Update on hiccups

[Pazu]

In Neil Shubin’s new book, Your Inner Fish (2008), the author gives some further explanation on the origin of the hiccup (section III).

After discussing the propensity of the phrenic and vagus nerves to become stimulated by various factors due to their convoluted course through the thoracic cavity, he discusses the hiccup reflex itself:

@Neil Shubin

If the odd course of our nerves is a product of our fishy past, the hiccup itself is likely the product of our history as amphibians. Hiccups are unique among our breathing behaviors in that an abrupt intake of air is followed by a closure of the glottis. Hiccups seem to be controlled by a central pattern generator in the brain stem: stimulate this region with an electrical impulse, and we stimulate hiccups. It makes sense that hiccups are controlled by a central pattern generator, since, as in other rhythmic behaviors, a typical sequence of events happens during a hic.

It turns out that the pattern generator responsible for hiccups is virtually identical to one in amphibians. And not in just any amphibians—in tadpoles, which use both lungs and gills to breathe. Tadpoles use this pattern generator when they breathe with gills. In that circumstance, they want to pump water into their mouth and throat and across the gills, but they do not want the water to enter their lungs. To prevent it from doing so, they close the glottis, the flap that closes off the breathing tube. And to close the glottis, tadpoles have a central pattern generator in their brain stem so that an inspiration is followed immediately by a closing glottis. They can breathe with their gills thanks to an extended form of hiccup.

The parallels between our hiccups and gill breathing in tadpoles are so extensive that many have proposed that the two phenomena are one and the same. Gill breathing in tadpoles can be blocked by carbon dioxide, just like our hiccups. We can also block gill breathing by stretching the wall of the chest, just as we can stop hiccups by inhaling deeply and holding our breath. Perhaps we could even block gill breathing in tadpoles by having them drink a glass of water upside down.

I just thought this might be worth adding to the Storehouse.

EDIT: I just realized that this is in the wrong forum. :smack: Could a mod please move this? Thanks!

[Rico]

@Pazu

Could a mod please move this? Thanks!

<mod>

No problem.

Let’s also give a link to the article in question.

COSR > COCC

</mod>

[Siam_Sam]

Here’s a cure for hiccups that has never failed me: Dash some Worcestershire sauce on a slice of lemon and then suck on it. Works every time.

[SeanArenas]

@Siam Sam

Dash some Worcestershire sauce on a slice of lemon and then suck on it.

Or try saying that three times fast using the same breath. By the time you can do it successfully, you’ll probably be over your hiccups.

I’m on the safety committee at work. I can see it now… “He’s had the hiccups for 90 minutes, and he’s a phone rep who can’t take calls - quick, what do we do?”
“You got any lemon and Worcestershire sauce?”

[Siam_Sam]

Or is it tabasaco sauce? Now I can’t remember.

No, I’m sure it’s Worcestershire sauce. Tabasco, I put seven drops into a shot of tequila for what’s called a Prairie Fire, and that GIVES me the hiccups.

[SeanArenas]

@Siam Sam

Dash some Tabasco sauce on a slice of lemon and then suck on it.

Doesn’t have the same “ring” to it as “Worcestershire” does in that sentence. It’s much tougher to say with the W word…

[Siam_Sam]

@SeanArenas

Doesn’t have the same “ring” to it as “Worcestershire” does in that sentence. It’s much tougher to say with the W word…

No, it doesn’t, and I’m pretty sure it’s Worcestershire sauce. But try both if one doesn’t work.

Um, at the risk of being a drive-by moderator, I must ask you not to alter my text inside quotes. That’s against Board rules.

[SeanArenas]

@Siam Sam

No, it doesn’t, and I’m pretty sure it’s Worcestershire sauce. But try both if one doesn’t work.

Um, at the risk of being a drive-by moderator, I must ask you not to alter my text inside quotes. That’s against Board rules.

…even when it’s obviously done for just the entertainment value? I don’t think anyone is going to think that’s what you had actually said. It was done like … reciting it in a singsong voice to see if it has the same “ring” to it.

[bibliophage]

Here’s what the FAQs say

Falsely attributing a quote to another user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges.

This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached.

Text inside QUOTE tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the QUOTE tags.

[Siam_Sam]

@SeanArenas

…even when it’s obviously done for just the entertainment value? I don’t think anyone is going to think that’s what you had actually said. It was done like … reciting it in a singsong voice to see if it has the same “ring” to it.

That IS the rule. I do NOT want you doing it to me. I do understand it was all in fun, but please refrain from doing it again.