The big issue with the small displacement turbo-charged engines is that, at normal autobahn speed, the engine is almost always on boost and therefore burning a lot of fuel to:
2. Produce enough power to sustain a constant speed of 120KPH or whatever
This means that they are far less efficient than they should be, and in some cases get more or less the same efficiency as larger displacement high capacity engines.
When they are really small: yes. But most cars come with gear boxes and horse powers dimensioned so that you are almost always driving at low rpms at normal autobahn speeds (like 120/130). At least my new car with the 140HP engine rolls along at about 2500rpm at Autobahn speed.
I don't know where you live, but 140bhp is a lot for a small-ish car here in UK - it would almost certainly be prohibitively expensive to insure for a young driver for instance. My sister's first car is a VW Polo with a 1.0L 65bhp engine, and that "monster" runs at nearly 4000rpm when doing the legal 70mph(~120km/h) on the motorway. At least it's not a turbo engine so I suppose it's not that bad. It was still a small fortune to insure purely because she's under 25 and had her licence for a year.
Interesting; things are a bit different in the US. I bought my first car at 18. It was small, a Honda Civic Si, but had 198bhp. That wasn’t a slow car by any means, but wasn’t considered especially fast either.
For more perspective, that’s about what a really fast motorcycle puts out these days, e.g. H2 SX. That’s a whole different ballgame of power-to-weight. Not many are pushing 200, but there are lots in the 150 to 180 range, stock. Heck, even some of the midsize (read, small and under 450lb) are knocking on the bottom end of that range with displacements well under 1l.
FWIW, I suspect it’s higher than average for North America too, for smaller cars. Higher proportion of trucks and SUVs though, and “small cars” are mostly a bit larger.
I think you are missing the forest from the trees. If we want to truly reduce climate change we should start by reducing international shipping, consumerism, and non-essential air travel for both pleasure and business.
A 300MPH speed run in an ultra low production Bugatti car is more or less insignificant in the fight against climate change.
You write we should reduce:
international shipping, consumerism, and non-essential air travel
Sure you can but it will be heavily inconvenient (at least for many in the west).
But do you know what reduces the carbon footprint by about 75% in a country like Germany?
1.) Electric cars/trains
2.) Electricity from renewables
3.) Heating using electrical power from renewables (heat pumps)
Of the last 25%, there are 20% from industrial production and in the last 5% you could include air travel (2%) among other things.
Heating and driving and getting power from renewables makes your lifestyle about 0% different from what it is now. Buying goods that last longer even means giving life a touch of luxury. A better, more luxurious lifestyle that produces about 75% less carbon dioxide.
Impossible? In a growing number of countries, this will be possible soon.
Of course, not flying, not consuming gives you that "holy" feeling of "having done something". But done right, a sustainable lifestyle makes the life we have now even better. It takes a bit of political willpower, of course.
I am not disagreeing with electric cars at all, I think it is important.
But the carbon footprint created within the West is just a small amount of the carbon footprint that the West contributes to. We can't just reduce our own carbon footprint if it simply pushes that carbon footprint onto other, less developed countries.
I think it will be very unlikely that we will continue to live with the same luxuries that we enjoy today while still aggressively reducing climate change. It won't be a case of "we have electric transport, but I can still buy a new iPhone once a year". It will be a case of aggressively cutting back everywhere and and ultimately growth and our economy will suffer in the short-term for long-term sustainability.
If you freeze the economy to today‘s state and technology, there will be no growth any more, sure. But at least in our lifetime, the move to a sustainable economy will create more growth and opportunities than will be cut in unsustainable industries. I do not what happens in 150 years, but for the next 50 years I do not worry. As we need more intelligent technologies than we used to have, the value ofhe output will rise, thus economies that are able to adapt will profit.
Using solar, wind and water to create power will, by the way, not push the carbon footprint somewhere else. It will, to a great part, vanish. And those economies who, in future, produce their own energy instead of importing them, will have a higher GDP and less dependence of foreign markets.
Why international shipping specifically? It’s extremely efficient and currently accounts for only around 3% of global CO2 emissions. (Compare to roughly 50% for electricity production, 20% for manufacturing, and 20% for transportation as a whole.)
For starters, because shipping CO2 emissions are rising fast [0], and CO2 is by far not the only concern. Ships burn unrefined "bunker oil," emitting proportionally huge amounts of particulate pollution, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, which harm people and other organisms [1, 2]. For example, back in 2009, the 15 biggest ships emitted as much SO2 and NOx as all the cars on earth: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping...
Emissions from everything else are rising fast too. Surely curbing emissions growth from electricity generation will have a much bigger impact.
The articles about SO2 and NOx emissions are clickbait. They compare to cars, which are extremely clean in this respect. In any case, the subject here is climate change and these pollutants are irrelevant. (Strictly speaking, they slightly mitigate warning.)
I’m not saying we should ignore shipping, but I don’t see why it should be anywhere close to first on the list of things to focus on when fighting climate change.
Case in point: a homologated (i.e. stock road car) Ford RS200 Evo set a record of 0-60 in 3.07 seconds back in 1986. When tuned for racing (non-road-legal) they would hit 60 in 2.1 sec.
That's with a 2.0 litre straight-four engine, in the 1980s.
Optimizing for ludicrous acceleration has always been possible. But it is at odds with race track performance, which is what Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on. At the track, if you are going below 80 mph at any point after the first 4 seconds, you're doing it wrong.
Ferrari, McLaren, and Lamborghini are focused on race track performance. Bugatti is optimized for top speed and prestige, which makes them hogs on the corners due to the heavyass train engine that powers it.
It also has a worse drag coefficient than your prius, it needs to suck in an enormous amount of air to cool and feed that quad-turbocharged w16 engine.
> But it is at odds with race track performance, which is what Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on.
I've been wondering about that for some time. What type(s) of competitions do cars like that enter? I'm not exactly knowledgeable in the racing world, so my view is very limited; the few times a see something about racing (excluding F1 and rally which are obviously different beasts), I mainly see BMWs, Porches, Corvettes (I think) and so on. Maybe my limited exposure just covered the wrong competition?
a standard Porsche 911 is not really a racecar. it can be really fun to drive on a track and it will get good lap times, but no one would race this car in a serious competition. this type of car will mainly be driven on the street and in amateur races.
now there are certain racing series like FIA GT3 where manufacturers are required to make a certain number of street-legal vehicles to qualify that car for the competition. a Porsche 911 GT3 RS is an example of this type of car. make a couple small modifications and your street-legal car is a GT3 racecar. homologated cars like this tend to push the limits of what's tolerable to drive on the street; they're not really setup to be comfortable.
I get that the Porches in races are not exactly like the Porches on the street.
But how does that work for Bugati, Ferrari, Lamborghini (and McLaren, Pagani, Koenigsegg)? Are the street cars (more or less) the same as the ones in races? Do they even race?
And in conclusion, how accurate is the statement that (production models of) Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on race track performance?
There is a key difference between being used in actual races and being built for the racetrack. Lots of rich people want cars built for the racetrack, without actually racing them.
The word for "road car exactly like a race car" is "homologated". It's done in some racing series, basically forcing manufacturers to build 200 copies of the car, making it road legal, and putting at least some of those on the market.
there's an inherent tradeoff between comfort/luxury on the street and track performance. every luxury feature adds weight, which compromises track performance. for the track, you want a stiff suspension and you want the car to be as low as possible to the ground. when you drive on the street, you probably don't want to feel the crashing impact of every pothole and you really don't want to worry about scraping the car (or even getting stuck) on speedbumps.
> But how does that work for Bugati, Ferrari, Lamborghini (and McLaren, Pagani, Koenigsegg)? Are the street cars (more or less) the same as the ones in races? Do they even race?
it's hard to give a simple answer to this question because the manufacturers you listed make a pretty wide range of cars. they try to hit a lot of different points on the luxury vs track performance, but they're all oriented much more towards repeatable track performance than a model s.
if by "race" you mean the local track, sure, all of these cars are going to perform very well. even the most luxury focused models are going to totally outclass my hot hatch and keep going for a lot longer. if you're talking about a serious race, no you cannot just show up with your street-legal ferrari and start racing. for one thing, safety regs for these races will usually be incompatible with local laws for street cars (eg, roll cages are illegal in many jurisdictions, but required for races), and you would want to strip out a lot more weight anyway (passenger seat, floormats, etc) to be competitive. you can get really close with certain homologated models though. I believe most of the manufacturers you listed participate in GT2/GT3, but I'm not familiar with the specific cars from every brand.
> And in conclusion, how accurate is the statement that (production models of) Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on race track performance?
it's true that any car from any of those manufacturers is going to be much more focused on repeatable track performance than mass market hondas, VWs, etc. the extent to which comfort and practicality is compromised varies a lot between specific models.
I hope this answers your question. I'm certainly not an authoritative source, just an enthusiast.
For general "racing" you can apply a number of tricks, including "pumping" the gas during cornering, clutch in more gradually, brake boosting - all keeping the turbo spooled. But I was specifically thinking about running at a fixed speed between 1500-2000 rpm and then mash the gas because you want acceleration - think of overtaking. An EV is vastly superior in this regard because you just press the throttle and off you go.
I think the X6 was an excellent choice for this demo. Anything to make that hideous plumped up "car" less noticeable is a good thing.
I'm with you on this. Say whatever you want about SUVs, crossovers, and the like. The X6 is just ugly as sin. It's as if the designers took a car body, slid the scale parameter in their CAD to 125%, and knocked off early for the day.
I really dislike this type of comment. I’m sure the people buying the X6 like it. You aren’t the only one buying BMWs, and it’s ok that not every model appeals to your needs. Buy whatever you like, but don’t assume that there’s anything shameful about a company making products that you wouldn’t buy.
The Golden Rule and the NAP stand for instructive, good principles, here. Treat others the way you want to be treated, and don't do things which harm others.
It could be argued the BMW X6 is gluttonous. It gets horrible fuel economy, and it's characteristics of size + performance lend credibility to the idea of it being a burden on the road for others.
Finally, I disagree with your general sentiment against criticism. Criticism makes us better.
If there's one thing people hate more than BMWs and SUVs in general, it's the X6. But people also hate hybrids (granted, usually not the same people). So guess what? BMW made a (somewhat obscure) hybrid X6 with 480 HP and 18 mpg. I've been tempted to find one just because it's the confluence of so many types of petty hatred.
One thing to think about is that the effect of a vehicle on the environment depends not just on the mpg, but on how far you drive it, and how many people you transport on average.
Heavier vehicles carry more kinetic energy and do more damage in a crash; taller vehicles are more likely to cause severe injuries to pedestrians.
Crossover SUVs are essentially antisocial - they confer no practical benefit to the driver over a sedan or a wagon, but create considerable additional externalities.
The X6 has super-heavy steering, terrible visibility in any direction other than forward, has crappy rear seat space and headroom and laughable cargo space, has left me stranded twice, is kind of weird looking and yet is an unabashedly aggressive joy to drive, especially the 5.0 or X6 M although the 3.0L is no slouch. I love the thing. It is a horrible idea raised to near-perfection.
The difference in height between a wagon and a crossover is about two inches, using the Subaru Outback/Forester as an example pair. And the ground clearance is quite likely the same, which means the difference in the height of the CG is probably in between.
To me, it seems reasonable to question whether an inch more or less does in fact make a "considerable" difference or whether this is another moral condemnation of something trivial.
It's gotten really irritating to me the way people, not just you, continually make remarks that assume quantitative evidence for something, and throw in the word "externalities" as though that proves a point.
Externalities are everywhere, but it's not reasonable to use them as an all purpose short circuit for everything. And they are finite. People treat "externalities" as arbitrarily large, as though that was inherent in what they are. That is, conversationally, the purpose the term now serves.
FR (front-engine, rear whe drive) cars do have less traction in snow because there is less weight over the rear wheels. This is correct.
But there is nothing unsafe about FR. It has been around since the dawn of the automobile and continues to be the layout of choice outside of econoboxes and mid-engine sports cars.
Mercedes-Benz also manufacture front wheel drive cars too, so feel free to purchase those instead.
I'm not sure how reliable this site is but in general, it is accepted that most luxury German cars have reoccurring issues. The reason why I say "accepted" is because in most cases, they are pushing cutting edge technology and with so many parts, something is going to give.
I do not know common Mercedes issues but with BMW SUVs the most common issues are plastic parts near gaskets (leaks), electrical systems, and ventilation (especially in X3).
Of coarse there are exceptions and not all cars are created equal but this seems to be the consensus year after year.
Look at the bottom of the doors of almost any Mercedes B-Class produced before 2009 and you will see brown corrosion traces. My B-Class (bought new in 2005) was literally falling apart from corrosion. They had massive quality problems in the early 2000s, with the B- and C-Class.
I know this is my personal experience, but I will never be able to purchase any Mercedes car ever again.
That's bad luck! But... if you'll never buy from a manufacturer because one of their models had a corrosion issue or drivetrain issue you'd never be able to buy a car ever again?
It's one thing to have "a corrosion or drive-train issue" that affects a model or series of models built with that design. It's another to repeatedly have the same issue, repeatedly say it's fixed and then have it turn out to be not fixed. Toyota light truck frames, Nissan CVTs and arguably Honda A/C systems are the quintessential examples of this (though in Honda and Nissan's defense, they never claimed to have ever done anything about it).
I'm not gonna comment on the Mercedes because while they definitely have earned their reputation for being expensive in old age I'm not familiar enough with them to pass a value judgement.
This surprises me as a male who suffers from anxiety and exhibits none of these symptoms.
To be more specific my anxiety manifests as a feeling of unease, sometimes fear; and at times blends in with OCD where I become unsure of my short term memory and whether or not something did or did not happen.
I was only recently diagnosed with anxiety after spending thousands and thousands on an emergency room visit and visits to a cardiologist, and I work for a healthcare company with free access to GPs!
I had a variety of symptoms and none of them immediately seemed to shout "anxiety" to my physicians. I was given dozens of blood screenings, X-Rays, CT Scans, EKGs, Echocardiograms, stress tests, sleep studies, only to be told that my heart is in wonderful shape, and that all of my symptoms were probably anxiety (and after being put on Lexapro for several months, the bulk of the issues really seem to have resolved).
I was experiencing: chest tightness, left-side chest and arm pains, random dizziness, random feelings of disorientation, massive blood pressure spikes that would last for hours (110/70 -> 190/120), headaches, pressure in my left abdomen, heart palpitations, and several more very worrying symptoms.
At the end of the day, it all seemingly boiled down to a generalized anxiety disorder.
Last December I started getting some kind of weird 'fog' in my head. I didn't take it seriously when it first started and thought it would go away on its own. But instead it became worse and I got severely cognitively impaired. My speech got slow, I forgot basic words, I forgot names of people I knew, my logical thinking was impaired. It improved a little bit but I'm still incredibly cognitively impaired.
I spent hours searching online, using complex search queries and APIs to gather a lot of info on other people that report the same symptoms. This wasn't because I felt anxious, but I just really wanted to continue with my life ASAP and my symptoms seemed very vague. The conclusion was that, besides some medical causes, people with the same symptoms usually had anxiety.
Since I don't feel anxious or depressed and it appeared suddenly I still want to rule some medical causes out. But it is comforting to know that when all medical causes are ruled out, there is still a huge chance of it being just anxiety.
You may want to attempt to improve your sleep. Foggy head with reduced cognition and memory loss are pretty major symptoms of long term inadequate sleep. They’re very common symptoms that parents of young children complain about, and can have some very long recovery times. Personally it took almost 6 months to recover once my first child started sleeping through the night. All it takes is an hour a night deficit for an extended period of time to really impact mental acuity, but you might not notice because it’s almost enough on a daily basis, and by the time the cumulative effects show up, it’s not always obvious sleep is the culpret.
Actually right around the time my cognition became bad the quality of my sleep also got worse. I sleep 8 hours every night but most days I don't really feel rested, although I neither feel sleepy during the day. I've done a sleep study and I'm seeing a neurologist specialized in sleep later this month to hear the results, I hope he has an idea.
I had a really rough month where my 2yo was jet lagged and waking up crying multiple times a night. After that I've had two months of anxiety on and off, this is really helpful. Have always suspected that sleep could have been the trigger but didn't realize that an hour a night could make such a huge difference. Cheers!
And of course this is a self-reinforcing downward spiral. Sleep quality destroyed by kids, underperformance in all areas of life due to sleep deprivation, anxiety and stress due to underperformance, making it harder to get to sleep...
I was going to say the same. That sounds like my on chronic sleep deprivation, and as you say, after months or years of sleep deprivation it can take weeks of consistent good sleep for the symptoms to fade.
I experience brain fog about once every two weeks in exactly the way you describe and I've thought it's anxiety as well. I tried describing this to a psychiatrist and a cardiologist and neither of them took me seriously and said it's nothing. The only thing that helps me is meditation followed by weightlifting, and it helps tremendously. The hard part is that it always occurs around late-morning/early-afternoon, so if I'm at work I just have to suffer at my desk and get nothing done for the rest of the day.
I came across the mental disorders 'depersonalization' and 'derealization'. People usually describe it as feeling foggy or like a dream. Maybe that might be what you mean and help you explaining it.
The 'depersonalization' is probably the 'fog' I'm talking about. But I know that sleep deprivation can also cause it, so I hope that I have something treatable related to my sleep.
I had this problem and assumed I was just getting older and dumber... In my defense my thinking was impaired at the time. I had a sleep apnoea so I echo people mentioning sleep issues as a potential cause.
Have you had any mood / behavioral changes from the lexapro? I similarly stacked up a ton of doctor visits due to dizziness, chest tightness, blood pressure spikes, etc...
My doc is leaning towards the same generalized axiety /panic disorder, but were currently experimenting with just taking an antihistamine to calm down. "Real" medication is the next step, but, honestly, the thought of having to take something "altering" for the rest of my life is itself anxiety causing.
The most bizarre thing with the whole whole anxiety business was its sudden onset. Everything was fine, and then one day it wasn't.
Lexapro preserved my personality shockingly well. A friend who took it said the same thing. We felt like ourselves the whole time, just without so much anxiety. If you drink caffeine or consume sugar, the "altering" thing is already out the window. And it doesn't have to be your whole life. I'm off it after a few years.
The only downside to lexapro was that my anxiety and depression were partly if not primarily the result of a bunch of poor mental models and resulting poor life choices. I believed a bunch of mean shit about myself, and so looked after myself with a commensurate neglect. On the meds, I kept living poorly; I just wasn't so acutely distraught about it.
It did work to alleviate my anxiety, and in the process train me to catch panic attacks early and think myself out of a spiral. I'm glad I took it when I did, because it helped and I didn't have the courage or wherewithal to go to therapy that early in my life. But I'm also glad I'm off it.
Unless your anxiety is seriously debilitating, I would suggest you spend 6 months in CBT / talk therapy, before going on medication. Or go on em but also do therapy simultaneously.
Either something in your mind is generating this anxiety, and it's worth it to get under the hood and treat the underlying issue. Or it's truly random, and it's a good idea to train your mind to be resilient to such things.
We initially tried Metoprolol for, but we found that while it stopped the palpitations, the panic attacks still happened just as often. For me, Lexapro really was a win/win drug. My personality hasn't changed much aside from the fact that my overall emotions are a bit more muted. If my normal emotional range is a 0-10, on Lexapro it's closer to a 3-7. There are some sexually related side effects that you may want to look up as well. I have personally experienced some, but I don't consider them serious by any means.
And my attacks, like yours, just started happening out of the blue one day. No real prior warnings.
Similar situation. I kept going to the doctors for a while, but they insist everything is fine.
I’ve got anxiety in general, but also some more specific health anxiety from a history of being obese. I’ve fixed the issue now, but the statistical reason to believe that _this time_ there’s actually something wrong doesn’t help the anxiety.
I spend a lot of time convincing myself that yes, I can in fact breathe right now, and no, I’m not actively dying of a heart attack. Very stressful situation
Had almost exactly the same problem, down to identical symptoms -- same side of my body, etc.
My guess it that it's due to some supplements I was taking years ago (chiefly 5-HTP and magnesium) causing chest pain and/or heart palpitations, and the experience of that etching trauma into my psyche in a way that makes me experience physical symptoms. The worst part is that it feeds on itself, until I was sitting on a sidewalk having a panic attack causing massive hyperventilation and crushing chest pain, certain I was having a heart attack, barely able to dial 911.
Unfortunately it took $8000 in hospital bills from multiple emergency room visits to figure this out.
Similar experience, including multiple trips to the ER fearing my imminent death. Still waiting for the bill on the latest one. The first time it happened I had dialed 911 on my phone but stopped short, fearing the impending life-ruining debt it might plunge me into. Thankfully it wasn't actually a heart attack, but the fact that people even have to stop to make a risk assessment like that is dystopian.
As for the symptoms, it is indeed astonishing how "physical" anxiety can be. Most people conceive of anxiety as just an emotional state, and think a "panic attack" is what you have when you're really nervous about a math test and get a cold sweat. The true horror of a real panic attack can't be described to someone who hasn't experienced that level of mortal terror.
And it's definitely true that once the trauma is "etched" into you like you describe, your mind can reconstruct it again much more easily. I find physical sensations that used to be mildly annoying, like a stomach cramp or post-exercise exhaustion, can summon the anxiety right back again.
The scientific evidence for the long-term effectiveness of SSRIs is dubious at best, so I'm attempting a more comprehensive life change to improve my outlook, including trying to build stronger connections with people and community. Isolation is one of the most intense causes of depression and anxiety, among other health problems, so addressing it is a good idea for anyone.
It is saddening to hear that the fear of resulting financial debt due to hospital bills, stopped you short from dialing 911 in such a precarious situation.
There goes my fantasy that in the west at least health care was top notch and affordable compared to Africa.
The propaganda we export out of the US regarding our wealth is self-delusion. A lot of people here believe many fantastical things that should be trivially dispelled by skimming GoFundMe's Discover page.
What? We're far wealthier in the US than the vast majority of the world. It's not propaganda, it's data and fact.
Healthcare and education are generally more expensive here than in Europe, but people also get paid more here and keep more of their salaries than in the rest of the developed world. Goods are much cheaper in the US than in Europe and we generally enjoy more material wealth than the Europeans.
You are deluding yourself with your bigotry against the US.
5-htp is associated with increased anxiety / panic attacks. Found out after I got one. (Racing heart, palpitations out of nowhere, spent a night in hospital doing bunch of heart tests.) There is very little research on it, because it's not patented, but try pubmed etc. iirc it increases anxiety especially in the first days, weeks then it levels out.
For me it was palpitations from 5-HTP. Heart skips a beat, then sudden extreme vertigo and anxiety skyrockets. This happened several times a day.
And magnesium caused a dull, ever-present pressure/ache in the left side of my chest that went mostly away (except when I'm very anxious) after I stopped taking it.
That's interesting. I've actually found that it, coupled with other nootropics, reduces my anxiety by quite a lot. I've been taking it for a couple months and haven't had any negative side effects. I used to get "racing heart", palpitations, HBP, and other symptoms when I'm stressed (which now I'm attributing to the general bucket of "anxiety"), and these supplements really help calm my nerves throughout the day and I haven't had many symptoms since.
I had a very similar experience. Started when I was 25 after a 3 month stint of being unemployed. It started with a panic attack (which I thought was a heart attack at the time), and I ended up going to the hospital, a cardiologist, sleep clinic, gastro, etc. until eventually came to the conclusion it was nothing wrong with my heart but rather panic disorder.
I take a low dose of xanax now and all the symptoms went away and I no longer have panic attacks. I'm working on finding a better daily medication, but it completely changed my life to have a temporary solution after 3+ years of struggle and suffering with panic attacks multiple times per week.
So I just have to ask because I've experienced tons of panic attacks but also have very strong family history of death by cardiac arrest -- Is there a subjective, experiential way to differentiate between the two? I always assume it's a panic attack "and if it's not just die in bed" but...
The problem is that both heart attacks and panic attacks share a variety of symptoms and even just learning about certain symptoms of heart attacks (after our CFO died of one about a year back) has made those symptoms manifest during my panic attacks. The other thing that makes this difficult is that anxiety attacks, panic attacks, and heart attacks don't have consistent symptoms among all individuals.
So it's really a crap shoot. I had a lot of cardiac work done, so I can pretty confidently say for the next decade or so, barring go through any drastic lifestyle changes, that my heart isn't going to go out on me. But I also found ways to mentally explain all the symptoms I was experiencing and deescalate myself.
Problem: "My chest is hurting." | Question: "Am I hyperventilating?"
Problem: "My jaw is hurting." | Question: "Am I clenching my teeth?"
Problem: "I feel short of breath" | Question: "Can I force myself to do breathing exercises?"
I agree with what jdsfighter said - you should go to the doctor to get some confidence that there isn't some sort of underlying heart issue. After that though, it's really a mental game that requires/required some therapy.
My panic attacks last from 3-10 minutes typically and can go up to 90 minutes. I wear an Apple Watch which would (hopefully) let me know if I had an arrhythmia. I also check my heart rate when I'm having a panic attack (which sometimes doesn't help) and I try to see if it's consistently going up, or if with deep breathing I'm able to get it to go down. Lastly, I have the xanax, which usually fully kicks in within 10-15 minutes. My attacks have the shortness of breath, feeling like I can't catch my breath, rapid heart rate, tunnel vision, etc. I try to find a calm/quiet space to relax, listen to my Calm app, and if I'm lucky, lay down for a bit.
I'm a doctor. I can tell you that even if I think a middle aged man with chest pain has anxiety he's still getting a full cardiac workup. Even a 20yo woman with anxiety will get a cardiac workup. It doesn't sound like these doctors missed anything based on this story. It sounds like they were ruling out the stuff that'll kill you quickly.
I don't see where we are disagreeing? I'm not arguing against triage.
GPs were mentioned - I'm simply stating that it's not uncommon that a patient comes to see a GP questions are asked to elicit the role of stress and anxiety in the situation as appropriate.
This does not rule out other care or take precedence over it as you know.
Everyone is different I guess, but here's an example from my experience as someone with pretty bad GED.
For whatever reason, I don't like crowded, enclosed spaces such as busy supermarkets. I don't feel fear and don't feel threatened by environment, but I do get irrationally irritated to the point of getting quite aggressive.
After taking CBD for anxiety I found that I was much more relaxed and just ignored other people at the shops.
I think it has a lot to do with gender roles, personality and even machismo and a question of which side of the fight or flight response you tend to fall.
I can relate to this fight/flight response in crowded spaces myself, and how my SO and I might have very similar feelings expressed in completely opposite ways.
We tend to send one kind of reaction to the psychologist, and the other to jail (I guess it ties to self-harm versus potential harm to others).
I think society and psychology define or at least frame certain words in a way they apply more to one gender, not unlike how traditional autism definitions tend to omit a lot of female autistic behaviour.
Ironically enough, getting in touch with my aggression, doing lots of sports and being very fit makes me feel more relaxed and able to handle situations that would have made me "anxious" in my early 20's.
I feel "masculinity" has been somewhat under attack for many years now and it might very well be that for many men embracing male aggression and drive so it can be incorporated into society in a useful manner or through positive outlets would be a much better solution than repressing male urges and demonising them. If the main party line for male problems is "get in touch with your female side" and pretending you're something you are not, I see that doing more harm than good for a lot of men. Allowing men (their natural impulse?) to feel strong, capable, in control and even aggressive might actually make them less violent in ways detrimental to society.
Much the same experience here, including the difficulty with memory which I find to be the most insidious thing. What have you found helps it, if you don't mind me asking?
Not the OP but I would describe my anxiety in identical terms.
When I feel the doubt about past memories/decisions start to creep, I whip out my phone and make some brief notes (usually keep one document per trigger). I will just write a few bullet points detailing what facts I am sure of right now along with the reassurances I am telling myself in that moment.
Then, next time it happens I open the same note, read my previous thoughts and relax into it knowing I’ve been here before.
I suppose it’s just an anxiety journal, nothing novel, but it works for me. Over time as I accumulate more facts the effect sort of compounds and simply knowing I’ve got the notes is enough to push the anxiety away.
Ah, I hadn’t thought of the journaling idea. I do try to start and end my day with brief/debrief note taking to create more continuity in my intentions and memory, but that doesn’t address other sources of anxiety in between. Thanks very much, grateful for your response.
Infrasound can cause anxiety, a good source for this are wind turbines, but its naturally occurring in the wild anyway. Stags emit it to warn females and young of predator's without giving away the location of the stag as the sound hits the ground and spreads in all direction, like you see with bass frequencies. High pitched frequencies are very directional by contrast. Disney sound engineers discovered it in the US, when they slowed down the recording of an electrical device, all those in the sound lab went home not feeling very well at all, its a fascinating story of discovery. Diet can also cause anxiety, the renin angiotensin system can certainly increase anxiety, exercise will counter the effects of anxiety, which is less common today than 50 years ago.
1. Reduce intake temperatures/prevent pre-ignition
2. Produce enough power to sustain a constant speed of 120KPH or whatever
This means that they are far less efficient than they should be, and in some cases get more or less the same efficiency as larger displacement high capacity engines.