RIP: Joe Paterno

[Throwers Podcast]

Some time ago I stumbled across one of the better reviews of literature on this topic. circa 2002: http://rphr.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/57/1/411

The benefit of anabolic steroid use for eugonadal men is far more controversial.

For decades, scientists argued that anabolic steroids do not increase muscle mass or strength in normal men. This was based first on clinical experience that suggested that the nitrogen-retaining effects of testosterone treatment to normal men were modest and transient (Wilson, 1996). The controversy between those who state that anabolic steroids do not increase muscle mass or strength and those who believe in their effectiveness derives in part from which body of research is cited. Many critics properly cite many negative studies in which addition of testosterone or another AAS to a training regimen failed to improve performance (see reviews in Wilson, 1988; Elashoff et al., 1991; O’Connor and Cicero, 1993; Friedl, 2000). They also critique the poor study design in studies conducted in athletes, including lack of placebo control, nonblinded study conditions, reliance on case studies or small study populations, lack of standardization of dose and training regimen, and the impact that expectation of benefit had on results.

These differences in study design might well play an important part in the different findings. First, nonfit people who are started on a training regimen generally experience such substantial benefit from the training regimen alone that it is difficult to show an additive benefit of AAS. The use of physiologic doses of AAS contributed to this problem. Little benefit of increasing testosterone within the physiologic range has been demonstrated in such studies. Furthermore, the dependent measure chosen to assess muscle strength is critical. Testosterone increases upper body mass differentially, so performance in tasks like weightlifting should improve more than lower-body tasks or tasks in which aerobic capacity rather than strength are assessed. As expected, the task in which increases have been reported most reliably are in the bench press (Friedl, 2000). Finally, the degree of improvement expected in such studies is generally small. Changes in performance of 1–5% are rarely statistically or clinically significant but they represent the margin of victory for elite athletes. Therefore, scientists, clinicians, and athletes all might interpret data from the same study quite differently.

[Conor Dary]

But I guess these things are in the eyes of the beholder and only Pego himself knows what he really meant.

I asked simple questions to clarify meaningless generalities. In response I was accused of obtaining my diploma fraudulently, implying I faked it for 50 years. That's why I'll never speak to him again.

Amazing someone could piss off one of the smartest, informed and most reasonable posters here.

[Blues]

With all due respect to everyone else's opinions, count me as one who definitely feels that stress can negatively affect the immune system, and our health in general... I'm no physician, but as a pharmacist I've seen the health of many patients, and even family members, deteriorate significantly after periods of prolonged emotional stress.. Why I don't know, but whether it's from increased cortisol levels, sleep deprivation, lack of desire to eat properly, etc. etc., I'm convinced that stress can have a negative effect on health and wellbeing... In Joe Paterno's case, obviously the cancer treatments were tougher on him at his age, but I wouldn't rule out the recent Sandusky related/job related emotional stress from also contributing to his rapid decline in health.

And as far as the "show me the studies" philosophy goes, studies cost money, and somebody has to pay... Often the companies willing to pay are those companies who stand to make a profit on a drug if the study goes their way... Considering that taking steroids to increase athletic performance is usually illegal and almost always prohibited , what steroid manufacturer is going to fund a study to prove or disprove that steroids will or won't enhance athletic performance? So the point is, if there are less sponsors willing to pay for the study, the study has less of a chance of happening...

Often the primary evidence in the case of many potentially harmful substances, and with PEDs inluding steroids, comes not from controlled scientific studies, but from case studies... As imaginary examples: "John, Joe, and Fred just tested positive for steroids, and each recently increased his PB in the 100 from 9.9x to 9.7x".... Or, "John just shot his wife and kids, before killing himself, and medical records show that John had a history of anabolic steroid usage"... etc, etc... It took decades/centuries for controlled studies to finally prove that cigarette smoking was extremely harmful to our health, and I'm sure there are plenty of other substances that we ingest that future studies will also prove to be harmful... But because sufficient or conclusive studies may not have been done yet doesn't mean that those substances are proven safe, or that they're proven not to enhance athletic performance, so the "show me the studies that prove it's bad" arguments don't necessarily hold water with me, unless you can "show me the studies that prove it's good".. JMO

[Pego]

I've seen the health of many patients, and even family members, deteriorate significantly after periods of prolonged emotional stress

This may or may not be a general rule, but that is not what I took an exception to. These two statements I disagreed with as too categorical and hard to define.

stress exacerbates almost any medical condition

It may exacerbate some, definitely not anywhere close to all.

Extreme and prolonged stress elevates cortisol levels. Such elevated levels cause damage to the immune system after a certain amount of time, resulting in diminished physical health.

AIDS damages the immune system. Chemotherapy does. Some other conditions do. Stress may affect it, but as soon as it's over, the immune system recovers just fine.

BTW, there is a lot more to health deterioration than the "immune system."

[Marlow]

BTW, there is a lot more to health deterioration than the "immune system."

Slightly correlated. I think there is something to the notion that the mind has the ability to heal or kill us (akin to the placebo effect or 'autosuggestibility'). One extreme of that is that one can 'will' stigmata??!!
Possible? Impossible?

[Pego]

BTW, there is a lot more to health deterioration than the "immune system."

Slightly correlated. I think there is something to the notion that the mind has the ability to heal or kill us (akin to the placebo effect or 'autosuggestibility'). One extreme of that is that one can 'will' stigmata??!!
Possible? Impossible?

So far, all such claims, when properly investigated, were found without merit. And I mean, properly investigated. Even great minds can be fooled at times. The history abounds by examples.

[DrJay]

Don't look now, pego, but "my immune system is weak " is everywhere, along with claims that antibiotics "weaken" the immune system. See the front page story on Anna Pierce: http://www.universalsports.com/news-blo ... 77929.html

While I tend to believe prolonged stress may cause or at least aggravate some health problems, I appreciate and applaud your desire for rational, scientific proof and for precision in language when discussing such issues. The fact that the Chinese or the residents of Boulder, Colorado have been doing some treatment for an illness for 5000 years is not proof that it works.

[Daisy]

Just to clarify the big assumption in this discussion, did Joe Paterno deteriorate quickly? Given he had lung cancer (I don't know what stage) and his age, maybe he fought it for a typical amount of time before death, or even for longer than his peer group?

[Blues]

Don't look now, pego, but "my immune system is weak " is everywhere, along with claims that antibiotics "weaken" the immune system. See the front page story on Anna Pierce: http://www.universalsports.com/news-blo ... 77929.html

While I tend to believe prolonged stress may cause or at least aggravate some health problems, I appreciate and applaud your desire for rational, scientific proof and for precision in language when discussing such issues. The fact that the Chinese or the residents of Boulder, Colorado have been doing some treatment for an illness for 5000 years is not proof that it works.

Scientific proof is preferable when it's available, but one can still have an informed and logical point of view based on a vast number of experiences or on a multitude of evidence, without necessarily having "scientific proof" or the conclusive results of scientific studies... I hope everyone will at least agree that scientific studies have shown that some of the possible harmful effects of prolonged stress, like sleep deprivation, poor diet, etc., can negatively affect the immune system...

[Pego]

I hope everyone will at least agree that scientific studies have shown that some of the possible harmful effects of prolonged stress, like sleep deprivation, poor diet, etc., can negatively affect the immune system...

I don't think anybody will argue that repetitive kicks in the teeth, sleep deprivation, poor diet and other negative things will affect the individual negatively. My problem with the entire concept is a lot narrower. On the causative side, we are entertaining a lot more than what is physiologically accepted as "stress", on the effect side, we are talking about a lot more systems than the immune.
If somebody simply says, "stress is bad for you", I have no problem.

[Blues]

I hope everyone will at least agree that scientific studies have shown that some of the possible harmful effects of prolonged stress, like sleep deprivation, poor diet, etc., can negatively affect the immune system...

I don't think anybody will argue that repetitive kicks in the teeth, sleep deprivation, poor diet and other negative things will affect the individual negatively. My problem with the entire concept is a lot narrower. On the causative side, we are entertaining a lot more than what is physiologically accepted as "stress", on the effect side, we are talking about a lot more systems than the immune.
If somebody simply says, "stress is bad for you", I have no problem.

I respect you and others not wanting to jump to unwarranted assumptions as many often are quick to do, but at the very least, assuming that prolonged stress can affect sleep and eating habits, I can, if necessary, provide a vast amount of scientific evidence to support my belief that lack of sleep, and less than ideal eating habits, can affect the function and development of various important elements of the immune system, including t-cell function among others... As for the specific direct effects of prolonged emotional stress on the immune system, obviously it's difficult to perform controlled studies, since there's no way to know which, and for how long, subjects of studies will endure emotional stress, and since emotional stress is somewhat subjective, and since it's not so easy to figure out how to obtain baseline levels of immunity in study subjects before the stress began, but I copied and pasted the abstract of one article anyway... Any who disagree can please feel free to dispute any statements in the abstract, and I'll try to find more specific information to support any statements that you disagree with.

Cell Immunol. 2008 Mar-Apr;252(1-2):16-26. Epub 2008 Feb 14.
Stress hormones and immune function.
Webster Marketon JI, Glaser R.
Source
Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Abstract
Over the past 20 years we have demonstrated both in animal models and in human studies that stress increases neuroendocrine hormones, particularly glucocorticoids and catecholamines but to some extent also prolactin, growth hormone and nerve growth factor. We have also shown that stress, through the action of these stress hormones, has detrimental effects on immune function, including reduced NK cell activity, lymphocyte populations, lymphocyte proliferation, antibody production and reactivation of latent viral infections. Such effects on the immune system have severe consequences on health which include, but are not limited to, delayed wound healing, impaired responses to vaccination and development and progression of cancer. These data provide scientific evidence of the effects of stress on immune function and implications for health.

[catson52]

BTW, there is a lot more to health deterioration than the "immune system."

Slightly correlated. I think there is something to the notion that the mind has the ability to heal or kill us (akin to the placebo effect or 'autosuggestibility'). One extreme of that is that one can 'will' stigmata??!!
Possible? Impossible?

Interesting line of thought. I am not sure how many "documented" cases of people having the stigamata there are/were. I understand that though St. Francis is/was the most well known case, many women had it before him. Documentation/testing is obviously problematic. Giotto and others' paintings suggest St. Francis' stigmata were on the palms of his hands. Photographic evidence shows that Brother Pio's (20th century case of stigmata?) were also on the palms. All historical etc. lines of evidence suggests crucifixion took place with nails/spikes driven through the wrist area, not the palms.

[Marlow]

All historical etc. lines of evidence suggests crucifixion took place with nails/spikes driven through the wrist area, not the palms.

All that matters is that an individual THINKS it was thru the palm.

[Pego]

All historical etc. lines of evidence suggests crucifixion took place with nails/spikes driven through the wrist area, not the palms.

All that matters is that an individual THINKS it was thru the palm.

Are you suggesting psychologically induced actual wounds in the places the individual thinks they should be?

[Marlow]

All historical etc. lines of evidence suggests crucifixion took place with nails/spikes driven through the wrist area, not the palms.

All that matters is that an individual THINKS it was thru the palm.

Are you suggesting psychologically induced actual wounds in the places the individual thinks they should be?

That was my original question, to which I think there is a little bit of smoke and I'm wondering if there is indeed some fire. Psychosomatic illness can become very real. I do not think it is outside the realm of possibility that Dimmesdale did have a scarlet letter emblazoned on his bosom!

[Pego]

All historical etc. lines of evidence suggests crucifixion took place with nails/spikes driven through the wrist area, not the palms.

All that matters is that an individual THINKS it was thru the palm.

Are you suggesting psychologically induced actual wounds in the places the individual thinks they should be?

That was my original question, to which I think there is a little bit of smoke and I'm wondering if there is indeed some fire. Psychosomatic illness can become very real. I do not think it is outside the realm of possibility that Dimmesdale did have a scarlet letter emblazoned on his bosom!

It's been over 50 years since I read The Scarlet Letter, so I am rather vague on Dimmesdale (actually, don't remember much of anything of him ;-)). There is no doubt, there are psychophysiological syndromes, but in cases of the stigmata, I am betting on self-induced wounds in every single case.

P.S. What happened to the emoticons. Don't see them anywhere.

[Marlow]

I am betting on self-induced wounds in every single case.
P.S. What happened to the emoticons. Don't see them anywhere.

I'd entertain long odds that you're right, but not ruling it completely out either!
Yeah, to the right it says, "Smilies are ON", but the board bugs must have eaten them.

[Conor Dary]

BTW, there is a lot more to health deterioration than the "immune system."

Slightly correlated. I think there is something to the notion that the mind has the ability to heal or kill us (akin to the placebo effect or 'autosuggestibility'). One extreme of that is that one can 'will' stigmata??!!
Possible? Impossible?

Interesting line of thought. I am not sure how many "documented" cases of people having the stigamata there are/were. I understand that though St. Francis is/was the most well known case, many women had it before him. Documentation/testing is obviously problematic.

You think so...

Some of you should get out and read the Skeptical Inquirer.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stigmata_ ... an_bernas/

[lonewolf]

I think the technical term for mentally induced physical wounds is "hog-wash", or, in the vernacular, "bull-shit".

[Marlow]

Some of you should get out and read the Skeptical Inquirer.

TRUE skeptics know that sometimes they need to skeptical of their skepticism too!
I have little doubt that stigmata are not the result of Believers 'willing' them into the flesh, but I also have little doubt that some people have willed themselves to live or die, depending on their circumstances.

[Pego]

Some of you should get out and read the Skeptical Inquirer.

I've been a subscriber since the 70's. IIRC, the first couple of years of its existence, it was called the Zetetic.

Edited the header.

[DrJay]

...but I also have little doubt that some people have willed themselves to live or die, depending on their circumstances.

Kind of like the old guy in "Little Big Man"?? "It is a good day to die" he says, a little while before the thunderstrom chases him in from his would-be funeral bier. :-)

[catson52]

All historical etc. lines of evidence suggests crucifixion took place with nails/spikes driven through the wrist area, not the palms.

All that matters is that an individual THINKS it was thru the palm.

That would seem to be obvious.

"Marlow" True skeptics know that sometimes they need to skeptical of their skepticism too! I have little doubt that stigmata are not the result of Believers 'willing' them into the flesh, but I also have little doubt that some people have willed themselves to live or die, depending on their circumstances.[/quote]

Not sure how your two statements go together. So what goes on with those that are said to have "displayed" the stigmata? Was St. Francis a closet "surgeon"? Are we to seriously question whether he had the stigmata at all? Or is it divine intervention?

[Marlow]

True skeptics know that sometimes they need to skeptical of their skepticism too! I have little doubt that stigmata are not the result of Believers 'willing' them into the flesh, but I also have little doubt that some people have willed themselves to live or die, depending on their circumstances.

Not sure how your two statements go together. So what goes on with those that are said to have "displayed" the stigmata? Was St. Francis a closet "surgeon"? Are we to seriously question whether he had the stigmata at all? Or is it divine intervention?

The debunked stigmatists were self-mutilating. They certainly all had wounds, but the origin was not clear and pointed towards the individuals using something, sometimes their own fingernails to create the wounds.

[Conor Dary]

Some of you should get out and read the Skeptical Inquirer.

I've been a subscriber since the 70's. IIRC, the first couple of years of its existence, it was called the Zetetic.

Edited the header.

I remember you saying that before.

An old friend of mine, Ray Hyman of the University of Oregon was on the founding members of the group that publishes the magazine. Here is a picture from 1977 at Hayward Field with Hyman second from right. And he is still going strong.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-OqcM6YX1kWI/Td_X3 ... 520001.jpg

[Pego]

Some of you should get out and read the Skeptical Inquirer.

I've been a subscriber since the 70's. IIRC, the first couple of years of its existence, it was called the Zetetic.

Edited the header.

I remember you saying that before.

An old friend of mine, Ray Hyman of the University of Oregon was on the founding members of the group that publishes the magazine. Here is a picture from 1977 at Hayward Field with Hyman second from right. And he is still going strong.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-OqcM6YX1kWI/Td_X3 ... 520001.jpg

How old is he? I have not seen his contributions in years.

[Conor Dary]

How old is he? I have not seen his contributions in years.

83. I saw Ray in October at our Noon Group 50 year reunion. He is doing pretty well and still running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hyman

He still gets his name in the press from time to time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/scien ... wanted=all

[Brian]

AIDS damages the immune system. Chemotherapy does. Some other conditions do. Stress may affect it, [b]but as soon as it's over, the immune system recovers just fine.[/b] BTW, there is a lot more to health deterioration than the "immune system."

What if it isn't "over" until it's too late? Until complete recovery is no longer possible?

Aids, chemo--you're thinking only in the relative short term.

Like every other system and/or process in the human body, the immune system is capable of deterioration. Once something deteriorates to a certain point it may be unable to again "right" itself and it is then damaged [compromised] forever.

Extended periods of stress/lengthy periods of elevated cortisol levels can cause damage (as I pointed you toward in my Mayo Clinic references when asked). Too much damage for too long can cross a line. That's not a difficult concept for anyone to grasp.

In a way, it's like athletics training: stress the organism, allow adequate recovery, and the organism adapts and is actually stronger/faster.

But if there's insufficient or NO recovery---? If the stress continues for the long term--?

Pego wrote:
If somebody simply says, "stress is bad for you", I have no problem.

Funny, that is exactly what I said.

Brian wrote:
Extreme and prolonged stress elevates cortisol levels. Such elevated levels cause damage to the immune system after a certain amount of time, resulting in diminished physical health.


And you seemed to have a LOT of problems with it.

Pego wrote:
1. The source, please.
2. What is meant by "stress?" The standard definition as originally designed by Selye, or anything bad happening to you?
3. What is "extreme?"
4. What is "prolonged?"
5. What is "diminished physical health?"


Well, glad to see you've come around.
:]

Truce?
.

[Pego]

Truce?

Fine with me :-).

[catson52]

True skeptics know that sometimes they need to skeptical of their skepticism too! I have little doubt that stigmata are not the result of Believers 'willing' them into the flesh, but I also have little doubt that some people have willed themselves to live or die, depending on their circumstances.

Not sure how your two statements go together. So what goes on with those that are said to have "displayed" the stigmata? Was St. Francis a closet "surgeon"? Are we to seriously question whether he had the stigmata at all? Or is it divine intervention?

The debunked stigmatists were self-mutilating. They certainly all had wounds, but the origin was not clear and pointed towards the individuals using something, sometimes their own fingernails to create the wounds.

So, does Saint Francis (and less seriously Brother Pio) make the debunked stigmatists list? I think the case of Saint Francis - arguably the leading Christian figure of the second millenium, Luther being a raging anti-Semite - is worth another look. This from a non-Christian. (Perhaps we should argue that it cannot be "proved" that SF was a stigmatist.)

[tandfman]

A biography of Mr. Paterno is in the works. There's a long and interesting story at nytimes.com about Paterno, his biography and his biographer, and the impact of the Sandusky scandal on all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/sport ... apter.html

[Conor Dary]

Article does not have a whole lot that is new. Except for all of the animosity PS lunatics have for him, which is not too surprising.

A better read is the review of Robert Cato's fourth installment of his great LBJ bio.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/books ... l?ref=arts

[tandfman]

A better read is the review of Robert Cato's fourth installment of his great LBJ bio.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/books ... l?ref=arts

Perhaps, but we didn't have a previous thread on Cato's LBJ bio.

[Conor Dary]

A better read is the review of Robert Cato's fourth installment of his great LBJ bio.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/books ... l?ref=arts

Perhaps, but we didn't have a previous thread on Cato's LBJ bio.

Did we? Well the first volume was published in 1982, so that would make sense that we would have had one by now.

Anyways, I have no intention of reading the Paterno book, but will read Cato's.

[26mi235]

There is "What have you been reading"; my favorite (non-track) thread.