12 ms·

“We use the word ‘inflammation’ colloquially, as if we understand what we are saying. But dig a little deeper and the word becomes a clown car of meanings. Is i

by smurda 3y ago

“We use the word ‘inflammation’ colloquially, as if we understand what we are saying. But dig a little deeper and the word becomes a clown car of meanings. Is it the chronic irritation of an autoimmune disease? The lingering residue of a postviral syndrome? A nonhealing wound?” Good description of a generic catch-all term that could have a variety of specific meanings. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/12/18/all-the-carcinogens-we-cannot-see https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/12/18/all-the-carcin...

AA-BA-94-2A-56 3y ago
Many people on social media use the word inflammation as if they're describing a root cause that they have control over, such as dietary cholesterol or exercise. But my understanding of this word is that inflammation is a symptom– an indirect result of any number of other factors.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  Inflammation is just an activation of the immune defense system - the swelling is entirely intentional and healthy. What is annoying the immune defense system is the problem, and can in some cases be caused by a bug in the system (auto-immune disease). Erroneously attributing correlation as causation is a common mistake. Blood cholesterol - entirely distinct from dietary cholesterol - was also commonly completely misunderstood as a cause, even though it like inflammation is a healthy and necessary response turned into a symptom...
Aurornis 3y ago
A lot of medical terms have been hijacked by influencers, including some influencer doctors. “Dopamine” is the other big offender. So many social media doctors and influencers building huge podcast followings with “dopamine” babble. Huberman is one of the worst offenders, but he seems to slip past a lot of people’s filters because he’s a doctor and he mixes actual studies into his extremely long podcasts so that people assume everything he’s saying is accurate.
- sebmellen 3y ago
  I don't understand this comment at all. Huberman, to me, has provided the most nuanced understanding of dopamine and dopaminergic effects accessible to the broader public. There's a lot of clickbait around him, and no doubt many "influencer doctors" who make a bad name for themselves, but this is a very clear take on dopamine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmOF0crdyRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmOF0crdyRU. I wouldn't call it babble. (Huberman is also not a physician, but a PhD, which is an important distinction.)
  - pydry 3y ago
    I hear people talk shit about him much more than I hear reasoned criticism of what he says. The worst thing ive seen him do is cite studies with low p values while mentioning it. The horror.
    - dandy23 3y ago
      Why cite a useless study? Because it serves his purpose maybe?
      - pydry 3y ago
        I don't know about anybody else but if $lowcostbehavior has a small chance of leading to $goodoutcome I still wouldn't mind hearing about it. I've tried multiple things he mentioned which haven't worked which also didn't cost me anything.
        coldtea 3y ago
        >I don't know about anybody else but if $lowcostbehavior has a small chance of leading to $goodoutcome I still wouldn't mind hearing about it This has traditionally been the excuse of quacks >I've tried multiple things he mentioned which haven't worked which also didn't cost me anything. And this is "throw things on a wall and see what sticks". It's ok if you're doing research (even there though it should be tamed as an approach) but it's not OK when giving medical and health lifestyle advice.
drtgh 3y ago
There is an industry that tries to mask and treat the symptoms without treating the cause of the symptoms. Such sociopathically managed activity incentives the masking with long treatments for life, that gradually degrade other properly functioning systems (with over time require additional masking treatments, in loop). So every time I read about symptoms without investigating what causes the triggering of such symptoms, I assume it is promoting that criminal but legal activity.
xhkkffbf 3y ago
It's a bit like asking "Is disease the source of illness?"
michaelbuckbee 3y ago
The "Declownification" of medical diagnoses has continued for a long time. I met a medical historian giving a tour of the apothecary shop in Colonial Williamsburg who described how "consumption" was a clown car of tuberculosis, lung cancer, black lung (from mining), and a host of other lung ailments. Over time each was identified as something unique, given a more precise name and treatment methods and eventually nobody is diagnosed with "consumption" anymore.
- nradov 3y ago
  We still see much of the same thing going on today with many syndromes which are largely collections of symptoms with no definitive diagnostic test: depression, leaky gut, chronic fatigue, long COVID, etc. In many cases the symptoms probably aren't just psychosomatic and there is some underlying pathology but the root causes are unclear and we're probably inappropriately bundling multiple distinct conditions together.

by smurda 3y ago

AA-BA-94-2A-56 3y ago

Many people on social media use the word inflammation as if they're describing a root cause that they have control over, such as dietary cholesterol or exercise. But my understanding of this word is that inflammation is a symptom– an indirect result of any number of other factors.

arghwhat 3y ago
Inflammation is just an activation of the immune defense system - the swelling is entirely intentional and healthy. What is annoying the immune defense system is the problem, and can in some cases be caused by a bug in the system (auto-immune disease). Erroneously attributing correlation as causation is a common mistake. Blood cholesterol - entirely distinct from dietary cholesterol - was also commonly completely misunderstood as a cause, even though it like inflammation is a healthy and necessary response turned into a symptom...

Aurornis 3y ago

A lot of medical terms have been hijacked by influencers, including some influencer doctors. “Dopamine” is the other big offender. So many social media doctors and influencers building huge podcast followings with “dopamine” babble. Huberman is one of the worst offenders, but he seems to slip past a lot of people’s filters because he’s a doctor and he mixes actual studies into his extremely long podcasts so that people assume everything he’s saying is accurate.

sebmellen 3y ago
I don't understand this comment at all. Huberman, to me, has provided the most nuanced understanding of dopamine and dopaminergic effects accessible to the broader public. There's a lot of clickbait around him, and no doubt many "influencer doctors" who make a bad name for themselves, but this is a very clear take on dopamine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmOF0crdyRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmOF0crdyRU. I wouldn't call it babble. (Huberman is also not a physician, but a PhD, which is an important distinction.)
- pydry 3y ago
  I hear people talk shit about him much more than I hear reasoned criticism of what he says. The worst thing ive seen him do is cite studies with low p values while mentioning it. The horror.
  - dandy23 3y ago
    Why cite a useless study? Because it serves his purpose maybe?
    - pydry 3y ago
      I don't know about anybody else but if $lowcostbehavior has a small chance of leading to $goodoutcome I still wouldn't mind hearing about it. I've tried multiple things he mentioned which haven't worked which also didn't cost me anything.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        >I don't know about anybody else but if $lowcostbehavior has a small chance of leading to $goodoutcome I still wouldn't mind hearing about it This has traditionally been the excuse of quacks >I've tried multiple things he mentioned which haven't worked which also didn't cost me anything. And this is "throw things on a wall and see what sticks". It's ok if you're doing research (even there though it should be tamed as an approach) but it's not OK when giving medical and health lifestyle advice.

drtgh 3y ago

There is an industry that tries to mask and treat the symptoms without treating the cause of the symptoms. Such sociopathically managed activity incentives the masking with long treatments for life, that gradually degrade other properly functioning systems (with over time require additional masking treatments, in loop). So every time I read about symptoms without investigating what causes the triggering of such symptoms, I assume it is promoting that criminal but legal activity.

xhkkffbf 3y ago

It's a bit like asking "Is disease the source of illness?"

michaelbuckbee 3y ago

The "Declownification" of medical diagnoses has continued for a long time. I met a medical historian giving a tour of the apothecary shop in Colonial Williamsburg who described how "consumption" was a clown car of tuberculosis, lung cancer, black lung (from mining), and a host of other lung ailments. Over time each was identified as something unique, given a more precise name and treatment methods and eventually nobody is diagnosed with "consumption" anymore.

nradov 3y ago
We still see much of the same thing going on today with many syndromes which are largely collections of symptoms with no definitive diagnostic test: depression, leaky gut, chronic fatigue, long COVID, etc. In many cases the symptoms probably aren't just psychosomatic and there is some underlying pathology but the root causes are unclear and we're probably inappropriately bundling multiple distinct conditions together.