Popping of Soda Can

[Dr. Nagler]

So do you think I should be worried?

About the soda can thingie? Absolutely not.

You don't need NAC. You don't need Steroids. You don't need Keppra. What you need is to listen to Linearb. Most of these responses on what you should take are quite ridiculous for this event.

Exactly. What should worry @Thongjy isn't the soda can. It's the fact that he might actually be taking some of the "advice" he is receiving in this thread seriously.

 

[RichL]

You don't need NAC. You don't need Steroids. You don't need Keppra. What you need is to listen to Linearb. Most of these responses on what you should take are quite ridiculous for this event. Opening a can of pop will no more damage your hearing or permanently raise your T then someone farting out loud in bathroom. Paranoia is more your issue right now. Everything you think that will increase your T, probably will, but that's not your T that is louder, it is your perception/reaction. It's like one of those trick mirrors. What you see or think you see (or hear) may not be reality.

Agree entirely with this @erik ,

The only thing I would add to this is worrying leads to paranoia which in turns leads to anxiety which makes your perception, or loudness of your T, increase, you have to be sensible about noises of course but ears are a bit more resilient than allot of us T sufferers give them credit for!

Your biggest challenge now is to control your anxiety and stop thinking everyday noises will damage your ears!

They will not do damage, your anxiety and paranoia will cause more damage than normal noises ever will.

 

[Geo]

Today I was having a drink at a pool bar and sitting at bar counter with my kids. The bartender took a can of coke and place it on the counter in front of us and started tapping on the top of the can with a can opener and finally end with a harder knock that gave out a loud pop with the can opened.

I sort of heard an elevated ringing (not sure if it is elevated but even if it is it last for 3 seconds).

Anyone experienced this? Recently T was very low and good and worried this incident will worsen my T and will need to go through everything again.

Any advice?

unless you actually felt something in your ear tingle or you felt it spike then it might have.. but if youre just worried if it might get damaged if nothing happened after you opened it then it shouldnt be a problem. i never had a problem with popping a soda till bad H appeared now i can even be close to someone opening it my Ear will start a ww3 in my head its percieved that loud to me now..

 

[Thongjy]

unless you actually felt something in your ear tingle or you felt it spike then it might have.. but if youre just worried if it might get damaged if nothing happened after you opened it then it shouldnt be a problem. i never had a problem with popping a soda till bad H appeared now i can even be close to someone opening it my Ear will start a ww3 in my head its percieved that loud to me now..

It has a very slight elevated ring for about 4 seconds (I think it's elevated but not sure if it is even elevated) right after the loud noise and it's back to baseline.

Can that be considered the spike you mentioned at the start that need a concern?

 

[Geo]

It has a very slight elevated ring for about 4 seconds (I think it's elevated but not sure if it is even elevated) right after the loud noise and it's back to baseline.

Can that be considered the spike you mentioned at the start that need a concern?

No when i mention a spike i mean your tinnitus reaching a new volume increase. you didnt get a real spike or increase if you cant even tell the difference .. I think you are just a little frightened that this little incident happened.. But yes this is also kinda clled a spike when u get it for sexonds and it fades everyone gets them but that is not what we mean atleast when i say permanent or temporary spike..

 

[Thongjy]

No when i mention a spike i mean your tinnitus reaching a new volume increase. you didnt get a real spike or increase if you cant even tell the difference .. I think you are just a little frightened that this little incident happened.. But yes this is also kinda clled a spike when u get it for sexonds and it fades everyone gets them but that is not what we mean atleast when i say permanent or temporary spike..

Thanks very much for clarifying.

 

[Danny Boy]

About the soda can thingie? Absolutely not.


Exactly. What should worry @Thongjy isn't the soda can. It's the fact that he might actually be taking some of the "advice" he is receiving in this thread seriously.

What's wrong with NAC? It's been proven to protect hearing and further damage. So protecting his hearing is what he seems to be worried about. NAC wouldn't hurt him and it'll stop his paranoia and give him a sigh of relief.

 

[Dr. Nagler]

What's wrong with NAC?

Well, for one thing it is a nutritional supplement that is not subject to FDA standards. Which means that when you buy it, you have absolutely no assurances that what's in the bottle is NAC in the first place.

It's been proven to protect hearing and further damage.

Proven? To the best of my knowledge there is not a single reliable and verifiable randomized controlled blinded study published in a juried scientific journal supporting your claim.

So protecting his hearing is what he seems to be worried about. NAC wouldn't hurt him and it'll stop his paranoia and give him a sigh of relief.

What will stop @Thongjy's paranoia and give him a sigh of relief is some solid fact-based information from a reliable source.

 

[Danny Boy]

Well, for one thing it is a nutritional supplement that is not subject to FDA standards. Which means that when you buy it, you have absolutely no assurances that what's in the bottle is NAC in the first place.


Proven? To the best of my knowledge there is not a single reliable and verifiable randomized controlled blinded study published in a juried scientific journal supporting your claim.


What will stop @Thongjy's paranoia and give him a sigh of relief is some solid fact-based information from a reliable source.

What's this then Dr. Nagler?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2808688/

Summary
Increasing evidence suggests the involvement of oxidative stress in noise-induced hearing loss. The present study analysed, in an animal experimental model, the time course of the pathogenic mechanisms of noise-induced cochlear damage and the efficacy of the antioxidant drug N-acetylcysteine in reducing noise ototoxicity. Animals were divided into two groups, exposed to noise one treated with N-acetylcysteine for 3 days and one (the control group) with saline. Acoustic trauma was induced by a continuous pure tone of 6 kHz, at 120 dB SPL for 30 minutes. Electrocochleographic recordings were made from an implanted round window electrode and the compound action potentials were measured daily at 2-16 kHz for 7 days. Morphological changes were analysed by scanning electron microscopy. The acoustic threshold measured 1 hour after acoustic trauma was elevated in the control group to 70-90 dB in the higher frequencies of the compound action potential audiogram, with a maximum threshold elevation ranging between 12 and 16 kHz. During the first 24 h, following acoustic trauma, there was a partial recovery of compound action potential thresholds of about 20 dB to reach a final threshold elevation of about 50-70 dB; there was no further improvement over the remaining experimental week. Animals treated with N-acetylcysteine showed a similar temporary threshold shift but a clear improvement in the recovery of compound action potential thresholds, with significantly reduced permanent threshold shift and hair cell loss. These data suggest that N-acetylcysteine is able to attenuate the toxic effect of acoustic trauma and could represent an interesting molecule for preventing inner ear injuries.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/hearing-loss-loud-noises-noise-levels_n_2632499.html

Swallow Some Protection
Inside our ears lie thousands of hairlike cells that turn sound waves into electrical signals so the brain can interpret what we hear. But very loud noise generates free radicals that damage those cells -- sometimes permanently. The U.S. military has been pouring money into research on prevention, and it's paying off. A clinical trial revealed that an over-the-counter supplement called N-acetylcysteine worked much better than earplugs alone at minimizing damage in Marines exposed to gunfire. Researcher Richard D. Kopke, MD, recommends taking 1,200 milligrams 12 hours before you're bombarded by loud noise (say, at a sporting event). If the noise is unexpected, pop 1,200 milligrams as soon as possible and take 900 to 1,200 milligrams three times a day, with meals, for the next 14 days.

 

[linearb]

What's wrong with NAC? It's been proven to protect hearing and further damage. So protecting his hearing is what he seems to be worried about. NAC wouldn't hurt him and it'll stop his paranoia and give him a sigh of relief.

there is nothing in this world that has a metabolic effect which "cannot hurt you".

Anyone who thinks that @Dr. Nagler 's concerns about the supplement industry are alarmist is... misguided or misinformed.

 

[Dr. Nagler]

What's this then Dr. Nagler?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2808688/

It's a single guinea pig study from the Italian literature, the findings of which have not been independently verified. That's what it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/hearing-loss-loud-noises-noise-levels_n_2632499.html

And that's an article from the Huffington Post, which last time I checked was not a juried scientific journal.

 

[Danny Boy]

It's a single guinea pig study from the Italian literature the findings of which have not been independently verified. That's what it is.

And that's an article from the Huffington Post, which last time I checked was not a juried scientific journal.

KOPKE: Yes. One of the compounds that we've been working with over the past number of years is N-acetylcysteine, or NAC, which is both an FDA approved drug for the treatment of Tylenol overdosage and a nutritional supplement. There's a lot of scientific data in animal models, with several different species with steady-state noise, impulse noise and kurtotic noise that that approach is very effective in reducing permanent hearing loss. Not too long ago, a 600 or so subject placebo control, double-blind study of NAC plus earplugs vs. earplugs plus the placebo was conducted. The subjects who had taken NAC orally during weapons training time showed approximately a 25% lower incidence of permanent hearing loss. That was a very significant breakthrough and was a sort of pilot study. Now the Navy has launched a larger study with different dosing at several different sites, and that study is currently underway.

http://www.audiologyonline.com/interviews/interview-with-richard-kopke-m-1447

 

[Dr. Nagler]

KOPKE: Yes. One of the compounds that we've been working with over the past number of years is N-acetylcysteine, or NAC ...

And when it has been proven to be effective, then every member of the US military will be required to take it daily.

 

[Danny Boy]

And when it has been proven to be effective, then every member of the US military will be required to take it daily.

It's been proven to help and has a larger study being taken place. So why did you insist there was no study being done, when there was?

 

[Dr. Nagler]

It's been proven to help and has a larger study being taken place. So why did you insist there was no study being done, when there was?

I said that there is not a single reliable and verifiable randomized controlled blinded study published in a juried scientific journal supporting your claim. I'll stand by that statement.

And if it were proven to help, there would be no need at all for that larger study. The reason for the larger study is because they think it might help.

 

[Danny Boy]

I said that there is not a single reliable and verifiable randomized controlled blinded study published in a juried scientific journal supporting your claim. I'll stand by that statement.

And if it were proven to help, there would be no need at all for that larger study. The reason for the larger study is because they think it might help.

Well, there is evidence ill-regardless of what you think. Why do you not want people to not take NAC? It doesn't hurt them to use it. It may hurt you it seems. If you can prove NAC doesn't work, then fair enough, but since you can't, then your opinion is just what it is an opinion. I don't think you want to help people outside of TRT and recommending doctors. And that saddens me.

 

[linearb]

I said that there is not a single reliable and verifiable randomized controlled blinded study published in a juried scientific journal supporting your claim. I'll stand by that statement.

And if it were proven to help, there would be no need at all for that larger study. The reason for the larger study is because they think it might help.

Why do you think that the peer reviewed, blinded controlled study posted above, was not a peer reviewed, blinded, controlled study?

 

[linearb]

Well, there is evidence ill-regardless of what you think. Why do you not want people to not take NAC? It doesn't hurt them to use it. It may hurt you it seems. If you can prove NAC doesn't work, then fair enough, but since you can't, then your opinion is just what it is an opinion. I don't think you want to help people outside of TRT and recommending doctors. And that saddens me.

You've posted some research that shows specific NAC regimens may help with certain kinds of short term noise exposure.

However.

Where is the evidence that using it long term, is likewise effective, let alone safe? It is a drug. Drugs invariably have a different effect short and long term. Safety is even more concerning; if I were merely concerned with preventing short term excitotoxicity, then I'd just take a Xanax every time I was going to be in a loud environment.

There is literally no long term human data on taking large doses of NAC. It might not do anything bad to you; it might make you ten times more likely to get pancreatic cancer.

And, as the good doctor says, there are many reasons to worry that much of the NAC on the market is not actually NAC, or that it has other nasty stuff in it.

 

[Danny Boy]

You've posted some research that shows specific NAC regimens may help with certain kinds of short term noise exposure.

However.

Where is the evidence that using it long term, is likewise effective, let alone safe? It is a drug. Drugs invariably have a different effect short and long term. Safety is even more concerning; if I were merely concerned with preventing short term excitotoxicity, then I'd just take a Xanax every time I was going to be in a loud environment.

There is literally no long term human data on taking large doses of NAC. It might not do anything bad to you; it might make you ten times more likely to get pancreatic cancer.

And, as the good doctor says, there are many reasons to worry that much of the NAC on the market is not actually NAC, or that it has other nasty stuff in it.

If any of the following side effects occur while taking acetylcysteine, check with your doctor or nurse as soon as possible:

Less common

• Wheezing, tightness in chest, or difficulty in breathing (especially in asthma patients)

Rare

• Skin rash or other irritation

Some acetylcysteine side effects may not need any medical attention. As your body gets used to the medicine these side effects may disappear. Your health care professional may be able to help you prevent or reduce these side effects, but do check with them if any of the following side effects continue, or if you are concerned about them:

Less common

• Clammy skin
• fever
• increase in amount of mucus in lungs
• irritation or soreness of mouth, throat, or lungs
• nausea or vomiting
• runny nose

For patients using a face mask for inhalation of acetylcysteine: the mask may leave a stickiness on your face. This can be removed with water.

 

[Danny Boy]

You've posted some research that shows specific NAC regimens may help with certain kinds of short term noise exposure.

However.

Where is the evidence that using it long term, is likewise effective, let alone safe? It is a drug. Drugs invariably have a different effect short and long term. Safety is even more concerning; if I were merely concerned with preventing short term excitotoxicity, then I'd just take a Xanax every time I was going to be in a loud environment.

There is literally no long term human data on taking large doses of NAC. It might not do anything bad to you; it might make you ten times more likely to get pancreatic cancer.

And, as the good doctor says, there are many reasons to worry that much of the NAC on the market is not actually NAC, or that it has other nasty stuff in it.

You win. Fair enough.

 

[Dr. Nagler]

Well, there is evidence ill-regardless of what you think.

You said there was proof. But there isn't.

Why do you not want people to not take NAC? It doesn't hurt them to use it.

I already explained that. It is a nutritional supplement not subject to FDA controls. Moreover, there are a number of potential side-effects. Fortunately severe side-effects are very rare, but your claim that the drug does not hurt people is incorrect.

It may hurt you it seems.

Not a chance. I wouldn't touch the stuff without proof that it is effective and that the risks were acceptable.

If you can prove NAC doesn't work, then fair enough, but since you can't, then your opinion is just what it is an opinion.

I said that there is not a single reliable and verifiable randomized controlled blinded study published in a juried scientific journal attesting to the efficacy of NAC in protection against noise-induced auditory damage. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

I don't think you want to help people outside of TRT and recommending doctors.

When folks post absolute crap like that, I just consider the source ... and move on.

 

[Dr. Nagler]

Why do you think that the peer reviewed, blinded controlled study posted above, was not a peer reviewed, blinded, controlled study?

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was not verifiable. That means that the findings need to be independently confirmed.

 

[Danny Boy]

You said there was proof. But there isn't.


I already explained that. It is a nutritional supplement not subject to FDA controls. Moreover, there are a number of potential side-effects. Fortunately severe side-effects are very rare, but your claim that the drug does not hurt people is incorrect.


Not a chance. I wouldn't touch the stuff without proof that it is effective and that the risks were acceptable.


I said that there is not a single reliable and verifiable randomized controlled blinded study published in a juried scientific journal attesting to the efficacy of NAC in protection against noise-induced auditory damage. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.


When folks post absolute crap like that, I just consider the source ... and move on.

Well, sorry but your making NAC sounds worse than benzo drugs. The FDA approve of many benzo drugs, does that make them safe? No way.

 

[Danny Boy]

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was not verifiable. That means that the findings need to be independently confirmed.

Also, do you recommend any TRT doctors in the UK who I can see on the NHS for free?

 

[Dr. Nagler]

Well, sorry but your making NAC sounds worse than benzo drugs. The FDA approve of many benzo drugs, does that make them safe? No way.

I'm saying that when you ingest a Xanax pill, you know what is in it and what is not in it because of FDA controls. But when you ingest an NAC pill, you have no assurance whatsoever regarding what is in it and what is not in it.

 

[Dr. Nagler]

Also, do you recommend any TRT doctors in the UK who I can see on the NHS for free?

This is not a TRT thread. You have now mentioned TRT twice in this thread. Stop trying to take it off track.

 

[Danny Boy]

I'm saying that when you ingest a Xanax pill, you know what is in it and what is not in it because of FDA controls. But when you ingest an NAC pill, you have no assurance whatsoever regarding what is in it and what is not in it.

I can't comment on the FDA or America, as I don't live there. In the UK, the supplement industry is more tightly controlled. I buy supplements from respected sources, such as holland and barret.

 

[Dr. Nagler]

Well, recommend me a doctor for TRT which I can see free on the NHS. I want to try TRT to see if it works. Might as well.

That makes it three times you have mentioned TRT in this thread.

 

[Dr. Nagler]

I can't comment on the FDA or America, as I don't live there. In the UK, the supplement industry is more tightly controlled.

Oh really? And where did you read that - on the Internet?

 

[Danny Boy]

That makes it three times you have mentioned TRT in this thread.

Well, why don't you? I don't mind me mentioning it.