18 Tricks to hax your body!

[Suite307]

http://www.menshealth.com/cda/articl...3cd____&page=1
Seriously, they pwn.

[BinaryLife]

A lot of those don't make any biologicle sense. Which makes me wonder how much of the benefit is psycologicle.

*edit*

This is a decent one to demonstrate at least the credibility of the writer.:
"15. Wake the dead!

If your hand falls asleep while you're driving or sitting in an odd position, rock your head from side to side. It'll painlessly banish your pins and needles in less than a minute, says Dr. DeStefano. A tingly hand or arm is often the result of compression in the bundle of nerves in your neck; loosening your neck muscles releases the pressure. Compressed nerves lower in the body govern the feet, so don't let your sleeping dogs lie. Stand up and walk around."

Most of the time pins and needles dissapear in less than a minute anyway.

[Ihmhi]

It seems to me that almost all of them are explained exactly how they make biological sense...

[C-Aim]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

This is a decent one to demonstrate at least the credibility of the writer.:
"15. Wake the dead!

If your hand falls asleep while you're driving or sitting in an odd position, rock your head from side to side. It'll painlessly banish your pins and needles in less than a minute, says Dr. DeStefano. A tingly hand or arm is often the result of compression in the bundle of nerves in your neck; loosening your neck muscles releases the pressure. Compressed nerves lower in the body govern the feet, so don't let your sleeping dogs lie. Stand up and walk around."

Most of the time pins and needles dissapear in less than a minute anyway.

This is a poor example to back up your claim that most of it has no biological backing. I don't know for sure either way, but it seems to me if you are going to make such a claim you should have better evidence than anecdotal evidence that doesn't quite fit the bill.

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

This is a decent one to demonstrate at least the credibility of the writer.:

Seriously.

They explain how their techniques work, but common knowledge of the way the human body works pretty much proves all that wrong. I pointed out the credibilty of the writer to show that there's room for a lack of sources. Since they clearly didn't mention that in that particular senario the positive result would exist no matter what the concept of the idea suggested is rendered usesless as there's no way to effectively test for it (wow run on sentence).

In other words, It's like dragging a dry paint brush over a red wall, and telling everyone you're painting it red.

The writer of that article didn't point that out.

Not to mention miss placed nerve clusters and poor diagnosis exist throught that entire list.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Not to mention miss placed nerve clusters and poor diagnosis exist throught that entire list.

Pointing that out and providing evidence seems like a more obvious choice when trying to disprove the credibility of an article. Why don't you do that?

Aside: You need to embrace the -al ending (see your first response)

EDIT: The point of the article is to point out no-so-obvious ways of relieving common pains. It should, at a glance, 'defy common knowledge.' That is the strength of the article and of the solutions provided.

[uBeR]

If your hand falls asleep, raise it (higher than heart level). Same with you feet; lay on your back and raise them.

[TheWetMule]

What if you faint completely in the middle of class and land in a bin? Any ideas on how I can stop that?
Only happened once, pretty shocking whilst it happened as well! Funny thinking back on it though :P Not fainted again since.

Not a clue why I fainted, just did, happened a few years back too

[uBeR]

rofl. did you stand up very quick?

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by squeek.

EDIT: The point of the article is to point out no-so-obvious ways of relieving common pains. It should, at a glance, 'defy common knowledge.' That is the strength of the article and of the solutions provided.

The ideas presented are not common knoweledge, but knowing that pain is caused by nerves in the affected area which are then sent to the brain as well as a chemicle reaction is common knoweldge. Caughing wont do a damn thing to make you not feel a pin prick. "Increase pressure in the chest cavity?" Seriously, while it "explains" how the idea works, that doesn't mean it's true.

If you cross the streams from the proton packs you'll creat a total plutonic reversal and destroy all living matter in an instant.


Sure, that explains how it works, and such. But "crossing the streams" is a urine joke, and plutonic reversal is made up by the good writers of Ghostbusters, who last time I checked weren't scientists.

aside: I don't unders that the -al ending thing. It must be over my head.

[Suite307]

I tried the nose unclogging thingy, works.

[skuLL]

Unclogging?
Is your nose a toilet now?

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

The ideas presented are not common knoweledge, but knowing that pain is caused by nerves in the affected area which are then sent to the brain as well as a chemicle reaction is common knoweldge. Caughing wont do a damn thing to make you not feel a pin prick. "Increase pressure in the chest cavity?" Seriously, while it "explains" how the idea works, that doesn't mean it's true.

You seem to not have understood my point. Yes, using 'common knowledge' it seems as though coughing to relieve the pain of a pin prick is ridiculous. That is the strength of the article. It is a hook. But the article explains itself. It doesn't just use common knowledge; the solutions are researched and tested. The real reason, as stated by the article, for the coughing technique is a "temporary rise in pressure in the chest and spinal canal, inhibiting the pain-conducting structures of the spinal cord." The only way to prove that statement wrong is to do research and testing on the subject. Common knowledge is not good enough.

Your gobbledygook statement about ghostbusters, urine, etc. is irrelevant. That is the equivalent, as Ricky Gervais (maybe Smerch) said, of 'running away' in an argument . You cannot back your stance up with facts (besides 'common knowledge' claims), so you just turn to something else.

My aside about the -al ending was refering to these:

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

...biologicle... psycologicle... chemicle...

[BinaryLife]

^
Yeah I'm a terrible speller and will never make any claimes to the contrary. Don't be suprised to see even to most simple of words mispelled by me. I think, maybe I just don't care enough to spell check/proof read in the forum setting.

"You seem to not have understood my point. Yes, using 'common knowledge' it seems as though coughing to relieve the pain of a pin prick is ridiculous. That is the strength of the article. It is a hook. But the article explains itself. It doesn't just use common knowledge; the solutions are researched and tested. The real reason, as stated by the article, for the coughing technique is a "temporary rise in pressure in the chest and spinal canal, inhibiting the pain-conducting structures of the spinal cord." The only way to prove that statement wrong is to do research and testing on the subject. Common knowledge is not good enough.
"

You actualy mis understood my point, which is that the "facts" explained in that article, are not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_human_body
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_and_nociception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_congestion

While I hate citing wikipedia since it is not always referenced, the information explained sorta goes to what I'm saying. It's common knowledge of the way the human body works that explains or gives an understanding to that which is true, and that which is made up. In other words I'm claiming that the article is not 100% true. You can't say that it's not common knowledge and is therefore not refutable by common knowledge. We are both in agreement that the article contains information that is not available to everyone. However, my thinking, is that the reason for that lack of availability is because most of it is made up.

How do they get results? Well, the context of the "hax" in the article will demonstrate "cures" for ailments that don't exist, or cure themselves. There were a few that I tried, out of curiosity. The nost/decongestion idea was one of them. For me, it does not work at all. This leads me to wonder whether the possitive results are because of the placebo effect, or if I'm just a freak.

My statement about ghostbusters made a point you seem to have missed. Essentially, the point was that you can make shit up that sounds believable. That's all it was. I used Ghostbusters because I like that movie, I think it's funny.

In the simpliest of terms (spelling errors aside): I am accusing the article of not being factual. Therefore, the information provided, from my perspective is not true and common knowledge overcomes lies.

*edit* I understand that I'm not doing reasearch and such, obviously I can't and am at a loss from that perspective. That is why I went to credibility of the writer in my original statement. Their credibility represents the truth or the whole truth of the studies done and makes them less serious and easier to contradict. In other words: Perhaps the scientists study was to show something other than what was represented. Or, perhaps a Dentist did a study on coughing to minimize pain, even though a Dentist is not an expert on nervs, or the spinal cord. We dont' know, because the article is unclear.
Sorry, just a final note.

*edit again*
Ignore any complaints of mine to the nasal cavity. I still can't get it to work on myself, but I've read the same treatment by other people and doctors. So, unless all of them are lying, I'm wrong on that particular point.
Sorry for all the edits.

[uBeR]

Nasal congestion (i.e. stuffy nose) isn't from snot, btw.

[skuLL]

Maaan
You guys really like to argue about something that, to normal people, seems to be unargueable