4 ms·

Acute inflammation is there for a reason; it helps repair tissue damage. At the cost of function in the short-term. My bet is that icing means you can use your

Acute inflammation is there for a reason; it helps repair tissue damage. At the cost of function in the short-term. My bet is that icing means you can use your wrist again sooner, but with prolonged or incomplete recovery.

naasking 4y ago
> Acute inflammation is there for a reason; it helps repair tissue damage. Inflammation is primarily to address severe trauma, like having a limb severed or torn apart. That doesn't necessarily mean it's good for all tissue damage, but evolution often can't make such fine distinctions, so our body triggers inflammatory responses even when it's counterproductive. The inconvenience a counterproductive response is much better than the death that follows from not having any response. A lot of medicine is about controlling the body's inappropriate inflammatory responses. We don't always have a good handle yet on when the body's inflammatory response is good vs. bad in all cases, which is why the debate over icing is ongoing, but it is clear that it often isn't beneficial. I think it's also clear that icing and NSAIDS for chronic inflammation are not good ideas.
- abfan1127 4y ago
  source?
- iamthirsty 4y ago
  > but evolution often can't make such fine distinctions, so our body triggers inflammatory responses even when it's counterproductive This is just not accurate, and I'd love to see your source on even the first clause here. because evolution does, in fact, make fine distinctions all over the tree of life.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    To be clear, given what you quoted, your claim is that inflammation is almost never wrong?
    - iamthirsty 4y ago
      My claim didn't really have to do anything with inflation specifically, just that evolution itself can make fine distinctions.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        It looked like you were calling the whole sentiment wrong, not just the first half (and ignoring the word often). Okay then.
  - SiempreViernes 4y ago
    I imagine the claim was more that evolution gives systems that at the individual level aren't that fussy about the details, not that evolution can't produce highly specialised organisms. Or in other words, ducks imprinting on a dog is a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qidueuojrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qidueuojrc
  - naasking 4y ago
    > because evolution does, in fact, make fine distinctions all over the tree of life. I said evolution often can't make fine distinctions, not that it never can. The inconvenience of improper inflammation was clearly never so great that it impacted reproductive fitness, where death resulting from no inflammation clearly does.
- danenania 4y ago
  Another factor when it comes to evolution is that it doesn't care much what happens to us when we get old. If it can trade increased fitness during our reproductive primes for a lot of aches and pains in our 40s, it will happily accept. You don't hear too many 16-25 year olds complaining about inflammation.
- SamBam 4y ago
  > Inflammation is primarily to address severe trauma, like having a limb severed or torn apart. Source? How would an actual scientist even prove or disprove this statement?

naasking 4y ago

> Acute inflammation is there for a reason; it helps repair tissue damage. Inflammation is primarily to address severe trauma, like having a limb severed or torn apart. That doesn't necessarily mean it's good for all tissue damage, but evolution often can't make such fine distinctions, so our body triggers inflammatory responses even when it's counterproductive. The inconvenience a counterproductive response is much better than the death that follows from not having any response. A lot of medicine is about controlling the body's inappropriate inflammatory responses. We don't always have a good handle yet on when the body's inflammatory response is good vs. bad in all cases, which is why the debate over icing is ongoing, but it is clear that it often isn't beneficial. I think it's also clear that icing and NSAIDS for chronic inflammation are not good ideas.

abfan1127 4y ago
source?
iamthirsty 4y ago
> but evolution often can't make such fine distinctions, so our body triggers inflammatory responses even when it's counterproductive This is just not accurate, and I'd love to see your source on even the first clause here. because evolution does, in fact, make fine distinctions all over the tree of life.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  To be clear, given what you quoted, your claim is that inflammation is almost never wrong?
  - iamthirsty 4y ago
    My claim didn't really have to do anything with inflation specifically, just that evolution itself can make fine distinctions.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      It looked like you were calling the whole sentiment wrong, not just the first half (and ignoring the word often). Okay then.
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  I imagine the claim was more that evolution gives systems that at the individual level aren't that fussy about the details, not that evolution can't produce highly specialised organisms. Or in other words, ducks imprinting on a dog is a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qidueuojrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qidueuojrc
- naasking 4y ago
  > because evolution does, in fact, make fine distinctions all over the tree of life. I said evolution often can't make fine distinctions, not that it never can. The inconvenience of improper inflammation was clearly never so great that it impacted reproductive fitness, where death resulting from no inflammation clearly does.
danenania 4y ago
Another factor when it comes to evolution is that it doesn't care much what happens to us when we get old. If it can trade increased fitness during our reproductive primes for a lot of aches and pains in our 40s, it will happily accept. You don't hear too many 16-25 year olds complaining about inflammation.
SamBam 4y ago
> Inflammation is primarily to address severe trauma, like having a limb severed or torn apart. Source? How would an actual scientist even prove or disprove this statement?