Bodily Distress Syndrome Is Associated with Impaired Physical Fitness—A Population Based Cross-Sectional Study (DanFunD) 2024 Bavnhøj, Fink et al

Abstract

Background and Aim: Functional somatic disorders (FSDs) are a unifying diagnosis that includes functional somatic syndromes (FSSs) as well as the unifying diagnostic construct of bodily distress syndrome (BDS). FSDs are characterized by persistent and troublesome physical symptoms that are prevalent across all medical settings and for which no clinical tests can establish a definitive diagnosis. The aim of this study was to explore associations between BDSs and objective measurements of body composition, cardiorespiratory health, and physical performance.

Methods: Analyses are based on data from the Danish population-based cohort study, DanFunD, comprising data on 9656 participants aged 18–76 years and BDS case status, which was established using self-reported questionnaires. Adjusted multiple linear regression analysis was employed to evaluate associations between BDS and different measures of body composition, cardiorespiratory health, and physical performance assessed as part of a general health examination.

Results: Compared to controls, individuals with single- or multi-organ BDS exhibited less optimal body compositions characterized by a higher BMI and fat percentage and larger waist circumference, as well as impaired cardiorespiratory health and reduced physical performance (lower maximal oxygen consumption and lower hand grip strength). Further, individuals categorized with multi-organ BDS had a less healthy body composition, lower cardiorespiratory health, and lower physical performance compared to individuals with single-organ BDS.

Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, we found BDS to be associated with suboptimal body composition, impaired cardiorespiratory health, and reduced physical performance. Individuals with multi-organ BDS tended to exhibit lower physical fitness or reduced cardiorespiratory health than individuals with single-organ BDS.

Open access, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/13/21/6373

 

"Some examples of FSD include functional somatic syndromes (FSSs), such as irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome, as well as the diagnostic concept of bodily distress syndrome (BDS) [10,11]. Given that the symptoms of FSS share documented symptomatic overlap, the BDS construct was developed as a unifying delimitation of FSD. In contrast to the FSS, BDS encompasses symptoms from multiple bodily systems within a single diagnosis"

 

This smells to me like attempt number three at getting something the equivalent of SSD (Somatic Symptom Disirder) into ICD

but this time they are going round the back door by trying to combine BDS (cited by one of the reviews of SSD as ‘the nearest to SSD in the ICD) with their functional somatic stuff - or is it FSS they are going for? Hence using this fake ‘research’ to start their advertising ‘rule of 7’ getting people to read this misinformation they’ve put at the top of their abstract 7 times before their next attempt?

to me that flags that whatever their claimed reasons (poor and as usual the circle never squares in the sentences as they are non sequitur claim of issue to ‘and so we need this’ not relating to it)

the power that SSD presented as a ‘leap forward’ (which I think should have been interrogated in law) was that even if a physical biomedical illness caused and explained both the symptoms (category A) and category B (which could be distress but also can be ‘behaviours’ eg rubbing your bad wrist due to arthritis or having a special diet due to celiac or resting due to PEM) that is no longer something the diagnosed needs to worry about.

I think simply on the basis that how they’ve worded it someone could on the basis of their condition be diagnosed either with eg cancer or MS, or alternatively given an SSD diagnosis simply by wording the exact same symptoms and findings into behavioural speak (calling it somatic rather than pain) makes for THAT diagnosis being something which should be excluded from hthe powers of the mental health acts. Or requiring a totally different process given said process currently doesn’t build in power and requirement of the medical specialist in the actual biomedical illness they have to be able to over rule there being a ‘mind component’ as is only asserted by this psychosomatic bunch who push it (due to self-interest I sssume).

Having also tried to back door by getting IAPT to seek permission to change ‘MUS’ to SSD on their systems (which I believe then interact with GP snomed)

this feels like another ‘angle’ this time trying to expand the remit of BDS to effectively become SSD.

There are just enough papers coming thru from the usual suspects in a certain timeframe it seems coorrdinated

it feels time this continual vulnerability and sustained unending ‘won’t get the message’ keep at it until they get their own way over something as society/rights changing as this (flipping mental health powers from requiring any mental health issues to giving powers that allow those who want to claim ‘being disabled/physically ill’ can now be twisted to fulfill that) needs to be brought out into the light and somehow it knocked on the head for them hoping a war of attrition and one day people won’t spot it getting snuck in is a sign of how potentially malign it is.

 

This article is just a lesson in sophist propaganda

it might claim controls as a distraction then use associations to pretend

but they’ve just picked any old sample for each ie not representative surveillance or sample of ‘the whole population’ then had the gall to claim that because they found a few people who were ill whose composition was ‘less optimal’ than a few cherrypicked not ill people that means something about ‘the illness’ nevermind somehow it’s the mind or behavioural

Except someone could go out tomorrow and find twenty unfit/old ‘healthy’ people and twenty eg me/cfs who are younger and recently ill and do the same ‘research’ and what claim the issue is we are all ‘too fit’? But they’d still claim the same nonsense inferences showing their propaganda pretending to be conclusions aren’t even connected to their fake methods?

I’m sorry but it’s as bad as the research is the channel 4 far right documentary where they were showing the research arm of an organisation that went out to try and fudge research looking like people from one race were ‘less desirable’ on certain characteristics than other races. Using the same sophism.

it’s shocking.

given how at least the race research is outed as not being ‘mainstream’ and people manage to see through the trickery on that I find it hard how this sort of thing is being excused

and why if there were conferences on it there isn’t the same unwillingness to be associated with providing eg venues for it that there are for things like eugenecist research - particularly in cases where the level/quality of research method being used are the same.

this idea tgat removing peoples access to healthcare and other human rights is ‘in the name of help’ or ‘help’ and being coerced through re-education that is likely to psychologically harm and designed to make ill and disabled internalise that ‘your own fault /deserve it’ is somehow the only charade I can see acting as a cover here for everything else being basically the same - suggesting it’s peoples poor minds isn’t really mental health OR a cover.

and it’s an M.O. that’s used against plenty of minorities in the course of history to move from maybe jailing or banning or direct harm to claiming said issue is now ‘mental health’ and ‘treating’ with behavioural psychology pretending it’s not almost the same thing using punishment and ‘reward’ (a break from the punishment or dangling of some acceptance if people just act this way)

 

So much unification of unified concepts. All the same concept wearing a different hat. All unified with itself, raising itself by its own bootstraps.

Could just as well read: "In this cross-sectional study, we found poverty to be associated with suboptimal housing conditions, impaired wealth, and reduced financial performance". It's the same thing, and they think that poor people can just, you know, not think like a poor person, then they wouldn't be poor. QED. It's so easy to do this stuff when no one cares what's in it.

That's all a very expensive way of finding that symptoms that limit activities of daily living limit activities of daily living, regardless of the limits of what medical testing can do. At this rate they may even find out that solving the cause of those limitations eliminates those limitations in a few centuries or so, but they'd have to know how to do that, and since they don't have a clue they will never find out. Hence they can continue variously unifying and splitting the same thing over and over again, never going anywhere, but that's OK because no one ever expects them to anyway.

And just look how many papers they got published with this useless study. Peak academia: good for them, entirely useless for everyone else. But damn is this an academic success story.

 

I'm not sue I want to read beyond "Functional somatic disorders (FSDs) are a unifying diagnosis that includes functional somatic syndromes (FSSs) as well as the unifying diagnostic construct of bodily distress syndrome (BDS)."

Its on a level with - "I think it - therefore it is true"

 

Where was the copy editor? "X (plural) are (plural) a (singular) unifying diagnosis (singular) that includes Y (plural) as well as the unifying construct (as opposed to a diagnosis?) of Z." And then the paper is about Z.

I think they just wanted people using any of those three terms to find their paper, and came up with a sentence that included them.

 

That a group of people who are chronically fatigued and in pain (that flares up when they try to exercise) are less physically fit than people who don't have these challenges, might be the least surprising results I can imagine. Maybe they are planning to use these results as "evidence" that exercise should be the preferred treatment?

 

It’s like saying a cough caused the cold or something , or maybe someone got old because they stopped partying, I’d say got got more migraines because of lack of listening to loud music and eating nitrates but worried that the bps already seem to have distorted too many into thinking that black is white is actually true

open to better analogies/examples