Talk:Stress (medicine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Information from Stress (medicine) appeared on Portal:Medicine in the Did you know section on August 25, 2006.

This article was previously a Medicine Collaboration of the Week.

Contents 1 Distinction required? 2 Detail needed 3 Hans Selye 4 stress not explained 5 uninformed opinion 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Stress as I see it 6 Constructive criticism 7 Transcendental meditation? 8 Split off GAS? 9 An amateur's modification 10 Merge with Stress Management? 11 Possible Copyvio 12 "Countering Stress" 13 An incredible mess 14 Grammar 15 Stress (medicine)

[edit] Distinction required?

Do we need to distinguish between the vague psychological use of the word and the medical concept of physiological stress -- the two are closely connected, but one is fuzzy, and the other has measurable characteristics. -- The Anome 12:43, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This page now merges together some of the stuff that was previously scattered. It's still not very good. We need more mention of modern knowledge of the behavior of the HPA axis and corticosteroids. However, I am not an expert. Any doctors or biologists in the house? -- The Anome 16:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

___

I'm neither of the above, but I am interested in this. I've worked my way in to this topic with a major entry on "brain functions" and a new article "frontal lobes". Along the way, I've added a few lines to related articles on neuroendrocinology. I stubbed an article on fight-or-flight response only because it is a well-recognized word in the corpus and there is nearly a century of research (and more) available on that topic.

I rounded out HPA_axis with a start on anatomy and function, but am stalled for the moment on specific methods of action for ANS-induced adrenal releases from the adrenal medulla and how they relate to corticosteroid releases from the adrenal cortex mediated by CRF/ACTH.

This stress article is central to neuroendrocinology articles, which as of now offer either very esoteric scientific detail or very elemenary prose. The level of detail is great, and absolutely elementary descriptions need to be there all along, too. IMO, a functional approach would be the best approach to all topics related to living systems, but that requires (IMO) a foundation of anatomy/chemestry be included in the related topics, with functional descriptions developing from elementary summary paragraphs into detailed medical-grade physiology.

Eventually, separate articles on stress (medicine), on stress (psychology) (not psychiatry), and an article on general adaptation syndrome might all be appropriate to properly sort elements of the topic, but for now, we have just about enough copy to make this one with links to related topics, many of which are still stubs.

We need a solid description of basic neuroendrocine functions so we can start to incorporate material about neuroendrocine pathogenisis. I'll encourage anyone with related knowledge to closely watch my work on HPA_axis and kindly to enter corrections or challenge statements as you see fit. SoCal 20:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just on your first point. I think starting off with the physics definition of stress and then linking that to the definition given by the medical model might help. Then a brief mention of selye's work in explenation of how the word became part of everyday parlance yet lost part of its original meaning when used in psychological terms. Im no prose expert so i'll leave it to someone elso to do but that layout should clarify the distinction.

[edit] Detail needed

moved to talk from from main page in HPA_axis section: SoCal 23:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) detailed treatment to be written -- subjects to cover include:

• corticosteroid
• corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF)
• adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)
• β-endorphin

[edit] Hans Selye

Could someone take a look at the Hans Selye article? I wrote it to rescue it from being deleted, but it hasn't "grown" as much as this article has. Ortolan88 23:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] stress not explained

I like how the article never explains exactly what stress is (the psychological phenomenon, not its neurochemical causes), although "roughly the opposite of relaxation" is a pretty good approximation, I suppose.

Also, the article never distinguishes between positive stress and negative stress, just that the two different types exist. In fact, I was under the impression that all stress is bad. Also, why can winning the lottery be stressful? I mean, you have so much money that you could just throw money at all your problems. Viltris 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that what appear to others to be purely positive events can cause stress to particular individuals because of the way they react or percieve the events -- this can be because of personal history, phobias and/or the inability to deal with new situations in an appropriate fashion (i.e. being suddenly super rich causes them to screw up their lives and relationships). --Ben Houston 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Stress is something we all understand intuitively but is hard to define. While many studies link "stress" (note the quotation marks!) to various illnesses such as cardiovascular disease, absence from work, and total mortality, the definition of stress in each study is different, and based on a different set of tests. We should report results of studies based on their detailed definitions, even though those vary. In every case, no matter how stress was defined, the results of its negative impact were conclusive. This also relates to the issue of optimism, where more optimistical people (less stressed?) had less heart problems! [user:Avigdor6] 18:04 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to refer to stress from an article on bullying but found that this article is less informative than others "out there". Particularly, the definition of stress... I have a view developed from personal experience (aaagh - personal research) and then wider research (phew). Of the latter, the most informative and agreeable was by Dr William Wilkie, an Australian psychchiatrist and author whose book, "Understanding Stress Breakdown" helps a reader with no prior knowledge of psychology et al get their head around stress... Wilkie himself writes about the confusion:-

"Unfortunately for readers the literature on stress has been anything but clear. The confusion began with writers differing widely on what stress is, and continued with correspondingly different advice. The word stress is used to refer to a burden, load or emphasis. Engineers speak of stresses on structures or an orator might stress a point in speech. Hoever, in recent years, writers in this area have increasingly misused the word "stress" as synonymous with distress. People have been described therefore as suffering from stress or experiencing stress. Not unexpectedly, readers have been mystified by the use of the one word stress to refer to both a cause of nervous system overload and the result of nervous system overload"

After some further elaboration, Wilkie explains that his book uses the original meaning, that is an "excessive load on the nervous system". His observations about the confusion are well illustrated by the UK Government's Health and Safety Executive's definition: "The adverse reaction people have to excessive pressure or other types of demand placed on them".

I propose to add or modify a section near the top in which some varying definitions of stress are set out, with an explanation of how these relate to the "issue" that stress management and prevention measures are endeavouring to combat. Any comments before I get going? Justdignity 15:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] uninformed opinion

Keep in mind this is a Discussion place, so I'm adding my opinion about the article, and I just expect to see other people opinion rather than trying to change mine.

[edit] Introduction

I'm no doctor, I'm no specialist. Rather, I'm a completly generalist, as far as not getting even a graduation diploma in my 24 years of life.

I have problems in life today and everybody around me tells me it's stress. I'm trying to understand better as I never believed I ever had stress. Now, by reading this article, I got to realise what term must apply to myself. Serenity. I find it amazing how there's no article on wikipedia about it.

Anyway, introductions aside, my opinion about stress and it studies is quite uninformed. Please, understand that I'm really bad at using words, even in my native language. Get the context out of the text. The intetion out of the words that I'm going to write.

[edit] Stress as I see it

Despite of earlier studies, hormones and phisical stress, there is one common point between stress described here and Sigmund Freud. As my brother told me, stress is caused by the unconcious. The name used here is "body". Now, it seems to me there's about no conclusive study about the unconcious pos-Freud. Even Freud never was conclusive. All he did was naming things. And names I don't even know for sure as I've never read him.

Once again, this is my opinion: Stress is not the signals in your body, stress is the disease itself. In my life I see people often get confused about that. But it says this in the article as well.

Now, what the article doesn't say is that stress, as a disease, is not within everyone. Serenity might be viewed as "state of one without stress". Maybe too many people are stressed out today in our modern world, and people can't even realise stress is just a disease, it has symptoms and it can be treated. Serenity is just a name for "healthy state with no stress". It would be like giving a name for people without HIV... Except stress isn't caused by a virus or a bacteria... I'm not going to get into details on that as I myself am not sure on what causes it, although I know that I know it (old unconcious).

Please don't take this personal, this is a big piece of information and this is out of date. What I'm trying to do is to define stress for myself because I want to cure me. And people will keep thinking I have stress. While it is half true, it seems to me I present no symptons of stress, like any bad signals on blood (I've done frequent exams over the years), such as pressure or even sugar.

I've always thought stress was something that is inside us. It's only between us and God. I think this article just confirm that to me. And anything that's inside us, only affect us if we let it. So, having stress is our fault, and our fault ONLY. Just like any other emotional disorder. I've never felt like having any emotion until very little ago. I've cried for first time in my life by watching a movie. I've cried over a kid, who was just being a nice child. That means to me I'm missing a child that I've never had. And that's my problem, it ain't stress, it's just lack of love.

Now, I'm a cetic person since I was born. I don't believe in nothing I can't see with my own eye. I know people at my age might think I'm being religious or whatever. I've never went to church. I hate romance. I love comedy. It took me the whole 9 yards to understand what love really is. And the lack of it doesn't stress people, but do get people sick. I've got signals from too many inteligent people thinking it was stress, and it was not. It's rather just missing something.

So, once again, stress is just the "new" disease that might be infecting people around the world or not. It is infeccious and it can be prevented. It is one of the hardest disease I was ever aware off, if not the hardest, to diagnose and specially to treat.

Thanks for reading. Please send your opinion.

[edit] Constructive criticism

Several colleagues and students had suggested I visit this site because of what they perceived to be erroneous information. Having now had a chance to review this, I agree completely. However there are so many errors of omission and commission that it would be difficult to edit the existing posting. Some of the most egregious include:

1. Stress is not the opposite of relaxation. It is, as originally defined by Hans Selye, "the non-specific response of the body to any demand for change." In an attempt to extrapolate his findings in laboratory animals to clinical situations that a layperson could understand, he later defined it as "the rate of wear and tear on the body".

2. The General Adaptation Syndrome was not described by Selye in his 1936 letter to the editor of Nature, which was entitled "A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents." Indeed, even the word "stress" did not even appear in this 176 line letter because since the editor only agreed to publish it if he omitted this term. His objection was that at the time, stress was commonly used as a variant of "distress" and most often referred to "nervous strain" in females and he was concerned that readers would be confused. The General Adaptation Syndrome was not described until a decade later in an extensive article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.

3. Stress and its effects erroneously states, "Selye was able to separate the physical effects of stress from other physical symptoms suffered by patients through his research." This is not only a ridiculous claim but it should be noted that Selye never treated any patients or had any clinical experience.

4. The description of the three stages of The General Adaptation Syndrome should be listed as:

• The Alarm Reaction – a "call to arms" of the body's defenses
• Stage of Resistance – during which the mobilization of these coping mechanisms was maximized
• Stage of Exhaustion – where continued exposure to the stressor resulted in destructive damage or death.

5. The statement that there are only two types of stress, eustress and distress is misleading. It would have been much more instructive to distinguish between acute stress that involves activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary- adrenal cortical axis in "fight or flight" or Alarm Reaction responses that can activate the immune system, and chronic stress that involves other mechanisms that reduce immune system resistance to disease. In addition, the definitions of eustress and distress and the ensuing discussion need to be revised. Selye coined the term eustress to refer to "good stress" and distress does not imply "challenge and overload" but rather anxiety, mental suffering, hurt or hardship. e.g. Winning a race or election is just as stressful or more so than losing. However, these examples of eustress are also associated with "challenge and overload". While it is true that things that are distressful for many can be pleasurable for others this is due to the individual's sense of control over the event. A good example is afforded by observing passengers on a steep roller coaster ride. Some are hunched down in the back seats, eyes shut, jaws clenched and white knuckled with an iron grip on the retaining bar. They can't wait for the ride in the torture chamber to end so they can get back on solid ground and scamper away. But up front are the wide-eyed thrill seekers, yelling and relishing each steep plunge that race to get on the very next ride. And in between you may find a few with an air of nonchalance that borders on boredom. So, was the roller coaster ride stressful? The roller coaster analogy is useful in explaining why the same stressor can differ for each of us. What distinguished passengers in the back from those up front was the sense of control they had over the event. While neither group had any more or less control their perceptions and expectations were quite different. Stress is difficult for scientists to define because it is such a subjective phenomenon. However, all of our experimental and clinical research confirms that the sense of having little or no control is always distressful – and that's what stress is all about. Many times we create our own stress because of faulty perceptions you can learn to correct. You can teach people to move from the back of the roller coaster to the front, and, as Eleanor Roosevelt noted, nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.

6. The ensuing discussion of serenity, stress related diseases and karoshi is also incomplete and inaccurate. Unlike many animals, where corticosterone has significant glucocorticoid activity, is function in humans is primarily to serve as a building block for other adrenal cortical steroids. This section should be revised to include a discussion of Selye's concept of Diseases of Adaptation to help explain why his General Adaptation Syndrome has relevance to clinical medicine.

7. Stressors fails to explain why Selye found it necessary to coin this term. The problem was that people used stress to signify very different things. For some it was a bad boss or unpleasant stimulus, many used it to describe their reactions to such situations, such as headache, upset stomach, or chest pain and for others it was the pathologic consequences of these repeated responses that resulted in an ulcer or heart attack. Even Selye had problems when he tried to explain how his animal experiments had clinical relevance. In helping him prepare the First Annual Report on Stress in 1951, I included the comments from one critic who, using verbatim citations from Selye's own articles, concluded in the British Medical Journal that, "Stress in addition to being itself, was also the cause of itself, and the result of itself." Because it was apparent that most people viewed stress as some unpleasant threat, Selye had to create a new word, stressor, to distinguish stimulus from response. The notion that there are two types of stressors that have arbitrarily been labeled processive stressors and systemic stressors and their alleged distinction is erroneous and these terms are not recognized by most stress researchers. There are various types of stressors that can be categorized as acute and chronic or external and internal that do have important differences.

8. Coping with stress also omits numerous practices that are much more popular and effective than those mentioned, such as exercise, progressive muscular relaxation, visual imagery and a variety of autogenic training techniques. In addition the emphasis in recent years has been on preventing stress rather than reducing its annoying somatic and emotional effects. Some common methods include cognitive restructuring, behavioral modification, assertiveness training time management and stress inoculation.

9. Folklore of stress adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and the opinions and conclusions expressed seem confusing and irrelevant.

10. See also could be greatly expanded and there is no scientific evidence to support the diagnosis of "Hypoadrenia"

11. Further Reading references are self-serving and woefully out of date

12. External Links could be greatly improved. The Work Organization Assessment seems self serving and has not been validated, The "On-Line Stress Test" is a reproduction of the original Holmes-Rahe scale that is 30 years old and has been updated numerous times since it is no longer accurate. No mention is made of numerous other stress assessment instruments such as the Hassles Scale, Self-Perceived Stress Scale, etc. Stress Reduction Techniques has an incomplete list of signs and symptoms of stress and appears to essentially be an advertisement for a book. Most of the other links similarly seem to be motivated by promoting commercial products rather than providing objective educational material. Many of these topics are discussed in greater detail on www.stress.org which enjoys the #1 ranking for inquiries about stress on Google and other major search engines but was not referenced.

References:

• Selye H. A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature, 1936;138:32.
• Selye H. The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 1946;6:117-230.
• Selye H, Rosch PJ. Integration of Endocrinology. pp. 1-11 in American Medical Association Textbook of Glandular Physiology and Therapy, 1954; J B Lippincott, Philadelphia.
• Selye H, Rosch, PJ. The Renaissance in Endocrinology pp. 30-44 in Medicine and Science (New York Academy of Medicine Lectures to the Laity) 1954; International Universities Press, New York.
• Roberts, F. Stress and the general adaptation syndrome. British Medical Journal, 1950; July 8, p.104
• Rosch, PJ. Reminiscences of Hans Selye and the birth of "Stress". Stress Medicine, 1998; 14: 1-6 (Editorial) 1998.
• Rosch, PJ. Hans Selye. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 1999; 1:59-66.
• Rosch, PJ. Stress. pp 427-433 in Encyclopedia of Hormones, Henry H, Norman A. eds. Academic Press, New York, 2004

As indicated, portions of this piece appear to have been motivated by commercial rather than educational purposes. This article should be replaced and also expanded upon and I am willing to do this if others agree. With respect to qualifications, I had a Fellowship with Hans Selye in 1951 and was a close professional colleague and friend throughout his life, served as Editor in Chief of Stress Medicine and have been involved in stress research for well over a half century with numerous publications on various stress related subjects. Additional biographical information can be obtained at www.stress.org by clicking on About The Institute.

Paul J. Rosch, M.D., F.A.C.P.

President The American Institute of Stress

Honorary Vice President International Stress Management Association

Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry New York Medical College

stress124@optonline.net

Thanks for your observations. I also understand stress to be a physiological reaction to both physical and psychological inputs.

I took the liberty of formatting your entry a little to make it more approachable, and to act as a base for continued discussion.

Your observations are greatly appreciated, and I'm sure that the wikipedia community will act upon them to improve the article, Wikipedia seeks to maintain a Neutral point of view and where such non-neutral content finds its way into articles, it should be mercilessly removed. If you wish to write a replacement article on which Wikipedia's entry on stress may be based this would also be greatly appreciated but Wikipedia's editing policy states If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Please do continue with your offer to get involved.

Nigosh 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transcendental meditation?

The assertion that Selye found TM to reduce the effects of stress seems quite dubious with no citation. I'm unable to find anything supporting this on Google. Does anyone have a cite? --EStoner 09:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Selye never treated any patients he had no experience with stress reduction techniques in humans. However, he did appear on some programs with the Dalai Lama several decades ago to help him promote transcendental meditation. He also referred to the use of TM for certain stress related complaints in "The Stress of Life" (2nd edition 1976) and "Stress In Health And Disease" a 1256 page annotated bibliography of stress articles and books also published in 1976. Still would like to proceed with revising this entire article if it is agreeable to everyone. Selye article could also be greatly expanded [User stress124] April 13, 2006

[edit] Split off GAS?

I think general adaptation syndrome deserves its own article, independent of this one. Isopropyl 14:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think so too.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An amateur's modification

Well, I can't claim to be an expert in psychology, but I can find a dictionary's definition of stress as it pertains to medicine, and I included this in the introduction to the article. If anyone disagrees with this decision or with the definitions please feel free to revert with a proper explanation. I also believe this article seriously needs expansion, so I slapped that tag on there. Ben Tibbetts 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In this article I read the statement: The body reacts to stress first by releasing the catecholamine hormones, epinephrine (aka: Adrenaline) and norepinephrine (aka: Noradrenaline) Im a med student and in fact catecholamines are not hormones but neurotransmissors. A hormone is secreted by a gland and a NT is released by a neurone. Val

Adrenaline and noradrenaline are released by the adrenal glands in the body and by neurons in the central nervous system. They're hormones and neurotransmitters, depending on where they are used. Within the context of the article, I'd say they are hormones. WLU 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Stress Management?

I was wondering whether it would be an idea to merge this with Stress Management as these two articles are both very relevant to each other. I was researching this for school work, and from a researcher's point of view I felt that this may be more convenient.

I disagree, partly. GAS is a very large topic. We all face stress everyday. If fist should be defined. It definatly should refer to stress management but as a link to a separate page. With all the background history provided by Paul J. Rosch, M.D., F.A.C.P. in the constructive criticism section above, it would be helpful for people to also have the following categories besides history:

• What is General Adaptative Syndrome

1. Hans Selye's initial work

• Types of Stress

1. eustress
2. physical stress
3. chemical stress including foods that add to stress of the physiology of the human frame including additives and preservatives and processing of foods. etc
4. emotional stress
5. spiritual stress

• Stages of GAS
• Physiological effects on Adrenal glands
• Subsequent stress to kidneys and liver
• Treatment of GAS

1. Health Fields that address GAS specifically and basic methods for standard of care per field
2. Using nutrition to support Adrenal function

etc, etc,

As you can see, it will get very involved by the time you get to Stress Management. If there is already work on that topic, then this definately deserves it's own focus. Not enough is out there to address all the stresses.

Susan P Sanders, BS, DC

Yes I think merging might not be the best idea.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. merger is an absurd idea. a split is needed. all the information in this article on stress management is becoming unwieldly and invites more bulk from editors adding new topics on stress management. this article should have a more medical tone. Anlace 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think merging might not be the best idea.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. merger is an absurd idea. a split is needed. all the information in this article on stress management is becoming unwieldly and invites more bulk from editors adding new topics on stress management. this article should have a more medical tone. Anlace 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to create a more detailed page focused on a Stress Release technique (For example Recognizing ideal goals, and reviewing current activities) that would be valuable for the Wikipedia community, but Yanksox 'yanked' the page. Do you think it would be good to have a separate page detailing these techniques? Emurcion 11:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Copyvio

Under the heading "Spending time in nature," I found this:

See the article Spending Time in Nature for suggestions on how to begin tapping
the healing power of nature.

Since there does not appear to be such an article in Wikipedia, I have to assume that this section, at least, was lifted from somewhere else. I'm under somewhat of a deadline at work today, so I don't have time to research it, but I think this raises concerns about how much of this article has been swiped from another site.
Septegram 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You were right: the whole "other activities" paragraph, Tai Chi, Tai Chi,... was a cumulative copyvio of:

• http://www.helpguide.org/mental/stress_relief_meditation_yoga_relaxation.htm , and others from the same site
• http://luckyt.wordpress.com/2006/08/03/working-burnt-out-is-not-the-only-option-2/

and probably some more. Anyway, it has been deleted now. This article still remains in a shamingly poor state though, and even after a Medicine-collaboration...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)jew

[edit] "Countering Stress"

This section is messy, but was re-added after I took the liberty of removing it. I'll comment each point in turn:

"Finding a method of coping with the problem." - refers (kinda unobviously; should at least be "coping (psychology)") to a section in need of citation.

"Massage can loosen muscles and increase blood flow." - no explanation of why this should help alleviate stress?

"Meditation can help to open new paths in the brain." - no explanation of the relevance of "open new paths" (?) to stress. Besides, the section on meditation has the "may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" stamp.

"Physical exercise helps to become healthier, leading to better blood flow. Also causes a release of endorphines, -stress relieving hormones." - again, "blood flow", unexplained. Other than that, no mention in the article of endorphines; needs references.

"Sleep can stimulate the brain." - "stimulate"? Relevance to stress, how?

"Nature and listening to classical music e.g. Mozart can help to calm the mind." - first, "nature"? Unexplained. Second, why only mention classical music (with an oddly narrow example)? Why mention music at all? No references.

"Stress Release begins with understanding what drives you, what your major struggles are, how to put them into perspective, and how to take action." - refers to nothing anymore, as that section was removed.

"Yoga can improve physical being" - unexplained relevance to stress.

"Prayer can bring a new perspective on problems." - I hardly think "a new perspective" would yield stress relief automatically. In any case, no references.

"Smoking can bring a quick fix, but can also raise stress levels, (see below)." - why would this be under "countering stress"? Also, what's below?

"Emotional Freedom Technique to remove emotional blockage." - if stress did indeed come from "emotional blockage", well, sure. But the article doesn't refer to anything like this. Anyways, the section in mention is not even verified, so it seems like a bad choice.

In short (a rather long "short"), the section seems really weak and shouldn't be included in the article (which in itself needs more work). (One last thing: if "countering stress" is the issue here, one should only include things that actually *counter stress*, and an explanation of why this is so.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.249.186.29 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] An incredible mess

What on earth? This article is HORRIBLE. It does not even tell who Selye is!!!--Filll 00:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Some small changes to grammar made... hope you do not mind. Michael Henchard 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stress (medicine)

Stress is not a medicine - why not move it to Stress (medical). I'll do it tomorrow unless there are any objections? Thedreamdied 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Even stress (medical) isn't the best term, since it is used in non-medical contexts. Stress (biological) or perhaps stress (human) might also work, and be more appropriate. Other ideas? WLU 22:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Stress (health) ? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Stress does not necessarily have health implications unless it is prolonged distress, and just about everything stresses the body in some way - sleep is an 8 hour fast, standing up requires potentially lethal blood-pressure adjustment, orgasms are a type of eustress. Anything that doesn't involve lying down quietly with catheters and a colostomy bag causes some degree of stress, yet few have true health implications. In my opinion, naming it stress (health) restricts the article to only the health implications of stress (and probably the negative implications only). I think stress (biological) provides for more opportunity to expand on the adaptive abilities of the body. Also, stress (biological) allows for non-human adaptations to stress, 'health' being less used to refer to molluscs. Stress (biological) also provides a very distinct contrast to the other main use of the term - stress (physics). In my opinion, stress (health) puts the same limits on the article that stress (medicine) does. What do others think? WLU 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, WLU. Stress (biological) seems to make the most sense. Thedreamdied 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)