Talk:Fatigue (medical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

References[edit]

Needs one or more references to cover the content, added tag.--FloNight 22:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Solutions[edit]

What are solution suggustions for fatigue (physical)

Edit summary[edit]

I meant of course[1]: people who capitalise every medical condition. JFW | T@lk 15:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"MN"[edit]

Someone needs to explain or expand on what MN is (see Types section), and preferably also add it to the MN page

picture[edit]

the picture is pretty random and not really needed. if a picture is there please let it show detail and be useful and contributive (not sure that's a word :)). a closeup of certain symptoms maybe would work better.

I am not certain that the article got more user friendly by removing its only photo. 81.214.51.85 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-biological fatigue?[edit]

Something is missing from an article on fatigue that does not mention metal. I am not an engineer, but have heard engineers refer to fatigued metal causing accidents, or old metal being fatigued and therefore no longer stable. It should probably be a seperate article from biological fatigue and a disambiguation page created; but I don't know enough about it to write an article.

The article you are looking for is Fatigue (material). --Arcadian 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lethargy vs. Fatigue[edit]

Describing (redirecting) lethargy as (to) fatigue is a misnomer. Lethargy is not necessarily a subset of fatigue. Ancient spiritual practices such as Buddhism recognized lethargy as an affliction of the mind and described antidotes to counteract its effects.

Another Editor:

I agree with the above comment regarding Lethargy. I was redirected to Fatigue when searching for Lethargy, however this does not seem correct as Lethargy is a state of mind and not a physical thing.

An excerpt from FreeDictionary.com

Lethargy: 1. A state of sluggishness, inactivity, and apathy. 2. A state of unconsciousness resembling deep sleep.

Fatigue (Dictionary.net): 1. Weariness from bodily labor or mental exertion; lassitude or exhaustion of strength. 2. The cause of weariness; labor; toil; as, the fatigues of war. --Dryden. 3. The weakening of a metal when subjected to repeated vibrations or strains.

There is some ambiguity in the definitions, however as we know dictionaries are often ambiguous and sometimes wrong.

I would say that Lethargy(1) is the best description for lethargy.

My understanding is that Fatigue is more of an 'effect', whereas lethargy is a mental state.

If someone could make an article on Lethargy that would be great!

For lethargy think sloth. For fatigue think tiredness.

I agree. Lethargy has its own medical and lay definition and should most certainly not redirect to fatigue. Kajerm 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


I attended a lecture the other day that proposed the adoption of the word 'lasitude' in clinical contexts in order to distinguish it from general, non-medical fatigue and therefore help to redefine the real problem to make it more accepted by employers and insurance companies, etc. It was a great lecture and will no doubt have impact in this area in the future. Someone who cares might want to follow up on this. I would help, I'm sure, if I had the name of the researcher . . . but again, someone who cares more . . .


I too agree. Lethargy isn't fatigue, a simple definition check via answers.com or other sources makes this note clear. As does the original commenter. --Jeremyhfht 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's 2010, & LETHARGY still redirects to FATIGUE. Who's going to fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the lethargy article to offer a redirect to Wiktionary. James Gabriel II (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Fatigue (physical)Fatigue (medical) — "Fatigue (physical)", while intended to disambiguate this use of "fatigue" from the other major meaning Fatigue (material), is still somewhat ambiguous. Fatigue (medical) would probably be a better page name. Nihiltres 19:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion[edit]

  • With no opposition, I've moved the page. —Mets501 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Exhaustion[edit]

There needs to be a seperate article for exhaustion. Although exhaustion includes fatigue, fatigue does not include exhaustion, since exhaustion refers to the end result of fatigue.

Does this make sense? Didn't think so! lol Paul Norfolk Dumpling 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing the Fatigue article[edit]

I purpose that we begin to finally edit the fatigue(medical) article to remove the apparent misconception that Lethargy and Fatigue are one in the same. A prior discussion (Lethargy vs. Fatigue) shows they are in fact, quite different.

That said, I will begin by editing the fatigue article so it's more centered around fatigue, and less around statements of lethargy. Since I am new to this, I request that everyone aid in this effort. If something is not satisfactory with my edits (or you have suggestions), please feel free to fix it.

Finally, after the fatigue article is back to rights, I will begin making an article on Lethargy, so as to remove that incorrect redirect. If there is no opposition to this, I'll continue it as planned within the next few days/weeks (depending on my free time).

Summarization of what my fixes will be: Cleaned up fatigue article, more sources, simpler wording, better explanations, and removal of excess/needless words.--Jeremyhfht 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

List[edit]

There's a list in the article that is said to be incomplete; what is it a list of?

-- TimNelson 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it?[edit]

"• Level 7 - Fatiguers who reach this level will face such immense pain, it is cruel that they are still living"

"it is cruel that they are still living": I did have a laugh when reading it, but this should definitely be erased.

131.111.248.179 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What lies... this does exist!! Anybody who removed the Lingering Fatigue article needs to reconsider their lives!! Fatigue is a huge problem in the world today, and may be the cause of all the pain and suffering out there... it is our job to notify the world of this terrible disease!! We must put the aritcle on lingering fatigue back!!


Pregnancy[edit]

Can pregnancy really be classified a disease? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.242.46 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ANYONE WITH CHRONIC FATIGUE AND PAINS SHOULD LOOK INTO LYME DISEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.52.37 (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

List of causes - silly[edit]

It doesn't make much sense to have a huge unclassified list of diseases which may make you tired. More diseases make you tired than don't. Either split them up or remove the list. (I know, I know, I should do it). Nick Bell 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I made some progress on the long list. I cut several autoimmune diseases and put in Autoimmune diseases, for example. Can anyone figure out a way to further shorten/improve the list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
the entire article is kind of silly if you think about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talkcontribs) 02:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a silly, stupid list, but I changed it to List of Diseases and Conditions... just because ... well pregnancy isn't really a disease, and neither were some of the others on the list. It'll do for now. --Dru89 (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it should just be removed entirely. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fatigue in Military Flight Operations -- Adding names for fidelity[edit]

The pioneering field work done by the two inidividuals listed will likely pay dividends in addressing fatigue and human performance in non-military endeavors, such as railroad, nuclear power, shipping, disaster relief, and civil aviation. Fatigue data and human performance algorithm validation are scientific by-products of the U.S. involvement in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This work would not have occured without the personal effort and innovation of the individuals listed. The government, per se, did not do this. The individuals did. Dr. Hursch's SAFTE model had been validated in some railroad and highway applications, but not in the extreme environment of combat. In many ways, the extremes of combat accurately model the stress found in other high stakes positions such as civil aviation, air traffic control, shipping in major harbors, law enforcement, et cetera. After a two-year study contrasting human performance, vis-a-vis fatigue, in peacetime aviation versus combat aviation, the SAFTE algorithm had to be modified. I've chosen to add the names of two prominent researchers/innovators who insisted that the U.S. government conduct this research and make the necessary changes to the fatigue model. Despite their affiliation with the U.S. Government, the two individuals listed have presented their results internationally, in both military and non-military applications. By recognizing the contributions of prominent innovators in our wiki space and other places, such innovation is encouraged and "naturally selected" by the government. In between other research, I will provide ongoing references to this research in the wiki page. Because individuals conceived and created these advances in the state of the art, the names of the innovators are relevant. KnockItOff (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand that their work was important. However, you haven't answered my question: Why should the general reader care about the names of the individuals? Why can't this information be placed in a properly formatted citation to their work, instead of in the main text? What difference does it make to the general reader if the funding was secured by Lt Col Vaughan instead of J. Random Scientist? Remember that we're writing for the general reader, not for someone whose scientific ambition may be piqued by the possibility of getting his name mentioned in Wikipedia some day.
It is not normal, in medicine-related articles, to make a big deal out of the individuals involved in any single study. In this specific article, we aren't naming the people that discovered microsleeps, the NASA employees that testified before Congress, the NTSB people that figured out how badly fatigue affects flights. Then we get into military-specific issues, and suddenly we're name dropping all over the place. Why should military-related research be different from everything else? Why is Lt Col Vaughan more important than any other person that has ever done anything with fatigue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of any justification for promoting the names of these specific people, I'll plan to remove them sometime in the near future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

update[edit]

The stuff about FAST has been moved, complete with the inappropriate name-dropping, to Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool. All the non-medical information about flying an airplane has been moved to Fatigue (safety), where it belongs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence[edit]

The opening sentence is trash. "Fatigue is a weariness." Really guys? Really? --71.191.138.221 (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fatigue by lack of exertion[edit]

Adrenal Fatigue...where you're tired reguardless of how much or little you sleep, & you hardly ever move when awake, & when you do move, it exausts you, & sleeping & eating food barely help restore energy, & even caffeine doesn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Type[edit]

Under this section, there seems to be a sentence at the end of mental fatigue that seems out of place. Just thought I would point that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.63 (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Physical fatigue[edit]

What is a "test of hell" mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Physical fatigue section? 83.141.93.34 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just WP:Vandalism. When you run across oddities like this, you might like to check the recent changes in the page's history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Normal definition[edit]

What I was hoping for in this article was a simplified biological description of why healthy people feel tired after activity. Is that on the 'pedia somewhere? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I deleted "* Tiredness — Information leaflet from mental health charity The Royal College of Psychiatrists" because it is extremely inaccurate regarding "chronic fatigue syndrome." It has a lot of misinformation in there because it is based on the throughly discredited "Sharpe 1991" defintion of "CFS." That definition defines only Idiopathic Chronic Fatigue which is NOT "CFS." Pls write here and on my talk page if you want to discuss or edit. Thank you! JustinReilly (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for the discrediting of Sharpe or the misinformation in this pamphlet? Unless the Royal College of Psychiatrists is widely and verifiably regarded as discredited, let's keep the link. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't really care one way or the other about the link, but about two-thirds of the linked page is about non-CFS fatigue anyway, and the majority of the page is probably appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Unless a link is overtly commercial or off-topic, I'm usually inclined to keep it, and this one looks OK to me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Mental fatigue vs. somnolence[edit]

From the article: "Mental fatigue, on the other hand, rather manifests in somnolence (sleepiness)." This is simply not true. Normal mental tiredness can result in somnolence. But fatigue, which is more severe, actually makes it difficult to sleep. When you're really, really tired, the body actually prevents you from sleeping, because you need rest rather than sleep. Psychiatric wards are full of mentally fatigued people who can't sleep. High-stress work enviroments also produce mentally fatigued people who can't sleep. Colin Powell said: "Everybody here uses Ambien." I seriously doubt his difficulties with sleep resulted from a lack of mental work. It's obvious it's the other way around: Too much mental work at day and you can't sleep at night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.106.67 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Very interesting to read about the difference between fatigue and weakness. It would be good with a section on treatment. (Apart from resting, what more is recommended? Any scientific studies on what helps best?) (I would do it myself but I don't know the first thing about it...) Lova Falk talk 08:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think that the treatment for abnormal fatigue (more than just having a long or busy day) is to treat whatever the underlying cause is, e.g., if you are fatigued due to anemia, then treat anemia, and the fatigue should go away.
But I've heard that cardiac patients can get special training about how to cope with fatigue. I remember being told that it's things like sliding the coffee pot across the counter rather than lifting it, because it takes less energy (I remember this because it made me wonder if the countertop would get burned by the hot pot). So there is something that is recommended as a coping method, at least, for times when the fatigue can't actually be fixed, but I don't know what it's called or how to find sources for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)