Anger affects blood vessel dilation

[Wishful]

https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/anger-cardiovascular-health/

Has anyone noticed a correlation between ME symptoms and anger? Some people are convinced that ME involves endothelial dysfunction. A lack of correlation wouldn't prove that endothelial dysfunction is not involved in ME, but it would be evidence to the contrary.

 

[cfs since 1998]

If they are already dysfunctional, then one might surmise that anger would have less effect on endothelial function in ME than in healthy people.

 

[Oliver3]

I call it vascular asthma. Any stressor it off..I think by dysfunctional I read highly susceptible to outside stressors, overreactice, weak etc

 

[Wishful]

The article said it was just anger, not other emotions or stressors they tested.

 

[Wishful]

If they are already dysfunctional, then one might surmise that anger would have less effect on endothelial function in ME than in healthy people.

While anger might have less effect on blood flow, the point was that one theory for ME is that blood flow is reduced, so anger, even if less effective, should affect blood flow and ME symptoms. There are a number of common drugs or other factors that affect blood flow, and I don't recall any strong correlation between their use and ME symptom severity, so to me there's not much evidence for that theory. I posted mainly to see whether anyone here had noticed a strong correlation between anger (but not other emotions) and ME severity.

 

[cfs since 1998]

There are a number of common drugs or other factors that affect blood flow, and I don't recall any strong correlation between their use and ME symptom severity, so to me there's not much evidence for that theory.

As far as I know, every study that has looked for endothelial dysfunction in ME/CFS has found endothelial dysfunction. I know you are selective in which studies you believe and don't believe, though, but disregarding an entire category of research because of personal bias seems counterproductive.

 

[junkcrap50]

I feel much better when I’m real angry, shouting and all worked up.

 

[Wishful]

As far as I know, every study that has looked for endothelial dysfunction in ME/CFS has found endothelial dysfunction.

I haven't seen much evidence to support it. I checked one study ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9894436/ ) and while the tone of the paper was "major findings!", the data--to my inexpert eye--seemed fairly weak.

"Nevertheless, it is a significant and important finding that our group of ME/CFS patients had such markedly reduced vascular function compared to healthy individuals."

To me it seems reasonable that people with reduced activity levels would have reduced vascular function compared to healthy (active) controls. I wouldn't consider that "significant and important". To me the paper seems like it's puffing up a weak correlation in order to look good to get more funding.

Their second hypothesis was : "There could be a correlation between ME/CFS disease severity and FMD/PORH levels,". The discussion said: "There was also a tendency towards an association between vascular function and disease severity, which lends some support to our second hypothesis." ... but despite having the data, there wasn't any nice table or plot supporting the existence of this "tendency".

I didn't see any strong argument for this being a cause rather than an effect of ME. Since they have all that data, why didn't they show correlations between severity and blood flow? Maybe there was no correlation?

That study was funded by the government and other organizations, but it seems to be promoting use of rituximab, so there's plenty of potential for conflict of interest.

While that study "found endothelial dysfunction", I certainly don't see it as strong evidence. I haven't encountered any other studies with strong evidence of endothelial dysfunction being a cause of ME. If there is one, please point me to it.

 

[Oliver3]

I haven't seen much evidence to support it. I checked one study ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9894436/ ) and while the tone of the paper was "major findings!", the data--to my inexpert eye--seemed fairly weak.

"Nevertheless, it is a significant and important finding that our group of ME/CFS patients had such markedly reduced vascular function compared to healthy individuals."

To me it seems reasonable that people with reduced activity levels would have reduced vascular function compared to healthy (active) controls. I wouldn't consider that "significant and important". To me the paper seems like it's puffing up a weak correlation in order to look good to get more funding.

Their second hypothesis was : "There could be a correlation between ME/CFS disease severity and FMD/PORH levels,". The discussion said: "There was also a tendency towards an association between vascular function and disease severity, which lends some support to our second hypothesis." ... but despite having the data, there wasn't any nice table or plot supporting the existence of this "tendency".

I didn't see any strong argument for this being a cause rather than an effect of ME. Since they have all that data, why didn't they show correlations between severity and blood flow? Maybe there was no correlation?

That study was funded by the government and other organizations, but it seems to be promoting use of rituximab, so there's plenty of potential for conflict of interest.

While that study "found endothelial dysfunction", I certainly don't see it as strong evidence. I haven't encountered any other studies with strong evidence of endothelial dysfunction being a cause of ME. If there is one, please point me to it.

Mate, everyone but you thinks there is and there's loads of research on endothelium problems

 

[xploit316]

I feel much better when I’m real angry, shouting and all worked up.

I have noticed this. Freeing up my inner anger/frustration helps.

 

[Wishful]

Mate, everyone but you thinks there is and there's loads of research on endothelium problems

Something like 60% of the population believes in ghosts, and 30% for astrology, despite a lack of evidence. Number of believers does not mean scientific validation, especially when there's a perceived benefit to the belief (endothelial dysfunction is THE ANSWER!! and treatment is just around the corner).

Do you feel that the study I linked is strong evidence of endothelial dysfunction? I can't properly judge the quality of the study, or the statistical significance of the data, but it seemed weak to me. Even they admitted that "In the present study, there was no clear relation between endothelial dysfunction and severity of disease symptoms,".

The authors included "There was a near-significant association between FMD at baseline and disease severity assessed as mild/moderate versus moderate versus moderate/severe (p for trend = 0.051". Near-significant association from a small study partly based on self-reported measures? To me that sounds like they were desperate for anything positive-sounding. For a study like that, you might be able to mine the data for a near-significant association between symptoms and toenail hardness.

It's one thing to say that "endothelial dysfunction could cause the observed symptoms", but the same can probably be said for most body functions, since everything is so interconnected. I haven't seen any description of the mechanisms relating the level of observed dysfunction and the level of symptoms, such as "testing in mice shows that a 5% reduction in FMD results in 15% reduction in steps on the exercise wheel".

I'm not claiming that endothelial dysfunction isn't part of ME; I'm saying that I haven't seen convincing evidence of it. Nearly-significant associations in small studies don't convince me. I expect there to be differences in some body functions due to the difference in activity levels between healthy, active people and people with reduced activity levels due to a disease, so I don't automatically attribute it to the disease itself.

 

[Oliver3]

Something like 60% of the population believes in ghosts, and 30% for astrology, despite a lack of evidence. Number of believers does not mean scientific validation, especially when there's a perceived benefit to the belief (endothelial dysfunction is THE ANSWER!! and treatment is just around the corner).

Do you feel that the study I linked is strong evidence of endothelial dysfunction? I can't properly judge the quality of the study, or the statistical significance of the data, but it seemed weak to me. Even they admitted that "In the present study, there was no clear relation between endothelial dysfunction and severity of disease symptoms,".

The authors included "There was a near-significant association between FMD at baseline and disease severity assessed as mild/moderate versus moderate versus moderate/severe (p for trend = 0.051". Near-significant association from a small study partly based on self-reported measures? To me that sounds like they were desperate for anything positive-sounding. For a study like that, you might be able to mine the data for a near-significant association between symptoms and toenail hardness.

It's one thing to say that "endothelial dysfunction could cause the observed symptoms", but the same can probably be said for most body functions, since everything is so interconnected. I haven't seen any description of the mechanisms relating the level of observed dysfunction and the level of symptoms, such as "testing in mice shows that a 5% reduction in FMD results in 15% reduction in steps on the exercise wheel".

I'm not claiming that endothelial dysfunction isn't part of ME; I'm saying that I haven't seen convincing evidence of it. Nearly-significant associations in small studies don't convince me. I expect there to be differences in some body functions due to the difference in activity levels between healthy, active people and people with reduced activity levels due to a disease, so I don't automatically attribute it to the disease itself.

Should've gone to spec savers

 

[hapl808]

While anger might have less effect on blood flow, the point was that one theory for ME is that blood flow is reduced, so anger, even if less effective, should affect blood flow and ME symptoms. There are a number of common drugs or other factors that affect blood flow, and I don't recall any strong correlation between their use and ME symptom severity, so to me there's not much evidence for that theory. I posted mainly to see whether anyone here had noticed a strong correlation between anger (but not other emotions) and ME severity.

The study is in healthy people. Personally I find anger (or any strong emotion including joy) will likely lead to a crash. Actually, I find joyful things crash me faster than anger or sadness.

And I thought many drugs that affect blood flow can affect some MECFS symptoms - guanfacine, beta blockers, PDE inhibitors, even caffeine or ibuprofen. Small amounts of caffeine help my symptoms quite a bit, but if I overdo it, again it leads to a crash.

Study linked at the top is vaguely interesting, but not sure it shows anything particularly relevant for us.

 

[Wishful]

Study linked at the top is vaguely interesting, but not sure it shows anything particularly relevant for us.

I just saw it as an easy test of a hypothesis. Anything that affects blood flow or endothelial function is a test of that hypothesis. The research showed that the effects of anger persisted for a certain period of time, so if an ME symptom showed a variation for that period of time, it would be confirming evidence. Lack of such correlation doesn't disprove the hypothesis, but has some value of negative evidence.

If the hypothesis was that ME was due to overly viscous blood, then each blood thinner that failed to show reduction in symptoms would be counterevidence.

I do think it's useful to point out flaws in hypotheses and studies. Simply saying "that hypothesis is wrong or nonsense" isn't helpful, but pointing out a specific weaknesses is.

 

[cfs since 1998]

Something like 60% of the population believes in ghosts, and 30% for astrology, despite a lack of evidence. Number of believers does not mean scientific validation, especially when there's a perceived benefit to the belief (endothelial dysfunction is THE ANSWER!! and treatment is just around the corner).

You are equating people who believe in things without evidence to people who believe in scientific studies demonstrating evidence.

 

[cfs since 1998]

I just saw it as an easy test of a hypothesis.

Your question is not a hypothesis test, far from it. Not scientific at all. Studies have proven ED in ME/CFS. The answers to the question "does anger worsen your symptoms" will neither support nor refute them.

 

[hapl808]

The answers to the question "does anger worsen your symptoms" will neither support nor refute them.

Yeah, not sure it's useful because I believe most LC or ME/CFS who are moderate or severe will say that anger makes them much worse. But PEM means that most things persist for a period of time - whether it's anger or a phone call. So there does seem a correlation, but these studies of 'think a sad thought' are difficult to control and just not the most relevant, especially for moderate or severe.

 

[Oliver3]

Something like 60% of the population believes in ghosts, and 30% for astrology, despite a lack of evidence. Number of believers does not mean scientific validation, especially when there's a perceived benefit to the belief (endothelial dysfunction is THE ANSWER!! and treatment is just around the corner).

Do you feel that the study I linked is strong evidence of endothelial dysfunction? I can't properly judge the quality of the study, or the statistical significance of the data, but it seemed weak to me. Even they admitted that "In the present study, there was no clear relation between endothelial dysfunction and severity of disease symptoms,".

The authors included "There was a near-significant association between FMD at baseline and disease severity assessed as mild/moderate versus moderate versus moderate/severe (p for trend = 0.051". Near-significant association from a small study partly based on self-reported measures? To me that sounds like they were desperate for anything positive-sounding. For a study like that, you might be able to mine the data for a near-significant association between symptoms and toenail hardness.

It's one thing to say that "endothelial dysfunction could cause the observed symptoms", but the same can probably be said for most body functions, since everything is so interconnected. I haven't seen any description of the mechanisms relating the level of observed dysfunction and the level of symptoms, such as "testing in mice shows that a 5% reduction in FMD results in 15% reduction in steps on the exercise wheel".

I'm not claiming that endothelial dysfunction isn't part of ME; I'm saying that I haven't seen convincing evidence of it. Nearly-significant associations in small studies don't convince me. I expect there to be differences in some body functions due to the difference in activity levels between healthy, active people and people with reduced activity levels due to a disease, so I don't automatically attribute it to the disease itself.

No one is saying it's THE answer for a start. It's a total body disease.
You're suppositions are so wrong in so many ways with zero evidence to support your claims that this conversation is pointless.
Your ghost comments are ridiculous.
There are literally reams of studies on endothelium dysfunction in m.e.

If it's not in the brain for you then it's not m.e

We get it. You want it to be all in the brain
Ignoring this facet of the illness is plain ridiculous . It's a multifaceted hydra of an illness where all systems are affected.

It's likely part of the cel danger response.
I don't know what else to tell yoy

 

[Wishful]

Personal attacks aren't really helpful. They're more likely to convince me that you can't support your arguments. I did ask to point me to a study that would convince me that endothelial dysfunction is a cause of ME. Maybe I was just unlucky in the studies I did bother to look at, and only found weak ones. Since you feel that there are so many good studies proving it, it shouldn't be difficult to point out one or more particularly convincing ones.

 

[Oliver3]

im not really interested ..we've had back and forth s before and it's all in the brain. Even when part of it is definitely in the brain , part it's neuro immune , part is endothelial, part is viral reactivation..as infinitum.
I've provided evidence for you in the past that eds caused problems in the brain.
You didn't reply. Therefore what's the point.
There's literally countless studies on vasculature abnormalities in the endothelium. You do your own research would be my advice.
Posting ideas yourself, without any real science and obscure suppositions makes dialogue meaningless