jimmydasaint

I need a reference please. And also note that stress means different things to different people. IT is a generalised term that does not take into account genetic or behavioural factors which would be essential to fighting 'stress'. So far you have not elucidated what is meant by stress, so how can you talk about the effects? This comes closer to clearing up my doubts about what is meant by stress and why it is different for different people. I think we need precise definitions of stress before anyone can enter into a conversation about meditation and its effects, and why it should have certain effects. I would also expect references from reasonably scientific journals and not blogs or 'spiritual' sites which are not at least peer referenced). OK let's get more specific in our definitions: Stress wiki There are apparently three different models that took the generalised comments above and made observations as a result (the first part of scientific technique in action): 1. General adaptation syndrome 2.Selye: eustress and distress 3. Lazarus: cognitive appraisal model Stress wiki Model 1. The first model is what I would call a general model which may appeal to most people. It involves three stages: Alarm, Resistance and Exhaustion. The Alarm stage involves the stressing agent (e..g a bully approaches and you see him, adrenaline is produced for the 'fight or flight' response). Resistance involves a psychological coping mechanism for the stress. Exhaustion represents depletion of the body's resources (mental and physical) to the stressor and the autonomic nervous system recreates the responses to the original stressor. This last response could cause damage psychologically or to the heart or digestive system. Stress wiki If this is a good enough model to define stress and its effects then a discussion should be made using this model as a reference point. I will let others read about, and evaluate, the other two models for stress. However, what I find significant is the part where 'stress tests' are made on individuals: (emphasis is my own).

What do you men by stress i_a and how would stress affect the immune system or the cardiovascular system. And is it the same for all people. I thought some people thrived on stressful situations. This video has some 'advice' on meditation

I have read, with interest, other hot topics in this Forum, which comment on the nature of God. I only have my limited knowledge and a paucity of secondary validation, so I may find this post in 'Speculations' if the mods don't like it. I'll take a deep breath and here goes: Most thoughts about God being omnibenevolent (absolutely good) and omnipotent (all powerful) are under the assumption that God adheres to human moral values, thinks, and often behaves like a human being - having a sense of what is 'good', being 'angry' and thinking before acting. However, if a supreme intelligence or Creator has created all atoms in the Universe, to my logic, He cannot be made of atoms. He is 'something other' that cannot be comprehended. If He is 'something other', he cannot be anthropomorphised into a human form. If He was omnibenevolent, He would not have allowed any harm to His creation, yet we have Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, George Bush and Tony Blair - all of whom have indirectly ordered the death of hundreds of thousands of people. My view is that God has created Evil. It may be that it helps us to recognise good or to achieve a moral or personal evolution of the soul by being 'tried through evil' as gold is purified by fire. Omnipotence implies that God has the power to do anything that He wants, yet He does not prevent the murder, rape or assault of millions. Why? Again, my personal view is that He has set in place metaphysical unseen Laws that ensure that the action of each person is rewarded or punished according to action and that the soul is either evolved or thrown into an animalistic state from its direct actions on another sensate being. His Laws do the job. He has already seen the end of the existence of His Creation. The endgame seems to be one where we are thrown on the Earth to question our own existence, to find the existence of soul (a complicated concept) and then to link cause and effect together. We are also here to appreciate the design of the Universe and of our own forms, and to ultimately evolve the soul to a more and more purified form until it transcends death and survives with a memory of the Earth; moving to a life that is everlasting. I apologise to all those who consider that I am a heretic but my meagre logic finds these personal pictures of God to be more suitable than contradictory and sometimes downright silly dogma. Any comments, or different personal views of God?

Thank you for such a thoughtful and detailed reply Marat. So, to summarise, there are the following elements, that affect the pathology of diabetes: a.) genetics; genetics and diabetes b.) behavioural (including diet); Diet and diabetes c.)AGE (advanced glycosylation end products) AGE and diabetes and d.) possibly hyperglycaemia, although the evidence for this is inconsistent. Article on Hyperglycaemia There are additional complications that you have mentioned and there should be a distinction made between juvenile onset diabetes (Type I and caused by the body's immune response to its own pancreatic cells ) and late onset diabetes (Type II) caused by body tissues become less responsive to insulin, especially skeletal muscle. Damage to blood vessels, as a possible consequence of diabetes, also considering complicating factors, could lead to the development of heart disease. I hope this is reasonably accurate so far.

I think that I would like more reproducibility in other laboratories, and more critical evaluation before I find it particularly awesome. Charon Y has highlighted my main concerns already.

That is what I thought to start with, excess glucose leads to the glycosylation of many proteins that would not normally have glucose attached: Link to article With the replies received, I can start to piece together a couple of conclusions. Obesity may be important to cause diabetes Type II. Obesity also can predispose to coronary heart disease. However, the high levels of sugar in the blood, from uncontrolled diabetes Type I or Type II, can also cause proteins to become glycosylated that would not normally be covalently attached to glucose. The covalent attachment could affect blood vessels in a way that would damage them and make thrombosis or atheroma formation more possible. Atheroma Thrombosis

I agree that there is a multifactorial explanation. I have found an article dating to 1984 which may cut through some complications: Chicken or egg explanation In short, although I am over-simplifying somewhat, obese people tend to get diabetes Type II. The obesity itself also predisposes to potential atheroma formation, vascular disease and subsequent cardiac problems.

I agree, in general, with you. Does capitalism have an idea of what makes a human happy? IMHO, it does not? Humans are far too different, in emotional intelligence and in what I may claim is general intelligence which is measurable in IQ Tests. They are also creatures of habit, culture and emotion as you have already mentioned. There should be a model for the ideal Capitalist state where both the worker and the boss have achieved happiness but I do not know of any. Marxism and Libertarianism have tried to deal with the issue but Marxism fell at the first step, believeing that the Hegelian method of thesis and antithesis would cause the collapse of Socialism and that the 'new man' would emerge with a collective ideal, thinking for the good of the many, before his own good. It failed because humans do not seem to fit a paradigm. Good thoughts Marat.

Having checked out a few websites which suggest that diabetes increases the rate of heart disease, I am none the wiser. What is the mechanism that increases heart disease and is it diabetes Type I or II which is worse for a person's heart.

Good find. I don't know much about prions except that they are proteins. However, from reading the article, it is clear that: The conformation of the prions changes, depending on the cellular environment. I would contend, as a personal opinion that the prions change shape according to the environment as I would expect with any protein. The degree of hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity of the environment would change the overall shape of the prion. Therefore, instead of seeing the process of cellular damage as an active process, e.g. from a viral infection, it looks as if the prions are passive and, IMHO, they should not be classified as infective agents.

I was six years old when I had my best ever Christmas gift. At a few times in my life, I have had nothing. Absolutely nothing. Barely enough to get by on. This was one of those occasions. My father's business had collapsed and the cupboards in the kitchen were getting bare. My mother warned me that there was going to be less food and I did not expect much from Christmas that year. On Christmas day, we had a Christmas tree that had seen better days. Some cheap Christmas lights brought some relief to the grim walls. I woke up without expectation but my mother smiled at me that day, her face revealing lines of sacrifice and ageing before her years. She pointed at the corner under the Christmas tree and whispered : 'Santa left you something'. In the subsequent excitement, my heart raced as I quickly ran over to the tree. Underneath the drying leaves, there was a small parcel wrapped in cheap paper with a Yuletide theme. As I opened the parcel eagerly, I could not hide my delight: a pencil, a pen, a pencil sharpener, a ruler, an eraser and a protractor. It was the best Christmas gift I have ever had. Subsequently, I received the usual 'man' gifts of aftershave and handkerchief sets etc.... but nothing matched that Christmas! My mother ended her life of sacrifice 3 weeks ago, and I didn't get a chance to say thank you for that day, but I did get a chance to express my love and utmost respect for her, which, I suppose, is better than nothing. God Bless you mother. We will meet again. Anyway, what made YOUR Christmas special guys?

Thanks for the reply Swansont. However, I feel that what I get from 20 minutes exposure to the cold (sneezing, runny nose can be attributed more to inflammation of nasal membranes rather than contracting colds easily.

I think you mean 46 chromatids. In contrast, the primary spermatocyte would have 92 chromatids. Finally, a spermatid would have 23 chromatids. Let's keep it simple. We start off with a diploid cell with 46 chromosomes (2n=46) and, at the secondary spermatocyte end up with 23 chromosomes. Finally, these double X-like structures divide into two halves, but are still called haploid. Compare them to the germ cell that kicks off the meiosis. The germ cell has what you would call 46 single structured chromosomes, but the spermatid has 23 single structured chromosomes. The links have a good explanation: Spermatogenesis diag Meiosis (I am trying to avoid Wikipedia because of Jimmy Wales' begging eyes that reminds me of a Springer Spaniel begging its owner to go for a walk - I just can't resist those Wales' eyes and I want to donate to Wiki every time).

I tend to get what I would call cold symptoms, regularly if I go out on a cold day. Even after 20 minutes outside in the cold, I will regularly end up with cold-like symptoms. However, my wife insists on calling these symptoms (blocked nose, occasional sneezing) 'chills' rather than colds. So what is the matter? Do I manifest the symptoms of cold viruses inside me that have been 'waiting' inside me, or are these 'chills' related, instead, to inflammation of the mucus membranes of the nose which copy the effect of having an actual cold without all the symptoms

What evidence do you have that the systems are incompatible with each other in the first place? In fact, I believe that I saw a T.V. documentary showing Muslims sending minor non-British legal system issues to a Shariah court. However, I cannot find it at the moment. Additionally, I would be interested in evidence that Shariah or Judaism or Hinduism, each with their own distinctive cultures is doomed to failure in the West. IIRC, the Roman Empire, and others had a pretty pluralistic society with outposts all over Europe, the Mediterranean coast and North Africa. The British Commonwealth (more, or less, the former British Empire) are fairly pluralistic societies. India has a Constitution which guarantees rights to its heady mix of subcultures. Indian Constitution I think that this is a pretty disturbing issue to me. Firstly let's examine the wealth divide in Western countries, and this is a typical representation of what I have found: Wealth Distribution In short, the wealthy have a very unequal majority of the wealth in America, and I suspect, in many Western countries. That being the case, they also have an unhealthy influence in Parliamentary affairs in this country, able to sponsor Members of Parliament or to dangle the carrot of directorships at the end of a political career. Members of Parliament are asked formally to declare interests as this snippet shows for a Committee although memories have been known to slip by our distinguished leaders: Declaration of Interests I will come back to the issue of the majority of the public wishing to go to war. Finally, the bottom line IMHO, is that Shariah law (I've stuck with this spelling so far, and it is too late to change now) is not coming to America or Britain. It is, and always will be the case, that immigrants in our nation will have to follow our laws. And the OP and subsequent posts are arguing about a storm in a teacup.

Wonderful, if it works. It looks a bit fragile though, and a day spent in my pocket, next to keys, coins and whiteboard pens would probably be too rough on it.

My point was simply that democracy allows certain freedoms - for example, individual, political and economic freedoms. Freedom to worship on any manner you please is an individual freedom. If Muslims want Shariah, in a Western country, to be applicable to Muslims, let them have it, as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others. At that point, the Shariah should be limited. The point was, that it seems far more mundane, banal and moderate than portrayed by our media. I suspected that rigney was an ex-military man with strong convictions about following the Stars and Stripes to bring 'democratic capitalism' across the world. However, by forcing our systems on others, we are interfering with their individual liberty. The point has been made before. As far as military service, if our politicians were completely committed to the cause ideologically, then they would be willing to send their children abroad to fight the 'enemy'. Yes you are right, there is no reason why they should do so, but it demonstrates, once again, that it is the children of the poor who fight wars that the rich wage against each other (paraphrased from the Linkin Park song) . Rigney, you really should read what I have written very carefully. Obviously you have let blind emotion rob you of reason. I am glad that you educated your children so that they are hopefully able to reason where you cannot. I did ask you to carefully consider your reply but you did not do so. Never mind. I also have a PhD rigney but some of the people in this Forum make me feel that it has the value of a postage stamp. Their breadth and depth of knowledge make me feel humbled and appreciative. I think it is how you use your knowledge that is more important than a mere title. I have no right to consider myself superior to anyone else. I also tried to say that to you. Obviously it also went unheeded like the rest of my post. Peace.

That goes without saying but, within the freedom of a democratic society is the facet of individual freedom, and people who can practise the Shariah within the parameters of the law are free to do so if their rights are respected. From my limited reading of the Shariah, it seems to be reasonably able to operate in a 'normal' Muslim state. As a former member of the Labour Party in Britain (a 'Socialist-leaning Party). I should make my position clear so that rigney can label me as a pinko Commie Liberal... Agreed but in a system where big business is limited from its interference in the Government of the people by the people. IMHO, I have seen the Government of the UK led by the nose in political policy by a host of unelected 'advisers' who had links with big business. From 2000 Captain, you made a lot of idealistic and sensible comments, I hope you retain this idealism in the future. I'm afraid this ex-Army nonsense cuts no ice with me mate. You are a patriot blind to the faults of his nation so that you are counted as a 'useful idiot' by the very rulers you admire so much. Your previous remarks seem to show that you will blindly follow the views of people in power, as long as they are more educated than you are. This is absolute folly and an excellent reason for all young people in America and other countries in the world to become highly educated precisely so that they are not held in the thrall of the highly educated leaders of their countries. In Britain, most of our Members of Parliament are highly intelligent and have gone to the best Universities but I wonder how many of them are self-serving instead of serving the public, with juicy directorships awaiting them as soon as they take the reins of power and also when they retire. Figures from 1993 So you are afraid of Shariah Law in your country, and have suitably performed some quote mining to support your points, yet probably support executions in your country. Wiki Before you answer back, please research and tell me how many of your Congressmen and Senators have sent sons and daughters into Iraq during the campaign to secure oil supplies? If the answer is less than 10, then those intelligent people who you admire so much for their 'protection' of the USA have not bothered putting their children into the firing line but choose to sacrifice the lives of the children of others instead. Finally, rigney, and I hope you learn from this please, don't let blind emotion overcome your reasoning: Aristotle Quotes

I thought it was an allusion to Meyer's 'water powered' cars? Maybe I'm wrong....

If the OP's line of thinking is pointing towards water powered cars, I'm afraid that these are still mythical. However, Honda appear to produce a fuel cell powered car that needs hydrogen and oxygen to combine, producing electricity. The car then runs on the electricity and produces water as a 'waste' product. For an explanation, see here: Fuel Cell Power

Ahem...You do know you cannot get direct answers to your question. I think you need to do a bit of light reading. If you have problems, please reply and I will try to check up on your reply. First Link If you find this too difficult, try the second link: Link 2 Hope this helps

Hi rigney. I have been coping with the return to a new school term and could not access my favourite Forum for weeks. I see that you have carefully chosen incidents to put the Muslim religion in the very worst light. Is this the action of an unbiased person or an Islamophobe? IMHO, you appear to be repeating the anti Islamic line that has been thrust on the citizens of democratic states since the fall of our last 'enemy' - Communism, in 1989, when a new 'enemy' had to be found on which to focus our fears and apprehensions. Having been forced to look up Shariah Law, in order to get a realistic perspective, I found the following: Status of women under Islamic law since the 19th century Some argue that at this point in history the aforementioned exploration of freedom is no longer true — that is to say that whilst it is arguable that women had more extensive legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems in the past, it is no longer true today.[192] Shariah Wiki In short, the Shariah seemed to be fairer to the Muslim women than our laws were to Western women. Hardly the type of belief that degrades or represses women, as many people believe. The Taleban (the word means 'students') appear to be misogynistic oppressors and torturers. However, this mindset could be also attributable to the people who actually paid for their training in the war against the Russians who occupied their nation. Who funded the Taliban? It was the U.S. as you well know.

I think Bernard Shaw was an intelligent and articulate man, who had many sensible things to say. However, I believe that what you are trying to do, rigney, is to stir up some Islamophobia and 'test the waters' by posting about Bernard Shaw. If you are old enough, I assume that you would have hated Communism with the same fervour when it was popular to do so. I just want to live and let live. I don't see the need to post in Ethics. What was Shaw's ethical dilemma?

Surprisingly, I have been unable to find a clear answer to the OP question from the Internet. And I need to know which neurons have myelin around them specifically and which do not. Any replies, references to reviews or papers welcomed.