive.
So the answer to the question "Who gets TMS?" is Anybody.
But it is certainly most common in the middle years of life, the
years of responsibility. Let's now take a look at how TMS
manifests itself. (pages 4-5)
|
Edited by - shawnsmith on 01/05/2013 07:30:37 |
 |
|
|
Peregrinus
250 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2013 : 07:57:32
|
quote:
[i]Researchers at Germany’s University of Jena who studied approximately 6,000 patients concluded that Italians and Spaniards who generally tend to vocalize their anger outlive their British counterparts who are more likely to internalize their feelings
Maybe Italians and Spaniards simply live longer than uptight Germans. I guess that "Researchers at the University of Jena" are under pressure to publish. |
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2013 : 08:13:19
|
Good Sarno quote Shawn! My feeling is that homo sapein sapein cannot be "cured" of TMS, at this point in their development, nor should they want to be. Who knows what vicissitudes life will dump in our paths, which may require our subconscious to avail itself of its gift of PROTECTION.
Maybe TMS should be called "growing gray pains" or "not ready to grow up pains".
Cheers,
tt |
|
|
|
wrldtrv
666 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2013 : 12:53:20
|
| The title ("Angry People Live Longer") is misleading and probably in fact, false. Hostility as well as repression are known to be bad for the heart. I think the real message should be balance: being aware of anger and defusing it through such mindfulness and acceptance. It is well known that the old idea of getting your rage out by unloading it on another is exactly the wrong thing to do because, rather than calming you, it arouses you further. |
|
|
|
Dr James Alexander
Australia
127 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2013 : 14:57:21
|
I read the article as saying that giving expression to anger (i.e verbalising it) is related to living longer. Without reading the original article, it is hard to tell if they have statistically controlled for other factors which could be producing the additional 2 years of life (i presume they have accounted for things like diet, life style habits-smoking,drinking, etc; levels of education, gender, socio-economic status- as all these have an impact on life-span). Assuming that they have statistically controlled for these additional factors, then the result seems to support the value of verbalising anger. Now, this does not necessarily mean 'flipping-out' with screaming and shouting and name calling, ie. abuse. The research is clear that losing control in angry outbursts simply adds to the intensity of the anger, rather than diminishes it. And research also demonstrates that this is not good for the heart over a life-time. However, from their choice of words (ie. verbalising anger, rather than suppressing it), i am not surprised by their finding. Choosing to not verbalise anger means that there is no expression for it- the body stays in an aroused state, and if it is a repeated experience, there is an accumulative effect over a period of time- higher autonomic arousal which becomes chronic- not healthy at all. If, alternatively, you do verbalise your anger (not necessarily in an abusive over the top manner), you create an opportunity for an outlet of the autonomic arousal; also, the aggravating situation may change as a result of your verbalising the anger. I think this is a healthier option; however, getting extremely angry (shouting, swearing, name calling, threatening etc) is likely to just lead to more anger (rather than dissipate it), and also lead to damaged social relationships which will them remain highly stressful. Moderate expression of anger (rather than extreme anger) makes sense to me. It allows a syphoning off of the distress, rather than allow it to be buried deeper where it can just add to the accumulative reservoire of distress (adding to rage).
James |
|
|
|
Peregrinus
250 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2013 : 21:23:46
|
Dr. J:
quote:
Originally posted by Dr James Alexander
... it is hard to tell if they have statistically controlled for other factors which could be producing the additional 2 years of life (i presume they have accounted for things like diet, life style habits-smoking,drinking, etc; levels of education, gender, socio-economic status- as all these have an impact on life-span).
How could they do that? It would be quite a trick to show populations from two different countries are equivalent. |
|
|
|
Dr James Alexander
Australia
127 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2013 : 03:02:54
|
Peregrinus- I'm not quite sure i understand your question "How could they do that?". Researchers can statistically control (in their treatment of the data) any factor which can be measured,e.g life-style factors, gender, income level, education, etc. But, i'm not sure thats what you are asking- you are asking about 2 countries? It wouldnt be hard to throw country into the statistical analysis; and then compare all the relevant factors and health outcomes by country.
James |
|
|
|
Peregrinus
250 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2013 : 07:55:45
|
Dr. J:
How do "researchers" control for factors they do not know about or for factors that can't be controlled for such as genetic makeup?
One of the first studies on cardiovascular disease took place during the Korean war where it was discovered that many young American men (battlefield casualties) had fairly advanced arterio sclerosis while the arteries of Koreans were clear. Korean children evidently don't drink milk and the false conclusion was that cow's milk causes heart desease. The data was interesting but the conclusion was as you know ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Dr James Alexander
Australia
127 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2013 : 19:57:20
|
Peregrinus. I wouldnt try to justify all research methodologies,or necessarily the whole research agenda. It is one way of making sense of the world- it happens to (mostly) make sense to me, but is not above genuine critique- and like all other things we humans do, it is somewhat faulty and incomplete. As you say, researchers cant statistically control for factors which they dont know about. I presume that genetic contributions can be statistically controlled for simply because (to a certain extent- accurate or not? i'm not sure) it can be measured. Various books i read suggest a certain level of genetic contribution to particular issues, eg. anxiety. If i looked into it, i presume i would find twin-sibling studies which allow them to arrive at a figure of, say, 20% contribution of genes. The other really interesting fact (which is probably the cat amongst the pidgeons for genetic determinists) is the findings from 'epigenetics'. That is, many genes will only be expressed in response to certain life experiences. For example, the genes relevant to anxiety (possibly levels of sensitivity of the central nervous system) will only find expression if a child's experience fosters this expression; if they live in a loving and supportive family, there is no reason for them to become anxious children/adults. And kids that are genetically 'programmed' for being relatively calm (given the worst family environments) are likely to become anxious. Richard Davidson found that what we assume are tempermental traits (eg. shyness/outgoingness) are nowhere as stable as what we all thought. Most kids (according to the experiences which their environments give them) can actually change their emotional style from shy/withdrawn/frightened, to outgoing/confident etc (and vice-versa).
James |
|
|
|
Dr James Alexander
Australia
127 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2013 : 22:54:23
|
hi Peregrinus. It later occurred to me that there could be some confusion with the language i have used in answering your question. When i say that researchers can 'statistically control' for various factors in their research, this is purely a reference to statistical methodology and analysis- and not suggesting that researchers can control the effects of, say, genetics. What 'statistically control for' in this context means is that in the statistical analysis, if any factor can be measured (eg. gender, race, education level, employment status, alcohol consumption, cigarette use, number of first order relatives with cancer, etc), then the statistician doing the analysis of the data gathered can work out how much of the outcome (eg. length of life in years) can be attributed to each of the relevant factors. When statistician or researchers say that in their analysis, they have 'statistically controlled for cigarette smoking', this means that they have worked out how much of a contribution to the outcome (eg. years of life) cigarette smoking has made, and then they can work out how much other factors have contributed, eg. alcohol consumption, or employment status. It may result in statements such as a shortened life (less than that country's average) is statistically related to cigarette consumption, race, gender, employment status, etc. In fact, they can work out how much of a role each factor has played in producing the outcomes- left handedness probably plays very little role, whereas life-style factors, race, and educational level probably play large roles. If they want to examine just the role of, say, alcohol consumption in length of life, then they need to 'eliminate' from their analysis the contributions which cigarette smoking, educational levels, employment status, gender, etc make. They do this by 'statistically controlling for' these factors- which is just another way of saying that in their (usually very sophisticated) statistical analysis, they have taken out of the equation the contributions which these other factors play. So they may wind up saying something like alcohol consumption contributes 20% to shorter than expected life-span outcomes; education level contributes 20%; employment status contributes 10% etc;(just made these figures up!) So, when they say that 'statistically control for' whatever factor, they are just saying that they have measured and removed from it from the analysis, so they are just looking at the contributions of the other factors. Hope this clarifies. PS- I am not a statistician- just had to get my head around this stuff for my PhD.
James |
|
|
|
Peregrinus
250 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2013 : 19:37:58
|
Dr. J:
I appreciate that you are interested in the “findings” of the study in question and perhaps that interest is shared by the authors. Nevertheless, I don’t believe that anyone can “control” for the differences found in two distinct populations. One can measure differences and speculate about reasons for these differences but claiming scientific credibility for purely speculative conclusions opens one to ridicule. Unfortunately the medical community has largely but not entirely embraced this type of junk science. Virtually all of the landmark studies on cardiovascular disease draw speculative conclusions most of which have been shown to be completely false. For example, “a high fat diet increases the risk of heart disease”.
I have experience in the medical device field and have read many medical science research papers. Very few use “sophisticated statistical techniques”. They usually use cook book techniques that they really don’t understand. I doubt that many medical “researches” can correctly define the word “probability”.
TMS sufferers are vulnerable to suggestion and can easily be led astray and thereby postpone their healing. I don’t think they benefit from unproven theories.
|
|
|
|
pspa123
672 Posts |
|
|
Dr James Alexander
Australia
127 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2013 : 20:15:23
|
yep, i agree Peregrinus. I was just wanting to clarify my use of the term 'statistically control for...', as i realised that it could be misleading to some readers, ie. it is referring to a statistical process, not a act of controlling some factors which operate in reality. I have no doubt that much of the medical research is quite dodgy, esp that done by drug companies.
James |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Study finds angry people live longer...
