Talk:Hypoadrenia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hypoadrenia redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

I

I know this is a vague topic. But they are widely enough referred to as a term, that there ought to be an article covering the three of them. I just don't know what belongs in it, as I'm no expert. So I have drafted a brief attempt at an introduction, set up redirects from "adrenal exhaustion" and "adrenal fatigue" to this article, and leave it to others more to fill in the rest more fully and accurately. FT2 06:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in this! I am not an editor just here to help. Go to pubmed's website [1], type in melatonin and RA (rheumatoid arthritis), click on first couple links and then follow the yellow brick road of related articles to the right hand side of the page. The is significant discussion on this real disease. late at night Sept 17 2006 by Doc Salah.

NPOV

I'm not a huge expert on this, but lines like "Could it be that the adrenal glands and adrenal fatigue or insufficiency do in fact explain so many psychological and psychiatric disorders so well that such explanations pose a threat to the mental health and pharmacology industry by replacing psychotrophic drugs and therapy with a common sense lifestyle?" seem seriously NPOV to me, heh. Could a more experienced editor take a crack at it? I'll take a go myself tomorrow if no-one else steps in. There's nothing wrong with including opinions like that, but only with proper attribution; in the article it's said in a very leading, suggestive way, it's clear the author is advocating his own point of view. Kupos 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, working on fixing this up a bit. I cut out a huge chunk of the introduction - it was an interesting viewpoint, but it was more of an indictment of modern lifestyles than a neutral summary of the issue. I'm cutting out the quote about herbal remedies too, it wasn't really presented neutrally, and I doubt it's an opinion with mainstream acceptance. I also made a minor fix in the paragraph about the adrenal glands in the introduction. They don't derive their name from "adrenaline", the name is derived from "ad-renal", literally "on the kidney". Adrenaline derives its name from them. Kupos 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took away the NPOV warning, it looks okay to me now, although I admit I had to chop out a lot. If you have any problems with this, please put the NPOV warning back and we'll see what we can do.Kupos 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

name and cause may be bunk but not the condition itself

I have an illness highly consistant with syptoms associated with "hypoadrenia". It may not have a maintream-accepted cause yet, but the descriptions here and elsewhere are far too specific and accurate for me to think the condition itself is bunk. I hope more research is done in this area.

Powanikutin 19:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC) I have been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, and it's symptoms are consistant with the description of the hypothesised hypoadrenia. As I've lived through a life that there was constantly an emergency, (and even now I am always expecting an emergency to pop up) or stressful situation. I would like to hear more about this as it explains a lot.[reply]

I was diagnosed with Panic disorder with Agorophobia, and during therapy I got this book called the Anxiety and Phobia Workbook, and in it has a section on possible causes, including adrenal exaustion. Now I've lived a massively stressed out life, kinda like you guys are suggesting, and mysteriously about four years ago out of the blue I developed a wheat allergy. It's not celiacs desease, I can eat spelt and I'm fine. And I have no family history of this, nor in my personal background. But what that little portion in that book described what adrenal exaustion was, and its exactly what I have. And it gave some suggestions, like beyond the normal routine of dealing with anxiety disorder, it mentioned taking certain vitimins and suppliments. So far I've been taking B Complex, Ester C and Licorice root, and I'm actually amazed at the result. My wheat allergy is starting to lessen signifigantly, so far about once a week I can eat out and not get sick, so long as I'm not in a situation that escalates the panic attack. So I'm not going to say this book "has the cure," but whoever said this condition isn't recognized by mainstream science is under a mistaken impression, because both my medical doctor and my psychologist were familiar with the condition and OKed the treatment. And they aren't "alternative medicine" doctors, they both have PHDs.--Arkcana 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the reversal of 29 May edit

My edit on 29 May has been reversed because I added 'unverifiable assertions'. 'Light-sensitivity' is a symptom of 'adrenal fatigue' according to [Dr Rind], for example. The test for orthostatic hypotension and the test for tenderness around the kidney area on the back are found on [Dr Kaslow's site]. The test for poor pupil constriction is seen in [an article by a Dr Townsend].

There are other supposed tests which I forgot to mention in my edit. They are the daily temperature chart method, the saliva lab test, and the ACTH stimulation test (as can be found using Google). I don't feel I can write any more about this as I am unsure as to whether my changes would be reversed again, wasting my time.

None of the other assertions in the article seem to be 'verified'. It is silly for the mainstream medicine camp to try to claim hypoadrenia as a hypothesis for mainstream medicine (as appears to be the case in this article), when it is very much fringe medicine. The tests and the symptom (light-sensitivity) I tried to include in the article can be said to form part of the hypoadrenia hypothesis, as they are clearly recognised in complementary medicine. None of the other symptoms listed in the article have the same justification the 'light-sensitivity' symptom I tried to add; this is my justification.

Ultimately, I have to call in to question the impartiality of this article and some of its editors. Is 'hypoadrenia' purely a formal hypothesis of conventional medicine, with a list of symptoms decreed by 'the establishment', or is it a shared ground of conventional and alternative medicines? If it is the former, might I suggest that 'adrenal fatigue' and 'adrenal exhaustion' should no longer redirect to this 'hypoadrenia' article? --GrimRC 84.9.199.71 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you have taken the reversion personally. Unfortunately, not all assertions made on the internet instantly meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines regarding verifiability. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are the two references that immediately come to mind should you wish clarification. -AED 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I wouldn't take the reversion personally, but I was alarmed by it. I was interpreting your motives by your actions, and I got the impression that you (and I'm sure others) were biasing towards the orthodox medical establishment(s). I still hold that this is true, but not deliberately so. Those Wikipedia links you give are very helpful and make me realise that alternative medicine is going to be handicapped by Wikipedia's rules/guidelines, as alternative medicine is less often discussed in reputable publications (almost by definition).

I do agree with the 'citations needed' tag. I suppose one probably could find decent sources for everything contained in the article, and for my suggested additions, but unfortunately I am too busy to do this at this time. My point about the controversy over the 'ownership' of the ideas of 'hypoadrenia', 'adrenal fatigue' and 'adrenal exhaustion' by the different medical establishments still stands. Wikipedia does need to cover 'flat Earth' theories somehow.

Anyway, thanks for your help and patience. Eventually, I hope, this article (or others?) will satisfactorily represent the contradictory views on the extent and limits of adrenal illness. --GrimRC 84.9.197.253 00:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

name is bogus. hypo-adrenia? aw. adrenal exhaustion? on prolonged stress adrenal glands OVERGROW. this cause feedback problem, and other problems, like excess corticosteroids , accumulation of fat, while not enough adrenaline (as feedback is based on cortisol, not adrenaline)

That's not exactly accurate. The "hypo" means that the adrenal gland is not functioning properly by not releasing enough hormones ("hyper" would mean excess), as the body cannot cope with the constant demand (hence, adrenal fatigue and adrenal exhaustion). There is a disorder opposite to this called Cushing's Syndrome, in which the cortisol levels are too high. Some of the symptoms overlap between the two disorders. Cushing's Syndrome leads to an accumulation of fat. It is true that people who are depressed and have panic disorders may often have high cortisol levels, but the opposite is also true. And that is what's being discussed in this article, not Cushing's Syndrome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.160.129.65 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

i suggest considering merging the article with article about post-traumatic-stress-disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTSD

Hmmm...

I was recently diagnosed with hypoadrenocorticism, which is adrenal exhaustion. I took a saliva test, as recommended by my doctor, and the results show that I was ridiculously low on the hormones secreted from the adrenal glands. I have been extremely depressed and constantly stressed out for the past five months, so it was no wonder I was running on empty. But based on the symptoms, I think that I have had lower adrenal function for many years (basically as long as I've been depressed). My life has been profoundly affected by this, and I am excited at the thought of actually feeling good for once, both physically and mentally. I don't know what's going on with this disorder and "mainstream" medicine, but this article seemed to me to hint that this disorder is made up. I know that it is not. And while "alternative" medicine may not have so many published findings, all I know is I was miserable for five months and traditional medicine didn't help at all. I went to a naturopathic physician for the first time ever, and in three weeks he helped me turn my life around. I don't know how it works, but it should not be so discounted and made to sound less valid.140.160.129.65 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is definitely biased

It has a tone that suggests the condition is a false disease, thought up by "alternative" practitioners. Fact is, I know of many doctors: MD's and endocrinologists, that consider this a very real condition and test and treat it in their practice. Fadein 21:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to cite articles then... MDs and endocrinologists you know does not make it a real disorder. If medicine would still work that way we would still use phlebotomy for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.144.100 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoadrenia vs "relative" hypoadrenia

I am a clinical administrator at a multi-disciplinary health clinic (MD, DC, and physical therapy). We do test for this in our patients, and I tested positive for it myself and am taking adrenal support supplements with excellent success thus far. I wanted to point out an excellent non-internet source that draws the distinction between hypoadrenia and "relative" hypoadrenia. The article I read was from Applied Kinesiology by David S. Walther (ISBN 0-929721-00-4) Pp.470-479. This is a fairly extensive article that talks about the difference between complete and catastrophic adrenal failure versus relative dysfunction of the adrenals. There are also associated symptoms listed and testing to confirm the diagnosis. It was published in 1988, so it is nearly 20 years old, but I'm sure there is some new research available on the subject.

Anyway, the distinction I wanted to draw here is that as far back as the 80's, clinical texts have been trying to discern where the disease (and maybe it's better to call it a disorder, since in my case it was easily correctable with proper vitamin supplementation) starts. We all know where it ends with things like Addison's disease, but between a healthy individual and someone with Addison's disease is a person whose adrenals are on the way towards failure. That is where Walther stated that "relative" hypoadrenia comes in and starts producing frustrating, panacea-like (but possibly diagnose-able) symptomatology.

Walther acknowledged in the article the strong possibility of misdiagnosis or of health professionals failing to recognize the symptoms at all, but given the importance of the diagnosis to people who suffer from this problem (and the relatively simple and preventative treatment of vitamin supplements) I would say it is unwise and possibly irrisponsible to marginalize those who seek treatment for it by suggesting that hypoadrenia is a fringey or non-standard diagnosis. The question of mainstream versus non-mainstream status is a moot one. Mainstream medicine "preventatively "screens for cancer in millions of patients with no symptoms at all. It would seem negligently inconsistent to not preventitively screen patients who are already showing symptomatology associated with adrenal dysfunction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomerwiki (talk • contribs) 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of unanswered questions:

I'd be interested to see a section on how Hypoadrenia is diagnosed. I noted the list of symptoms, but wonder how these symptoms become attributed to Hypoadrenia.

Under "biological background", I am curious about the statement:

"Organs such as the brain, the endocrine system-- including the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, and the various glands contained therein, which were not evolved for, or designed to handle and respond optimally to, constant stimulation may therefore, under modern social conditions, become constantly or abnormally stimulated. "

Perhaps this is not the place for a comprehensive discussion of this, but I'd like to see a little support for the first part that asserts these systems were not evolved for constant stress. I can easily imagine conditions in prehistoric situations that might generate stress for very long times --- famine, competition for habitat, migration, climate change, prolonged illnesses, etc. As a species, our survival seems to suggest we have some ability to adapt to these things.

12.168.233.77 (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)dennyc[reply]

This entry is not neutral!

I'm not an expert in this subject, or I would definitely edit this! It is very disappointing to read an article entry that is written from start to finish in a biased way, inferring that this condition "isn't real". I'd like to see some science for BOTH positions. That would at least make it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AspenRivers (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be looking for adrenal insufficiency, which is the "real" condition. This is primarily an alternative-medicine concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]