Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site gatech.CSNET
Path: utzoo!decvax!linus!gatech!carter
From: carter@gatech.CSNET (Carter Bullard)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: The Modern Concept of "STRESS"
Message-ID: <1204@gatech.CSNET>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 17:48:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.1204
Posted: Tue Sep 10 17:48:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 02:40:32 EDT
References: <2145@ukma.UUCP>
Reply-To: carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard)
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta
Lines: 56
Keywords: systems theory; dysautonomia; biofeedback; reserves determine response

In article <2145@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes:
>
>Hans Selye spelled out much of what we know now about stress.  More is
>being learned every day.  Basically, ANYTHING that causes a response
>in an organism (good or bad) is considered a stress.  In this
>discussion I will consider humans only although most concepts are
>transferrable to any living creature.  The only response to stress
>known is the fight or flight phenomenon.  The body actually gets ready
>to run or to fight (physically).  In this culture there are few
>stresses that are appropriately addressed that way. Unfortunately, our
>still primitive physiology doesn't know that.  If the readiness to
>fight or flight (FOF) is not actually used to run or fight, it stores
>in the system.  This gradual buildup of sympathetic response finally
>reaches the point where the person is always switched on "sympathetic"
>autonomic mode.  Then when there is a new stress there are no more
>buttons to push on because they are already all on.  This is called
>dysautonomia (look it up).
>
>-- 
>Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP
>Founder, & Medical Director
>Holistic Medical Centre
>1412 N. Broadway
>Lexington, Kentucky  40505


    "Anything that causes a response in an organism is considered a stress."
If one wants to take this as a definition, then there would appear, at least to
me, to be a problem.  I can't seem to understand where the word stress then is
different from the word experience or stimuli, especially the word stimuli.

    Responding to all stimuli, say for example, a sexual encounter, with a
fight or flight response would be rather inappropriate, dare also to say
ineffectual.


    Please, when talking about anything that has to do with information
of any kind, please refrain from using pluralities.  It would seem much
more realistic if you keep it in the singular form.

	 "Hans Selye spelled out much of what we know now about stress."

It think it would be much clearer and more accurate if you put it:

	 "Hans Selye spelled out much of what I know now about stress."


    The problem that I see  with  Mr. Stoll, is that he takes a phrase
that was designed to make learning sympathetically controlled physiological
processes easier for children and equates it with the basis for the existence 
of the entire system.  The infamous "Flight or Fright" phrase is a simple idea
to help high school children remember what happens when you stimulate the
sympathetic nervous system.  It is not what the system really does, nor is
wise to try to use the idea as an explanation for causality in disease.

Now, lets grow up Mr. Stoll and talk about real medicine, shall we?