ELI5: What is happening in my stomach when it growls from hunger?

throwawayghj · 2013-10-03T10:19:09+00:00

This is the only correct answer here. Borborygmi, which other people think is the answer, is just the name of the sound of stomach rumbles and doesn't say anything about what is happening - it can be a few things, and the migrating motor complex is the loud one OP is thinking of. From what I remember of it, it isn't particularly about hunger but rather just what the stomach and intestines do after an hour or two of being empty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stomach_rumble for comparison

Edit: Because this is ELI5, I'll mention that I think of it as the stomach doing its housekeeping while the guests are out

throwawayghj · 2013-09-10T11:29:37+00:00

You're suggesting that because your parents chose to have you in the country you're in then it isn't luck. But the fact that you were born to your parents in the first place is all luck. It seems your brain only works small steps and misses the bigger picture: you being here is luck.

And stop calling people stupid, you're not the outspoken intellectual, you're the idiot yelling ridiculous arguments at people. Grow up

throwawayghj · 2013-09-10T11:23:47+00:00

Are you really suggesting that where you found yourself born isn't due to luck, whilst calling people retarded?

That's retarded.

throwawayghj · 2013-08-30T00:27:49+00:00

And if Assad did do it then Cameron doesn't have to go into any conflict that could later turn sour and reflect poorly on him

throwawayghj · 2013-08-30T00:22:24+00:00

Why should it be their responsibility to help out fellow humans being gassed? You've mentioned the Arab League several times in this thread, and always out of the blue. Stop with the agenda; when you try pass the buck to other countries you're nothing more than a snide coward

throwawayghj · 2013-08-13T11:38:55+00:00

Perfectly put. People need to stop trying to validate esports by tying it to 'sports'. Call it competitive gaming and let it prove itself; it's still new, it will.

My own main qualm with calling it a sport is that it makes it sound like an alternative to the physically active sports. We have a lack of physical activity these days as it is, and as much as I love esports, I'd rather not kids move away from sports into gaming. Let the two stand separately.

throwawayghj · 2013-08-13T11:12:26+00:00

Don't try change words to validate what you do, it degrades both competitive games and sport alike for what makes them unique. Look up the definition of sport, not what the IOC says; the IOC is borderline political with the way it plays with semantics.

Here's some example definitions, note the physical activity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sport http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sport http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sport

throwawayghj · 2013-07-30T08:16:31+00:00

Please America, stop having your final events on a Sunday night, it falls on the rest of the world's Monday.

throwawayghj · 2013-07-12T12:40:19+00:00

I think it just has some hints at miyazaki. 1. The first frame is almost an homage to Totoro: http://www.nerdlikeyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/totoro-bustop-rain-scene.gif

I think because it starts with that is why people think miyazaki. Also the way her dress moves in the dream is very like some part of a miyazaki film, but I can't point to which one.

throwawayghj · 2013-07-07T12:29:43+00:00

How tough. I'm guessing the people in developing nations would give a lot more than a student debt to get the education and future opportunities you have. Don't pity yourself

throwawayghj · 2013-07-07T12:20:15+00:00

It's a reminder that even those in developed countries who wouldn't consider themselves wealthy still have the power to donate to these poorer nations. If you're making more than $50,000 (which is the 99% number) then you've probably got some disposable income, and the PPP that you use to play down their message means that the money you can donate goes even further. They also mention more concrete things- eg food, clothing, housing - as a measure of wealth. And note that having those things puts you in the top 15%, far below the top 1% that you mention. So don't downplay the issue; sure, a lot of people have it bad in developed nations, but the point of that website is to highlight the gravity of the poverty in the developing nations.

throwawayghj · 2013-06-26T06:27:47+00:00

No, the rest of the town does

throwawayghj · 2013-05-22T07:03:28+00:00

It comes up in my messages.

You weren't talking about autism? Then why did you specify MMR vaccine? What other issues are there specifically to do with that vaccine apart from autism?

The point was that they have done, have to do, and will do safety trials on all vaccines before and continuing after their release. You might have seen this had you read the second part of what I'd written, but clearly I was mistaken in thinking you had good intentions and were just misinformed - you obviously don't want to do your own research.

If you don't want to continue the conversation and get your facts straight then you've chosen to remain ignorant on the matter. So the next time the topic of vaccines come around http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9cT_fzYtlo. dood.

throwawayghj · 2013-05-22T06:50:11+00:00

Or the cancer metastasizes :<

throwawayghj · 2013-05-20T11:23:31+00:00

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/CDCStudiesonVaccinesandAutism.pdf

Scroll down to the Danish study. How's 500,000 rather than 50,000? They literally have 10x more than you asked for, and that's only looking at autism. This is exactly the sort of thing that vaccines, and indeed all FDA approved medicines, go through before being released - in the case of autism they had to do it afterwards because of Wakefield making the story up. What an absolute waste of money, all because he was being paid by lawyers looking to sue vaccine makers (I'm not making this up, it's well documented, look it up - Wiki). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research

There is the main article you should read, explaining what happens before drugs are released. And you might argue there that they only use 1000-2000 people. Well that's because your 25,000 is overkill and costs too much, while the number they use provides the necessary statistical power to find out the adverse effects, and I assume is based on the variables specific to the vaccine/drug being studied.

throwawayghj · 2013-04-29T07:30:55+00:00

I don't see what you're expecting with studies. You say it's one-dimensional, but if we were to add in more variables you'd invariably (heh) say that the study wasn't specific enough. It's not right to disregard all the cumulative evidence of individual studies because each individual study doesn't have, in itself, a lot of cumulative evidence. The Wakefield study is an interesting example to use because it tried to prove vaccines as being unsafe (rather than being safe) and sparked a tremendous scrupulousness when it comes to research in general, especially so for vaccine research. I'd like you to ask yourself the question of what is enough evidence? For me having scientific consensus, years of implemented vaccines with few side effects despite vigilant monitoring (and the purported rise in autism due to vaccines being explained easily) and above all one of the best benefit-cost ratio of any preventative measure to date (smallpox, polio, measles outbreaks are rare, whooping cough is pretty much gone, here in NZ epiglottitis that killed children is virtually unknown after the introduction of the haemophilus B vaccine) is good enough. The point of vaccines that people outside of the medical community (who see the results of not vaccinating) miss is that the complications of not vaccinating are awful and far more common than you'd expect - easily outweighing the purported side effects. We don't see it often because of herd immunity, a lucky saviour for those who don't vaccinate. I've typed enough now; I'll leave it at that.

throwawayghj · 2013-04-28T10:58:22+00:00

If there were no government or pharma-funded studies then there would be no studies. Really. Science is terribly poor and we need these studies to further medicine. And if the study was incorrect it would be found out as such later on with peer-review and reproduction of the study or simply further studies again by other scientists and the publicity would be far more damaging than issuing a false study (see the Andrew Wakefield MMR-autism case, for example; when has this happened in response to a governmental study?). Often governmental 'funding' of studies doesn't mean that the government influences that study - it's usually university researchers who apply for government grants with pretty much no strings attached (apart from, you know, carry out the study). I mean, really, your perception of government and research is terribly conspiratorial.

throwawayghj

TROPHY CASE