Ibuprofen alters human testicular physiology
pnas.org
pnas.org
Is aspirin at least reasonably safe as long as the blood thinning isn't a problem?
Unless that makes you anxious.
In all seriousness though, there is research being done and evidence to suggest that ketamine can be used for pain management. Most of it seems to be about using it synergistically with opioids, to reduce the amount of opioids required.
(But, yeah, naproxen seems to be one of the safest ones...)
Kind of.
But it starts to feel a little uneasy taking it all the time once you realize that naproxen's regulatory approval came from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratori... data.
The exception is Tylenol/acetaminophen, as it doesn’t have an anti-inflammatory effect / doesn’t seem to act primarily on COX1/2. It’s currently popular to bandy about the theory that it targets spinal COX3.
This "topical" epithelial injury by many NSAIDs does not appear to be of prime importance in the pathogenesis of clinically important endpoints (symptomatic ulcers). The pathogenesis of symptomatic peptic ulcer disease caused by repeated exposure to NSAIDs is mainly a consequence of systemic (post-absorptive) inhibition of gastrointestinal mucosal cyclo-oxygenase (COX) activity. Even intravenous or intramuscular administration of aspirin or NSAIDs can cause gastric or duodenal ulcers in animals and humans [2].
PMIDs: 1 - 18242146 (“The incidence rate of peptic ulcer disease is similar in patients using low-dose effervescent calcium carbasalate compared with regular low-dose acetylsalicylic acid. This implicates that peptic ulcers seem to be related to systemic rather than to local effects of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid.”) 2 - 631484 (“These studies show that when the stomach is acidified by giving histamine intravenously or HCl intragastrically, intravenous aspirin produces large deep gastric ulcers.”)
The above is a partial paraphrase from UpToDate.
Prescription Ibo can be 2000-5000mg per pill so yes it does reduce the risk.
This site seems legit, and offers 84 400mg pills for #2.99
http://www.gssiweb.org/en/sports-science-exchange/article/ss...
I'm not sure if that applies to everything CBD is good for, but does anyone know if it works mostly the same for body aches and the like?
From the link you provided:
According to the report, the transition from an initial prescription to chronic use begins very early on. Even a one-day opioid prescription carried a 6 percent risk of use at one year later and a 2.9 percent risk of use at three years later. The sharpest increases in the likelihood of long-term use came at five days after the initial prescription, with another spike seen at one month.
Whoa! That's frightening.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/reyes-syndrom...
When people worry about infinitesimally small risks, it always makes me chuckle.
What do you do in the US?
Obviously one person commenting doesn't disprove your point at all. But it's an odd feeling to be that person.
We’ve simply gone with a policy of “better safe than sorry,” because of the risks/benefits involved here.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1910028,0...
Your comment is quite brief (as is the one you're responding to, for that matter). Is there something in particular you have in mind?
In Oregon and Washington, where I’ve lived for pretty much my entire life, legal marijuana has been amazingly helpful, at least since I finally got around to trying it.
The various products out that are high in CBD and low in psychoactive ingredients have been really good at even my worst muscle aches and really painful, but not super serious, injuries like sprained ankles and such.
My surgeon after hip surgery even blessed the notion of using the opiates I was prescribed for as short as possible and then using high CBD edibles to cover the gap between excruciating post-op pain subsiding but still being in a lot of pain. In fact, he didn’t just bless the idea, he practically endorsed it as a “still emerging but very likely positive course of treatment” in his words.
I don’t use CBD like someone might (even if maybe they shouldn’t) pop ibuprofen, but it’s great to have an option between acetomenaphin and opiates.
I love it! It's really sad and fucked up watching the federal government flail around trying to say otherwise. Meanwhile, they are getting all of their ducks in a row to ensure they can profit off of full on recreational legalization when that time comes. Between this issue and the healthcare issues it's terribly obvious the citizen's health and best interest is not first or maybe even second in order of importance to these people.
Chronic high CBD usage will result in withdrawal upon cessation.
The 5HT1A agonism aspect of CBD makes for a particularly bleak and anxiety ridden withdrawal.
Part of smoking pot I enjoy initially is amazingly deep sleep, but that can't be good in the long term.
Depending on the nature of it, you might look at this:
https://www.amazon.com/Genacol-Hydrolyzed-Supplement-Extra-F...
I'll suggest you do your own research on it of course. I've known a few people, myself included, that have seen extraordinary results from taking it for various pain related to anything to do with joints (very split results on working or not, seems to do amazingly for some, and nothing for others). I didn't expect it to do anything, instead it saves me from taking pain killers every day (took my pain from a persistent 5 out of 10 to a 1 or 2 on most days, such that I never need pain killers; I take two each night).
Luckily, there was very little arthritis in the joint and three years post-op it's felt just fine and I've had no set backs whatsoever. Luckily I've not had to look into any type of long term pain management for anything.
YMMV.
[0]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-galland-md/aspirin-and-vi...
I must in all fairness upgrade this from “HuffPost-endorsed vitamin cult quackery” to “plausible, if supported by weak studies.”
That's definitely not the reason. The over the counter pain killer / pain management sections in CVS, Walgreens and Walmart are half filled with generic options.
If no one foots the bill for the testing, it won't spawn a FDA approved thing, right? And if it's not patentable, then it's not worth the effort to go through those hoops, because you won't be able to recoup the costs of doing the FDA approval steps because others could also bring generic versions to market right away, without a cool-down period, and at the same price.
If it is patentable, then it's worth it to make the drug and get it approved. You'll have 20 years to recoup the costs before generics can appear.
"infecting organism in dengue affects the platelets which are responsible for clotting (stopping bleeding) increasing the tendency of the person to bleed. Aspirin and Ibuprofen also have similar action. Both of them together could cause the person to bleed excessively pushing the patient into what is called the ‘Dengue Shock syndrome’. And once in this stage, medical treatment is needed in an emergency basis and hospitalization becomes necessary"
http://www.thehealthsite.com/diseases-conditions/dengue-feve...
2017 paper
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apha.12948/abstra...
It might even explain why so many cultures had rites to male adulthood involving extreme pain.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingPrompts/comments/7p2ubq/wp_a...
Especially since modern cultural change seems to have a tendency to be driven by the youngest politically-aware cohorts. Not a lot of time to acquire wisdom that might prevent that, if you're so young you haven't even collected enough knowledge yet.
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/AST389/TEXTS/Nightfall.h...
Right. And a notable trend among those cultures is that they are all nearly extinct. So much for their fertility.
Of course this observation could biased due to my own ignorance. I only remember, like, 3 such cultures, and they were your typical African/Amazonian/Aboriginal tribes that still live in near-neolithic conditions.
Is there any industrialized culture that still follows such rituals?
Even if you pick something like Boxing or similar contact sports where the goal is to intentionally hurt your opponent, it is still a far-cry from sticking your hand into a whiting mass of animals that have the most painful bite ever recorded.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraponera_clavata#Initiation_...
The cultures that are dominant today aren't dominant due to mere reproductive success. Ironically, fertility is low in almost all developed nations.
it is a bit of a medical mystery because the trend cannot be fully explained by lifestyle factors like weight gain.
I recall mentioning some research into the effects of food/organics preservatives (namely Parabens) and low testosterone: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419695
Unless you believe that the rites were created to address the problem of "one day, there will be analgesics with antiandrogen effects, so we'll have a few centuries of practice at enduring extreme pain", then I don't see how there could be any connection.
One of its more interesting applications is as a pathway to mystical experiences. In the Christian tradition for example one uses one's own pain to come into a kind of spiritual alignment with Christ's experience and in that way become closer to God.
I'm not particularly familiar with other spiritual traditions, but I'd be shocked if every single major one doesn't have some kind of mystical algetic praxis.
"Thus, the higher dose of ibuprofen (2400 mg per day) was not superior to either the dose of acetaminophen (4000 mg per day) or the lower dose of ibuprofen (1200 mg per day) for pain relief or improvement of function."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199107113250203#t=a...
If it's a really bad headache, start with one of each.
I'm sure this result is useful for the medical community or men specifically dealing with hypogonadism, but it doesn't seem to have a great deal of relevance to the average consumer who uses ibuprofen for occasional pain relief.
Most people take 1-2 capsules (400mg), and the dosage documentation says no more than 8 per day (1600mg). The study seems to demonstrate people using the drug well within its over-the-counter maximum dosage. (When I tore up my knee as a teenager, my doctor prescribed it at about double that rate.)
For what it's worth, I've also been Rx'd large ibuprofen dosages for a period of weeks at various times, and I've had six mostly-non-defective kids so far. I don't think this study warrants any type of generalized panic...
That said I do agree. All medications are a trade off of some sort. Usually the consequences aren't as bad as the effects of the drug, and I think this is no exception.
A regular Advil is 200mg. The usual dose is two pills, so 400mg. If your larger it's common to take three or four pills. Multiply by a dose ever six hours and it's quite easy to get to 3200mg per day.
Fortunately I have no chronic issues, rarely need ibuprofen (in fact I'm paranoid about taking it for muscle aches as I've always felt it must harm muscle development, which seems to be catching traction as a theory), and generally avoid medications altogether, but it seems like if you're taking it, might as well take a dose that will do something.
I am really hoping that it isn't just that you all are like, five years older than I am, and so I have to expect that I am going to just end up in pain a lot soon :/.
Unless you have stomach problems—NSAIDs are linked to ulcers—high doses of ibuprofen have not been thought of as terribly risky.
And your nephrologist is correct about NSAIDs. One of their direct effects is to reduce afferent blood flow to the kidney. Every time you take one you’re telling your kidney, “that amount of blood you think you need? Have a little less.” Blood flow to the kidney is extremely carefully regulated - this is never a good thing.
It's basically portfolio risk diversification. You increase the risk of having some negative effects, by virtue of trying more things, but you hugely decrease the risk of taking one thing excessively that does you a lot of harm in the future.
In the Pāli Canon of Theravada Buddhism, the term "Middle Way" was used in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, which the Buddhist tradition regards to be the first teaching that the Buddha delivered after his awakening. In this sutta, the Buddha describes the Noble Eightfold Path as the middle way of moderation, between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification
Given a statement and a sample with a mean and standard deviation, what is the probability that you manage to choose a sample with that mean and SD, assuming the statement is true?
For example, my statement is the average weight of chicken an american eats every month is 20 pounds and my sample gives me a mean of 16 and SD of 4. The p value is the probability of choosing a group of people who eat on average 16 pounds of chicken every month if the REAL mean is actually 20.
Edit to answer question: The p value doesn't "care" about the sample size - it is adjusted and remains accurate. And so if the p value if high for the sample in the study, that means it is a likely occurrence and the result is not very noteworthy.
In short: typical alpha is 0.05, so a p-value < 0.05 is considered "statistically significant" and the results are not attributable to random chance in a t-test. An unpaired t-test compares two populations, and a p-value below the alpha level indicates that differences are not due to random chance.
Take everything with a grain of salt, though. Low sample sizes dramatically change how test statistics produce results. P-value hacking is the practice of eliminating data from an experiment to produce statistically significant results or otherwise altering the data by adding buffers to ensure that a result confirms a belief a researcher has.
Let's say the drug studied was a guaranteed 100% limb regenerative drug for amputees. Would you really require a 200 person study to prove that Examplinol successfully regenerates limbs? I hope the answer to that is "obviously not; it will be very clear whether or not it works with a low sample size." Of course, how would we change the study if it wasn't supposed to work in 100% of people? What if Sample Pharmaceuticals indicated that it only worked for 50% of people? Or 10%? Or 1%? Would it suffice to use 200 people each trial?
"Unlike traditional scientific publishing, in which manuscripts are peer reviewed only after studies have been completed, registered reports are reviewed before scientists collect data. If the scientific question and methods are deemed sound, the authors are then offered "in-principle acceptance" of their article, which virtually guarantees publication regardless of how the results turn out."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-i...
Imagine you're investigating a drug for hair loss. You gather a group of 31 bald white men. 15 of them take a placebo and 16 take the experimental drug for 24 weeks. If, after 24 weeks, you find 1 of 15 controls with a full head of hair, and 14 of 16 test subjects with a full head of hair, is 31 too small a sample size?
Let me rephrase what you phrased:
Imagine you're investigating a drug for hair loss, like 20000 other researchers hellbent on achieving their goals. You gather a group of 31 bald white men. 15 of them take a placebo and 16 take the experimental drug for 24 weeks, but because your random allocation put more extra bald people in your non-control group you fixed it by balancing the two groups. Your counterpart that didn't have the same problem, uh, didn't make any adjustments. If, after 24 weeks, you find 1 of 15 controls with a full head of hair by some function you define, and 14 of 16 test subjects with a full head of hair again by some function that you define oh and we didn't adjust for anything but of course in the case where the drugs didn't do anything we did because the non-control group were all above average in both age and some other random things like testosterone levels. Is 31 too small a sample size?
31 is always too small of a sample size. These scientific studies are almost always bullshit and we all know it and we'd do something about it if we really cared but we don't because nobody is incentivized to fix it.
First, that's obviously not a rephrasing of what they said. They, very clearly, illustrated a valid case for a well-powered, low sample size study. They presuppose a case where 31 virtually identically-haired white men undergo a treatment and, voila, it works decidedly well.
Second, you're begging the question. You state that the drug doesn't work, yet have concocted a scenario in which it clearly and explicitly works. Even in your "cheatsy" example, 15 of the 16 people go from "bald" to "full head of hair." If the "full head of hair" metric is wrong it has nothing to do with the sample size, rather, we'll find this by examining how the study partitioned groups, pre-trial measurements and its claims to have calculated effectiveness over placebo (ie: actually reading the study).
Third, you've neglected statistical power (which is actually your argument here) for an incorrect statement about low-sample size bias. You state that the mechanism of action for this bias is a pre-partition between [truly bald, nearly haired] and then, given maybe a bit of luck, let good ol' father time take over and show, wow, the (useless) drug works! Maybe everyone experienced a 1.5x follicular density growth, but only because you've been able to presort the group do we see the non-placebo benefit more than the other... except this has nothing whatsoever to do specifically with sample size! If you can sort a trial with 31 people into 15 "truly bald" and 16 "near-haired" you bet you can sort a trial of 200 participants into 96 "truly balled" and 104 "nearly haired" or, heck, just don't even randomize your group selection at all! Or run the study 20 times and pick the successful one! Or any number of other tricks, which are real and meaningful and require someone to actually read the study to uncover instead of just looking at a clearly, very misunderstood, number.
I recruited 31 white men who self-report having no hair on at least 500cm^2 of their head. They all had hair as adolescents, and lost it gradually throughout their 20s or early 30s. They're all at least 37 now.
I then sort them into the two groups by assigning sequential IDs in random order. Those with an odd ID are in Group A, those with an even ID are in Group B.
I then give each participant in both groups a placebo for 24 weeks, having them check in every 2 weeks to measure hair growth, if any. At 24 weeks, I randomly assign two new courses of treatment to each group. I do this blindly, giving Group A pill X and Group B pill Y. Another 24 weeks (with check-ins every 2 weeks) and I find that Group A (taking pill X) all have full heads of hair. Well, except for Paul and Maury.
Meanwhile, Tom, in Group B (who took pill Y), is the only member of his group to have a full head of hair.
Statistically-speaking, my n=31 was a great sample size, and I'm also pretty sure Tom discovered he had sugar pills and stole the real stuff from Paul or Maury. :)
To address the possibility of seeing these results due to a confounding variable (like above average testosterone), this is about as likely as shuffling a deck of 31 cards, and all the red ones ending up in the front and all the black ones in the back. About 0.0000003%
Clearly this is a sham and you needed at least 31^47 participants in this study you charlatan!
It does seem that the particular study was centered around a single electrically stimulated exercise session. It would be difficult to try to guess what happens if combined with different (more sustained? more repeated?) exercise.
If you're asking if this is generalizable to any other group? No idea. Probably okay to generalize to all healthy men. But that's about it.
As for why this is so small? Looks like they just piggy backed on another study. Pretty reasonable use of resources.
Media coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/08/ibuprofen-ma...
That's why you can't rely on a study of 31 people.
Take into account the bias that the negative result (no-correlation) would not pass the bar for publication and you likely have noise.