wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (09/07/85)
A number of responses, to articles I have shared on the net (as well as a number of letters directly to me), indicate that many people do not have a good understanding of the modern definition of STRESS. Up to now I have answered many letters directly to their authors because of my belief that most people already knew. I have finally been forced to the realization that too many readers of the net need more information in this area. Access to massive amounts of data was necessary before students of the new paradigm could begin to see the shape of what now is known as a systems approach to EVERYTHING. Unfortunately, the same thing is true of the new understanding of stress. I will endeavor to make a simple explanation. Those who really want to know can use it as a starting point. Those who are looking for an arguement will be able to advance much skepticism. I have given all day workshops on the modern day definition of stress. Those who truly are interested can get diagrams, biblio and specifics by sending me a SASE and requesting info on "Stress". 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). Biofeedback research demonstrates that the closer one gets to their limits (& this is true of EACH system in the body/mind) the more each stress effects the organism: If you were walking across a field, and tripped over a rock, you would have a fight or flight response (if you had biofeedback instruments attached to you they would show a measurable response). Now, trip over that same rock, in exactly the same way, at the edge of a cliff. The stress you experience would be totally different--you didn't fall over the cliff; the trip was identical--the biofeedback readings would be totally different too. This forms some of the basis for Holistic Medicine: if we can get you back from the edge of your cliff--which is not very hard to do--each, and every, one of those thousands of daily stresses will take a little less out of you. Or--we can extend the cliff (health promotion improves your reserves). It doesn't matter how we create the distance between you and the edge of your cliff. cbosgd!ukma!wws(Walt Stoll) -- Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP Founder, & Medical Director Holistic Medical Centre 1412 N. Broadway Lexington, Kentucky 40505
carter@gatech.CSNET (Carter Bullard) (09/11/85)
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?