05-11-2003, 07:56 AM
• Murali NS, Svatikova A and Somers VK (2003). Cardiovascular physiology and sleep. Front Biosci 8:S636-52. Summary: Sleep is a natural periodic suspension of consciousness during which processes of rest and restoration occur. The cognitive, reparative and regenerative accompaniments of sleep appear to be essential for maintenance of health and homeostasis. This brief overview will examine the cardiovascular responses to normal and disordered sleep, and their physiologic and pathologic implications. In the past, sleep was believed to be a passive state. The tableau of sleep as it unfolds is anything but a passive process. The brain's activity is as complex as wakefulness, never "resting" during sleep. Following the demise of the 'passive theory of sleep' (the reticular activating system is fatigued during the waking day and hence becomes inactive), there arose the 'active theory of sleep' (sleep is due to an active general inhibition of the brain) (1). Hess demonstrated the active nature of sleep in cats, inducing "physiological sleep" with electrical stimulation of the diencephalon (2). Classical experiments of transection of the cat brainstem (3) at midpontine level inhibited sleep completely, implying that centers below this level were involved in the induction of sleep (1, 4). For the first time, measurement of sleep depth without awakening the sleeper using the electroencephalogram (EEG) was demonstrated in animals by Caton and in humans, by Berger (1). This was soon followed by discovery of the rapid eye movement sleep periods (REM) by Aserinski and Kleitman (5), demonstration of periodical sleep cycles and their association with REM sleep (6, 7). Multiple studies and steady discoveries (4) made polysomnography, with its ability to perform simultaneous whole night recordings of EEG, electromyogram (EMG), and electrooculogram (EOC), a major diagnostic tool in study of sleep disorders. This facility has been of further critical importance in allowing evaluation of the interaction between sleep and changes in hemodynamics and autonomic cardiovascular control. Consequently the effects of sleep could be objectively differentiated from the effects of rest and recumbency. Furthermore, the specific effects of sleep onset and termination, and the effects of different sleep stages, could be assessed. Technological advances, with consequently enhanced and relatively non-invasive approaches to cardiovascular regulation, have greatly broadened our understanding of the effects of sleep stage on cardiovascular function. Continuous monitoring of simultaneous measures of polysomnographic and cardiovascular variables enables characterization of the effects of dynamic changes and rapid transitions in sleep stage, such as arousals. The capacity for measuring acute and immediate changes in autonomic, EEG and hemodynamic responses to sleep and arousal on a continuous basis has played an important role in enabling us to understand the interplay between changes in EEG and changes in the more peripheral measurements of neural and circulatory variables, such as sympathetic nerve traffic, heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP). Measurements of heart rate variability (HRV) (8-10), baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) (11-16), and intraneural measurement of sympathetic nerve traffic to muscle (MSNA) (17-22) and skin (SSNA) (23-24) have further advanced our understanding of mechanisms linking sleep and cardiovascular physiology. Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN.
"LMFAO"? What does "stratman" mean? Why do you call yourself this and ghost?
(Feel free to answer it in Members Only, in the "Inn" or elseplace.
As I doubt WY finds longer exchanges here particularily amusing, hehe.
He might prefer more blubberblab about sleep, plus brain maiming results of kinds of brain related persons.
Maybe with THE GROUPNAME-in-singularing of abused, as already Nazis tradition.)
"well, guess we asked for it" Nah, you didn't, for me.
The Cure Censorer, the Care Censorer. So CCs.
And the brain data monopoly game player and censorer.
(Cure just didn't get some BLA-loads volleyed over, because I didn't feel like it with this one, apart from that my form of volleying back long ago resulted with splitting some stuff I have been regarding literally Cure significant off into German.
And generally a bunch alike into my code.)
Stra, there's a difference between justified criticism and warfare.
Doubt you regard it like this, but I sorts of spoiled your nice meant game to an extent. And your criticized not sticking to it's parameters.
This is not the same, as making warfare.
Like CENSORING what I have been regarding a partial cure post out of CURE.
With the "cause" given, that there stood something in there, that outside the fantasies of the censorer did not stand there.
Apart from that even if instead it had, that'd not disprove the method as ineffective for partial cure.
And CENSORING finger twitchings post out of (?)CARE.
The argument seeming to amount, a post about twitching fingers is off-topic with the topic twitching fingers.
And loads of other silly shite like this.
The censorer I called Daftie, censored out three danger warnings, or so, of me, contra making DHEA sounding just harmless.
(Until I went for the bother to search the net and quote correlations warnings between DHEA and cancer. And other bad stuff it might cause.
That one for a change, the Daftie didn't seem to dare to cut out. But I found it amazing enough, if me old druggie starts to point out, some substance, that I tried, is certainly not the most harmless
one can stick into the diet, but a precursor hormone, which can alter other hormone amounts. And this is not without dangers.)
The CC Censorer Club makes blatantly clear, to NOT CARE, not just with such censorings of warnings against a substance to not be just something harmless to stick into the diet, about person's welfare here.
I've seen IMO outright dangerous stuff alone with stuff as here made propaganda for.
For me, such amounts partially to attack brain damaged systems with drugs, who did not even finish important healing processes yet.
Just because the damaged ones cannot work as before anymore.
I joked alike why not declare it a disorder, if someone with a broken foot can't walk, and pump him full with cocain and other stuff, till he starts to walk or even run on the broken foot.
As similar attitudes seemed to be there to damaged brain systems.
Even me old acidhead after some concussion in half a year just took 1 trip.
Deciding there, damaged brain systems are by far not far enough for this.
And I'm certainly not alike a health Apostel.
But that shit, that was alike advertized there, to commit to damaged brain systems, gee, these people are mad.
This is not CAREing and CUREing, this is systematically damaging brain systems further.
When I stuck some post for a change not as a Re, but header post, with a mix of brain data and criticism of attitudes I read in other posts, it was censored out.
WY playing monopoly games.
Along the lines, under brain damages, someone brain damaged is less to write, than someone not so.
After all, guess, born with MBD (Minimal Brain Damages), having some concussion in between, a few epileptic fits, also not the most healthy for the brain, sometimes nearly passing out in context with sugar stuff, also not the most becoming for the brain, having had a malaria form the doctor called malaria cerebralis, etc.,
I cannot possibly know some stuff significant about brain damages.
What I found also interesting, was that battle under that phantom belief shite headline.
Gets a dude a stroke, peripheral vision of one eye gone, and leg pain sensory problems following.
I thought, might be to do with lateral geniculate nucleus, that with parts of vision gone. Checked in a neuro book. They listed lateral geniculate n. damages as something, that can cause that.
Thought, what's the next non-geniculate thalamus system doing, is this anything to do with the leg. Checked. Functions listed were the most congruent of all thalamus sectors, of this one, with what the man described as problems.
There's something from autistic research, about damages and recovery processes, where it can come to hightened sensitivity. There in context with clothes "hyper"sensitivity also mentioned. As the man had. I wondered, if this might have happened in parts of that thalamus sector.
And speculated about various else.
And making fun of this phantom belief shite pseudoscience stuff, that between one joint and the next as an acidhead, one might still come up with something more scientific sounding if seeking causes, than phantom shite.
WY censored it out as off-topic. Still haven't seen a better causes theory by him yet.
Though if it's off-topic, what's the problem to surpass it?
I mean, if I were to write, the cause for the sun going down, is my joint, should be no problem to come up with something still ways better than that, alike, bs, that's not the sun going down and your joint, that's Earth rotation making it seem alike the sun goes down.
Meaning, if it's been just off-topic stuff, what's the problem, after I challenged him, to come up with a differing far better causes theory?
Maybe the one, that without them thalamus systems involved in the theory, it might be damn hard to come up with a better one? Hehe ...
But that if what I speculated around about there, would be in his,
then he disproves himself, that it wasn't off-topic.
I assume, that therefore he's not been out to even just try, to surpass this theory by a ways better one.
Though I also assume, he'd not put it like that.
But who knows, maybe somewhen he'll actually even manage to come up with something better, to not look publicly alike some idiot.
Who can't even come up with some ways better causes theory than that of some acidhead through a THC cloud, censored out as off-topic.
I stuck it back, where he cut it out. Like my way of saying, nah dude, my causes theory was on-topic. And the criticism, between one joint and the next one might still land with something more brain systems differentiating and oriented, than that pseudoscientific phantom belief brabble, too.
He cut it back off, and I stuck it back in.
I think eventually I shoved the rest of the comments to the original post elsewhere, between lines indicating, cut the first ones I left there with the causes theories out again, and you might get about 15 posts filing straight there.
And challenged him, to finally surpass my causes theory declared off-topic.
I'm not sure, what was the main cause for a change he left it there.
But who knows, he's not as daft as the one I call Daftie.
Maybe over the weeks it dawned on himself, that if me and neuro agree, something can be the cause for something, to try declare double-congruence between these about what might be the cause of something, that this is off-topic,
As there is not this much, that causes such peripheral vision loss, though there was another option listed, but to me did not seem this likely.
And near lateral geniculate nucleus is plain a region, quite congruent in functions listed in a neuroanatomy book I checked in, with what the man described as problems.
WY could have tried some more years, to declare it off-topic, but ain't change,
this is not disproving, that causes for the problems of the man, might not have had to do with this man's stroke maybe causing damages to these thalamus systems.
Then again, this site here is not about scientific arguing, I noticed long ago.
This is also, why a causes theory is censored several times in a row off where it stands, as "off-topic", without even just one single time giving scientific contra-arguing methods.
As proving why it cannot be possibly correct,
what I theorized there, might be causes for the man's problems.
(Though even if he had managed to prove it all wrong,
would not have made it necessarily off-topic.
As even an erratic theory about a topic, is still dealing with this topic.
And a criticism of the pseudoscientificness of the author, managing to fall even below the scientificness levels of an opponent of Westie science, and that attitudes as this pseudoscientific phantom shite, instead of reading some more neuro data, might have to do with such vague hazer garble coming out as there in passages criticized, and such not being very suited to get on in more serious research about causes there,
would still be valid criticizm points,
even if my theorizing about causes had been all entirely wrong.
Not that I recall the exact wording. Was quite a bit stoned at the time, anyway.)
It amounts to, one could be on-topic here down to speculating about differing brain sectors and correlations between brain sectors, in context with the pain of someone, under the main header Pain, and might be censored off being declared "off-topic".
While pretending scientificness to the front,
ZERO scientific contra-arguing noticed in this.
Westie science contra-arguing style might look remotely like this:
"Your statement: ...(quote)... is wrong, because of ... (contras given, plus maybe how it is instead)... as is obvious by the studies of
Dr. Igor Fetchthebrain et all, published in ... (Westie science peers dictatorship zine)... in the year ..., page ... .
Further data can be found by Dr. Broadtest et al, ..., MRI studies showing ...,
Now, this wasn't exactly perfect Westie science style.
More some remote approximation.
Just meaning, if I were to theorize, the sun goes down because of some phantom stuff,
and you were to tell me, nah, it's to do with Earth rotation, that it looks so,
and I were to censor your comment off as off-topic with the original post,
you might not exactly find that particularily scientific, nor proper style of arguing, either.
This site's pretenses about scientificness have astounded me again and again.
Some acidhead might at least have the decency, to not pretend to be scientific.
I for example clearly say, I am not of science, and an opponent of Westie science.
But still in a case like that there, even bothered to nail out some science data, too.
Personally I assume, if one were to make a checker, if WY understands more about LSD brain akasha surfing or me more about neurology,
I might win the context skyhigh.
Though my comprehension about neuro is quite limited.
WY is not a scientist. He's a Westie "scientist", pretending scientificness, while not even having mastered the art of Westie science contra-arguing yet.
Being more daft and primitive than the acidheads I'm used to on THC and LSD,
in the scientificness degree of contra-arguing texts.
Scire is to do with knowledge and knowing.
WY seems to understand about zero about a bunch within LSD brain magic crafts.
He censored off from breathing to baby C1 transprogrammer considerations contents,
where I doubt he ever even just 1 week, and far less 1 year or more in his life studied about such.
Or even just how to generate any magic energetic interlinks between equivalent brain systems of two humans.
WY reminds of someone of school first class mathemetics knowledge,
not able to add 2 + 2 yet,
declaring mathematical considerations of someone in 4th to 6th class as off-topic with mathematics.
And not by quoting an equation, and proving, where there are errors in there.
His pseudoscientificness seems to amount to, HE BELIEVES, it is soandso,
and THEREFORE IT IS.
I might as well go into the next religious community.
To land with scientificness levels like this.
Thanks for the voc explanation.
Perceiving myself more "it" (alike motor control systems), not (s)he.
And that I think higher segregational levels between systems and some other aspects, are to do with having MBD.
(Seeming having lead to higher segregational stages between the self, and some systems to do with (s)he stuff. And I suspect, there's also some emotional programs damaged.)
Anyway, I perceive myself not particularily (s)he. More between both,
and internally feeling not like either very much.
Some call me he, some call me she, on the web, and for me it being more "it" / neutral, is both not seeming particularily incorrect.
And many just call me Acid, which is nicely neutral.