• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Exercise to avoid Bird Flu?

SkepticalScience

Thinker
S
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
225
Someone please help!

I just overheard someone at work say, “I don’t understand what the big deal is with the Bird Flu. If you eat right and exercise, you’re not going to get it. Children, the elderly, and people who are generally unhealthy are the ones that should worry.”

???


That’s gotta be wrong on so many levels, but I am not sure where to start. I’m pretty sure exercising isn’t going to protect you against the Bird Flu, but I am no biologist.

I am going to have a meeting with this girl later on today and would like a nice reply if anyone has one. I won’t be able to contain brining up what I overheard.

Thanks in advance,
SS
 
Perhaps she misunderstood something she read or heard on the news. I think (and I'm no expert) that the bird flu is like the other "evil" diseases that have have surfaced in recent years. It's more likely children, the elderly, and people who are generally unhealthy will die from it. A healthy person can contract the disease, but a healthy person can actually can recover.

Again, I'm not an expert, and it might have been me who misunderstood.
 
Phil,

I believe you've got it. Like most flus, those with a lesser immune system (for whatever reason) are more likely to suffer a fatal or highly debilitating form of the illness. These include, as mentioned, children, the elderly, and those who already have other diseases and/or treatments that can weaken a person. ANYONE can catch it, but for generally healthy people with no outstanding issues, it's just a bad case of the flu, and not a fatal illness.

Again, though, I could be wrong as well. Just adding in that what I heard coincides with what you've stated. :)
 
No, not this flu. The healthiest people are the ones most likely to be overcome (killed) by a cytokine storm response. Yes, the very weak will be in trouble as well.
 
According to WHO, most cases (more than half of them fatal) in
the present outbreak have been "among previously healthy children
and young adults".

WHO's site is here (can't post links yet)

w w w.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/en/index.html
 
The fit elderly might be least affected since they may have immune memory from prior flu exposure.
 
Last night on the radio I heard a discussion about small backyard poultry keepers and bird flu. There was concern that such people were being frowned on by their neighbours, and it was being questioned whether they should in fact bring their birds indoors.

Someone who should have known better then said, well, these birds have so much better health and lifestyles that hopefully they wouldn't get bird flu anyway.

:hb:

Rolfe.
 
I haven't heard much followup on that study that the South Koreans did, that found that kimchi is a (preventative? cure?) for the bird flu.

I make kimchi at home and I guess I will keep stocked up.

I was just wondering how they got the birds to eat it.
 
Bowser said:
No, not this flu. The healthiest people are the ones most likely to be overcome (killed) by a cytokine storm response. Yes, the very weak will be in trouble as well.
Click to expand...

Bowser, do you have reliable sources for this?

I'm admittedly ignorant of advanced medical science, so a cytokine storm response is a fascinating concept/anomaly that I had not heard of before. (I learn so much on this forum.) But a quick Google search (and I stress quick) returned a couple of sources that say something to the effect "a “cytokine storm” has been suggested as an explanation for the devastating nature of the 1918 flu and perhaps H5N1".

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just wondering if there is sufficient evidence to support the suggestion.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm too busy/lazy to research it further.
 
Phil, I'm not sure the extent to which it has been confirmed for the 1918 flu (the indications are certainly tehre), but it is well documented for h5n1. We have discussed this issue before on this forum, so one of the recent threads might be a place to start if you missed out on previous links. h5n1, at this time, is a much more serious flu than what we are used to. I believe one of the implications of a cytokine storm is that this flu is more likely to kill directly, whereas we are used to the secondary infections like pneumonia being the reason people usually die of flu. One of the concerns with potential anti-viral medicines, which might be fine for common flu, is to choose one that will NOT aggravate the "bad" cytokines.
 
SkepticalScience said:
I'm admittedly ignorant of advanced medical science, so a cytokine storm response is a fascinating concept/anomaly that I had not heard of before. [...] a couple of sources that say something to the effect "a cytokine storm has been suggested as an explanation for the devastating nature of the 1918 flu and perhaps H5N1".
Click to expand...
You're right; "cytokine storm" remains somewhat hypothetical. Cytokine action is complicated; there are hundreds of different cytokines, and the same one may have different effects at different times depending on what else is going on. We do know that cytokines can stimulate the production of more cytokines, which in turn stimulate the production of more cytokines, etc. Under normal circumstances, this process is carefully regulated by the immune system, but in the face of a particularly virulent pathogen, it may spin out of control. Among the consequences of such an out-of-control positive feedback loop are a (potentially fatal) buildup of fluids and macrophages, and tissue damage (and the accompanying deitrus) from the effects of proinflammitory cytokines (such as interferon-gamma and interleukin-12).

However incomplete our understanding of cytokines may be, the demographics of earlier pandemics (1918 in particular) clearly show that while being young and healthy may help you get through whatever strain of seasonal flu happens to be making the rounds, it isn't likely to offer much protection against pandemic flu.

I imagine that the naivete currently so prevalent among the general public would be swept away quite summarily during the first wave of a pandemic.
 
The actual demographics of the 1918/19 flu epidemic have been well-documented for Western Europe and the USA. It was indeed young, healthy adults who suffered (i.e. died) disproportionately from that epidemic. It has been suggested that that is because of an over-reaction by the immune system, something known from other illnesses. Documenting that for 1918/19 is obviously impossible, given the level of technology then. However, the suggestion makes good sense, is well compatible with what is known from other illnesses, and explains the demographics of lethality with the 1918/19 epidemic.

Example documentation, from here:
Taubenberger (1) that reported deaths resulting from the influenza and pneumonia for the 15-34-year-old cohort was 20 times higher in 1918 than any previous time, and 99% of excess deaths among people under 65 years of age.
.....
Taubenberger J. On the Trail of History's Most Lethal Virus. ASM News Issues. 1999;65:7–.
Click to expand...

For deeper docmentation, you would be best served looking at these books:

The Devil's Flu : The World's Deadliest Influenza Epidemic and the Scientific Hunt for the Virus That Caused It , by Peter Davies

America's Forgotten Pandemic : The Influenza of 1918, by Alfred Crosby

Otherwise, do a MEDLINE search.
 
SkepticalScience said:
Someone please help!

I just overheard someone at work say, “I don’t understand what the big deal is with the Bird Flu. If you eat right and exercise, you’re not going to get it. Children, the elderly, and people who are generally unhealthy are the ones that should worry.”

???


That’s gotta be wrong on so many levels, but I am not sure where to start. I’m pretty sure exercising isn’t going to protect you against the Bird Flu, but I am no biologist.

I am going to have a meeting with this girl later on today and would like a nice reply if anyone has one. I won’t be able to contain brining up what I overheard.

Thanks in advance,
SS
Click to expand...

Complete BS. The 1918 flu pandemic got started on a military base in Kansas. Within two days after the first case, over 500 men contracted the disease. These were typical military recruits, young men between 18-22 years of age in excellent health. It did not originate, nor did the pandemic get its foothold in the U.S., through people in poor health or people who just did not exercise. Yes, the elderly and infirm were more likely to die, but this strain was remarkable for how lethal it was to even young, healthy individuals. There is no reason I know of to suppose this new flu should be any different.
 
TX50 said:
According to WHO, most cases (more than half of them fatal) in
the present outbreak have been "among previously healthy children
and young adults".

WHO's site is here

www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/en/index.html
Click to expand...
Possibly something to do with young and healthy people most likely to be exposed to it? Working with the birds, collecting eggs and whatnot? Not necessarily directly related to their youth or health, is all I'm saying. But still an effective statistic to bring up with the young woman mentioned in the OP.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Possibly something to do with young and healthy people most likely to be exposed to it?
Click to expand...
No.
Take a look at who actually works with ducks and chickens in China and Vietnam; it is not only the young and healthy, it is every member of a poultry-owning rural family in those places. In poultry businesses, equally not only te young and healthy are hired there.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Possibly something to do with young and healthy people most likely to be exposed to it? Working with the birds, collecting eggs and whatnot?
Click to expand...
Kids tend to be less fastidious about hygene in general, and this does place them at higher risk of exposure, but this is true of seasonal flu as well. The demographics of H5N1 in its current form are not particularly relevant to the pattern we'd expect in a pandemic strain anyway, and this is clearly what the OP's "someone at work" was referring to. Eating right and exercising are going to do approximately squat to help fight off the virus once one has been exposed (and probably don't have nearly as much to do with the severity of symptoms from ordinary seasonal flu as does one's personal history of previous exposure to similar strains).

I'd focus more on ways to lower one's chances of being exposed in the first place.
 
Rolfe said:
Last night on the radio I heard a discussion about small backyard poultry keepers and bird flu. There was concern that such people were being frowned on by their neighbours, and it was being questioned whether they should in fact bring their birds indoors.

Someone who should have known better then said, well, these birds have so much better health and lifestyles that hopefully they wouldn't get bird flu anyway.

:hb:

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Never underestimate the stupidity of the general populace!
 
RichardR said:
Complete BS. The 1918 flu pandemic got started on a military base in Kansas. Within two days after the first case, over 500 men contracted the disease. These were typical military recruits, young men between 18-22 years of age in excellent health. It did not originate, nor did the pandemic get its foothold in the U.S., through people in poor health or people who just did not exercise. Yes, the elderly and infirm were more likely to die, but this strain was remarkable for how lethal it was to even young, healthy individuals. There is no reason I know of to suppose this new flu should be any different.
Click to expand...
John Barry's analysis is that it *very likely* started at that military base in the early spring of 1918. Although always highly contagious it was not highly lethal until late summer. He also makes the point that when it turned lethal it was killing a much higher proportion of 20 to 35 year olds than would be expected for flu. The initial reports of a very mild disease were considered too mild to be flu. The subsequent initial reports of a very lethal disease were considered too virulent to be flu and therefore more likely something like meningitis or black plague or something entirely new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom