Talk:Cold-stimulus headache/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Journal article

Can someone supply some more information on the journal article mentioned? In particular, it would be interesting to know *when* it was published - and also, why the fact that one of the authors was a 13-year old is so noteworthy. Although curious, I don't really see how it relates to the "brain freeze" topic itself. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 01:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Scientific Name

spheno palatine ganglioneuralgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTMogh (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 A brain freeze can usually last just a few seconds in many people.

The

article should note that there are other forms of "brainfreeze":

experiences caused by various smells, chemicals, such as perfume;

being emotionally overwhelmed;

being cognitively overwhelmed;

other similar experiences.

Hopiakuta 20:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is specifically related to brain freeze caused by the introduction of cold substances to the mouth/throat are. Other conditions, such as emotionally charged conditions, are similar, but ultimately, completely different. I would suggest perhaps putting a segment in the article devoted to Emotion (effects of, something like that) instead of adding it to this particular topic. Top of the t'you and happy editing!

Thermoregulation

A mammals ability to regulate it's temperature via endothermic homeostasis is primarily an evolutionary need to keep the animals brain within a specific temperature range. When a very cold substance is introduced to the flesh surrounding the primary blood flow to the brain, a sudden drop in the brains temperature occurs. Since the brain has no means of sensing direct touch, pressure or pain, a non-localized and non-specific sensation is felt. We call this a "brain freeze" and it resembles a headache. An example of this would be a beverage of ice chips suspended in a flavored liquid, i.e., a Slurpee or an Icee, cooling the inside of the throat next to the carotid artery. Unfortunately no studies have been found on this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.83.234 (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply: You are probably right about this. This is exactly what I was thinking.

So are nerves near roof of mouth, or in throat?

Which is true? The article indicates the roof of the mouth; but some people say it's actually reffered pain -- and the nerves are located in the throat (check the discussion above). Is the article wrong? 207.12.38.25 02:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

They are both true. The article outlines both of them to point out that some studies have shown that the aforementioned "brain-freeze" can be caused by either introducing cold objects to the roof of the mouth or to the throat. Top of the t'you, good comment.

As nobody seems to know, I would argue that the nerve involved is actually closer to the stomach. If you have ever boxed you will be aware that a sound blow or repeated small blows to the area just below the solar plexus produces a highly unpleasant sensation in the temples and behind the eyeballs - exactly like an ice-cream headache, only longer lasting. It would make logical sense to me, given the typical time delay (you don't feel it until the liquid hits your core), that the cold-induced brain freeze is a related phenomena; an autonomous response evolved to prevent us from lowering our core temperature by voluntarily ingesting too much snow or ice water. Gut-punches just stimulate the same nerve. If it were the palate or throat which triggered this response, one would expect volume to be a more important factor than temperature, as well as the response to be quicker and stronger if we hold the liquid in our mouth. The opposite is true. We should also expect a similar response to hot beverages which would immediately affect our ability to cool our brain - typically a much larger concern than keeping it warm, and why we are the dominant hominid rather than predecessors lacking our elaborate cranial plumbing. You can also get one hell of a headache participating in a "polar bear swim" - though, of course, the whole body reacts to sudden immersion in cold water and the headache could just be a reaction to having ones's testicles retract into one's pharynx ;-) Just my two cents, but I'm pretty sure cooling the carotid isn't a problem - it's probably exposed to promote cooling in the first place, not just to make us the physically easiest large-prey target in the animal kingdom.

So, does vasoconstriction cause pain?

The article jumps from vasoconstriction to pain, actually digressing to discuss rebound vasodilation, without making a clear causal connection between vasoconstriction and pain. This could be reworded to make this clearer. Steve carlson 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence?

So... if I understand it right, not everyone experiences brain freeze when consuming large amounts of cold foods or beverages?

This would make sense as I personally never experienced it and always wondered as a child why that was when the other kids were visibly in pain (the explanation they would usually give me seems to be wrong -- according to medical examinations I do in fact possess a brain).

Shouldn't the initial paragraph read "a form of cranial pain or headache which some people are known to experience"? Or even "a form of cranial pain or headache which some people are known to sometimes experience" if you want to keep the "sometimes" in there.

Right now up to the bit about the test results it seems to imply everybody experiences it, just not as frequently. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Finally, someone else who doesn't get brain freeze! I eat ice cream wicked fast (and gulp down cold/frozen drinks at lightning speed) and the worst I get is my low-enamel front teeth hurting, but usually a severely numb mouth. Maybe it has something to do with how I am always feeling so ridiculously hot, but my body temp is usually at or a little below 98.6. --Deb

I have recurring nasal polyps that I periodically have to have removed. I have for many years been able to eat ice cream as fast as possible without any problem. Once after having the nasal polyps removed (I believe it was from my sphenoid and ethmoid sinuses that time) I started eating ice cream at my normal rate and got a wicked Brain Freeze. I tend to believe the polyps normally insulate the nerves in those sinuses and therefore discount the referred pain theory, at least in my case. 75.68.214.208 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Mike

This vasoconstriction is in place to reduce blood flow to the area, and thus minimize heat loss to keep warmth at the body's penis

Is the 'Penis' thing right or is it a typo?

Sounds like vandalism, but I could be wrong. 207.12.38.25 02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the vandalism bit. Remember though, this isn't a chat page; unless something is relevant to the article, try not to post it. As for including a bit about the exclusivity of brain freeze, I completely agree. It is important to note that not everyone experiences it. If you could find a reason as to why, that, of course, would be a much-loved bonus! Top of the t'you all.

It's not vandalism of any sort. He was referring to 'shrinkage' of the penis in cold environments.

Breathe fast or slow?

"Creating a mask with one's hands placed over the mouth and nose while breathing rapidly is also said to be useful since the temperature in the mouth rises quickly"

versus the earlier statement:

"The pain is not caused by the cold temperature alone, rather quick warming of the hard palate. Letting the mouth slowly adjust back to normal temperatures can prevent this from occurring"

These two statements seem to contradict one another... one says that the effect is caused by rapid warming of the palate after being cold, while the other says it can be relieved by rapid warming of the palate... huh??75.28.41.156 13:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation from personal experience

It seems to be more prevalent if the temperature of the thing being consumed is lower relative to the body temperature. After just coming back from running, drinking a cold drink gave me a slight brain freeze, but 10 minutes later, after I had cooled down a bit, I didn't get a brain freeze despite drinking the same drink with the same temperature. --216.165.62.50 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cause

This article has previously claimed vasodilation as a cause and now says that it is just the brain's perception of contact with cold food...neither of these were cited nor reason given for the replacement of the old claim with the new one...24.164.75.68 (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

killing me coldly

I thought this was a result of referred pain from the throat.

Someone needs to do a trial, with the following conditions:

1. Keeping the cold icecream in the mouth until it is body temp, then swallowing, and
2. Feeding softened icecream into the throat (bypassing the mouth).

That sould determine the location of the nerves responding.

Reply: I am sure I've read somewhere that brain freeze is caused by contact between cold substances and the throat, not the roof of the mouth. Long ago, upon reading it, I experimented by repeatedly holding an icee to the roof of my mouth for a prolonged time. I didn't get brain freeze (and I often do when eating/drinking cold stuff), so I believe it. D S 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)DS

Yes, it is an example of referred pain and I added that information along with a source that says its been studied as an example of referred pain, linking to the article on the subject.Giovanni33 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to original comment) that would be original research. Repku (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Need photo of someone having a brain freeze. Badagnani (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Badagnani (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this really does anything to illustrated what an ice cream headache is. About the only thing that could would be a cut away kind of medical picture to illustrate what is happening in the head during this time. This is little different from showing a picture of a person sitting in a chair with a caption that reads "This person is suffering from internal bleeding" or "this person has an enlarged heart".--Crossmr (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the best that could be found. He's clearly in some distress, in the same way that aspirin manufacturers use photos of headache sufferers rubbing their temples in pain. Badagnani (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are advertisements, not encyclopedic entries. Any photos used need to illustrate the subject, not imply it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ICHD code is ICHD-II-13.11.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarniwoopMD (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr, the image illustrates nothing at all. A medical illustration would be interesting indeed. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the same images as in Sphenopalatine ganglion, or maybe just the first? --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep photo - the deletion made earlier today by User:Ronz was not helpful to this article. Badagnani (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • While the intentions are good, I think the image is of questionable importance. What we need is an MRI of the headache, or something a bit more informative. Does the person know that their child is being used on Wikipedia? If I was his parent, I might have a problem with that. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Certainly the father knows; in an effort to improve this article I wrote to him to ask his permission to use the photo, and additional details about it, then let him know we were using it. Like most Flickr editors I've emailed for permission (probably over 100), he was pleased to contribute this illustration of someone suffering from this condition (the best available at Flickr). An MRI or X-ray would be fine, but this photo illustrates the physiological effects in a RL manner, as opposed to a scan or cross-section of a brain, etc. As such, to be maximally encyclopedic, photos of both would be desirable. However, finding such things and obtaining permissions can take time. As you can see from the discussion above, even finding and obtaining permission for this photo did take a bit of time and effort. Badagnani (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Honestly, I had no idea that you did that. Do you often tell people you are doing this much work? It might change the way people see you. I appreciate the time and energy you took to do this. But, there are good arguments for keeping and removing the photo, and in these types of instances, I would recommend removing it as default. I personally don't find it informative, but that's just me. I'm not going to vote "keep" or "delete" because that's too simplistic for my tastes, but perhaps you could find another photo to use? I mean, it would save a lot of disagreement if we just left the article without a photo for now. Of course, that's what I would do; you obviously might feel differently and you are welcome to keep arguing about it, but it would show your editing in a better light if you were to compromise. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I usually write to Flickr photographers to let them know how we're using their photos, to seek their permission, find out more about their photos, etc. It's simply out of the utmost respect for their contributions to our project. As I've mentioned both above and below, I worked very hard to find that photo (you can see the proposal to find a photo for this article in the first place), and it was the best available. My photo upload log, as my article creation list, is available for anyone to see and I do not make a point of advertising all the communications I have made with Flickr photographers; however, many of them may be found in the comments sections of the Flickr photos themselves, at the Flickr website. Simply go through my photo upload log and follow them to the original Flickr photos if you are so inclined. Regarding our articles on whatever subject, it would be logical to include a photo of someone suffering from an ice cream headache, as this one verifiably is; one can see a similar photo at Headache, which I would also not advocate removing. We must keep our users foremost in our minds, and users would expect to see what someone suffering from this condition looks like (this photo being an excellent illustration of such). Badagnani (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a terrific photo. Very illustrative. If there is some kind of medical illustration that can be added that would be good too. I also think the title brain freeze would be better. Maybe an RfC to get general input would be good? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't this article used to be entitled Brain freeze? Besides the U.S., is this term also prevalent in Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, etc.? Badagnani (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Was there discussion that led to this page move? Badagnani (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Google Books search:

• Ice cream headache = 660 hits
• Brain freeze = 169 hits

Badagnani (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Google search:

• Ice cream headache = 47,600 hits
• Brain freeze = 20,600 hits

Badagnani (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The kid in the photo looks like frowning for the strong light, not for the ice cream. That image is not that good.--Caspian blue 05:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely at the lighting of his arm, you will see that the sunlight is shining from above. This clearly indicates that he is not shielding his eyes from the sun (which is shining on his head and not in his eyes), but most definitely suffering from an acute brain freeze. It's harder to determine whether he's dancing, but I'm willing to take the sourced documentation on good faith and accept the reliability of their description of the events that transpired.

As there is division on the prevalance of ice cream headache as opposed to brain freeze in the sources, I suppose this title is okay. But I've never heard it used and it does seem to have a strong POV bias against vegans, the lactose intolerant, and consumers of slushies. I have reviewed the talk page discussion (see one thread up), however, and the "consensus" 2-1 a clear margin, seems to favor brain freeze. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think prevalence of real-life English-language usage is our normal standard for article titling. Don't forget sorbet. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you are referring to sorbet, but the fact is "brain freeze" is indeed the standard term for referring to this phenomenon in actual real-life usage. Just because a few books tend to call it an "ice cream headache" in order to sound professional means nothing. Eugene2x►^talk 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, don't mess up with my comment ChildofMidnight, sorry that I can't agree with your interpretation of the image. In the image, a strong contrast of light and shadow is evident. If you know me better, I don't like "poor" images posted on articles; (eg.Talk:Patbingsu) Finding a good image would be a better approach than edit waring over the image that can be viewed with various way. --Caspian blue 06:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are lovely photos. Given the difficulty of photographing this phenomenon I think the current photo is really quite good. Do you have another one in mind for this article? If you're creative with photos, I'm hoping to find one that's appropriate photo for the Dutch oven (practical joke) article. But these types of things aren't terribly photogenic I'm afraid. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you mean by Dutch oven (practical joke). I'm of opinion that X-ray or other medical images, or better images just to focus the medical appearance is way better than the silly edit warring and bickering.--Caspian blue 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem obvious that a diagram illustrating the affected areas would be valuable, but I do not see that as a reason not to include the current photo, which shows a child pressing his hand to his forehead and holding an ice-cream. In my humble opinion, it's as good an illustration of the appearance of the symptom as you could get. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No one has mentioned my suggestion of using one or more of the images from Sphenopalatine ganglion. They aren't perfect by any means. Trigeminal nerve has one that's better in some ways. Ideally, the illustration should show both the blood vessels and nerves involved. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think that the plate from Gray's Anatomy showing the position of the ganglion would be useful to readers and I'd recommend its inclusion in the article. Nevertheless, the use of images here isn't an either-or, and regarding the image you just deleted, I would ask you to consider the question "Is the article better with or without the image?", rather than "Is this the best possible image that could exist?". If a better one comes along, that is the time to replace it. There is no deadline. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing for a single image, nor a best-possible image. I'm simply continuing discussion on the viewpoint, brought up and shared by others, that medical images would be helpful, and that the image of the child is not. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos of real-life instance (as mentioned above) as well as a scientific photo would both enhance this article immeasurably, and add to its comprehensive and encyclopedic quality. Let's work together to do that. Badagnani (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But how to do that? If the paragraph beginning, "In the palate, this dilation is sensed by nearby pain receptors" were expanded perhaps, the image moved nearby, and the caption changed to relate more directly with the information in this paragraph, then such an image might make sense. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried it in the article, and think this can be made to work with more wordsmithing to tie the image and text together. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried it with a medical illustration as well, after my first attempt was reverted without any discussion in response to my comments or suggestions. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There was indeed discussion; see above, where the reverting editor wrote:

“ I think it's a terrific photo. Very illustrative. If there is some kind of medical illustration that can be added that would be good too. ”

Badagnani (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The new illustration looks good to me. Hopefully we can resolve this dispute and move forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please restore photo

Please restore photo and caption moved and changed in this edit; there was no consensus to move the photo to the bottom of the article, or change the description. It's best to generate consensus prior to such a change. The photo (the only one we have so far), as in Headache, is fine to keep up top. Badagnani (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Badagnani (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The photo does not adequately show what happens during a brain freeze unlike the one in Headache, where the person is clearly uncomfortable and in distress. Additionally, the child is smiling, and it is evident that he is posing for the photograph, which makes it even harder to relate to the article. If it weren't for the image caption, we could all just assume that he was saluting the photographer, was blinded by the sunlight, or even was just trying to show off his spoon. The image has got to go, especially when you claim it's "the best we can find". Sometimes that's just not good enough. Eugene2x►^talk 00:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Title

I think that this article would be better in the end if it was moved back to brain freeze. After all, the phenomenon doesn't just occur when eating ice cream, and I've seen few sources actually refer to it mainly as ice cream headache. Instead, they usually refer to it as "brain freeze (aka ice cream headache)", and some don't even call it ice cream headache at all.

A quick Google search with irrelevant pages removed still turns up 3 times as many results for brain freeze vs. about 160,000 for ice cream headache. I recommend this be moved back to where it originally was. Eugene2x►^talk 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if I wrap quote tags around "ice cream headache" on a Google search, it barely turns up a measly 47,000 results. Again, "brain freeze" still manages to turn up 3 times as many results. Eugene2x►^talk 23:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see discussion above.

Google Books search:

• Ice cream headache = 660 hits
• Brain freeze = 169 hits

Badagnani (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Google search:

• Ice cream headache = 47,600 hits
• Brain freeze = 20,600 hits

Your argument is flawed, as when you search for brain freeze along with "ice cream" tagged onto it, you are in fact looking for articles that also include the term ice cream (headache). Likewise, searching in Google Books proves nothing more than what regular search would prove. Eugene2x►^talk 02:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please restore photo (2)

Extended content

Photo removed without consensus here. Please restore. Badagnani (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Restored at your request. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC) WP:BRD and WP:DRNC. Please read them. Eugene2x►talk 02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Look above; there is no consensus to delete the image. Please continue canvassing talk pages until you find it. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The photo showing the individual suffering from an ice-cream headache is comparable to that at Headache: the best example of a real-life person suffering from this condition that can be found at Flickr. I know because I spent quite some time sifting through Flickr before finding it. Badagnani (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Consensus was 3-3 to remove, in other words, no consensus to remove. So why is Eugene2x edit warring to remove the image? Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Edit warring? Please, a few reverts do not amount to edit warring. I find the lack of good faith from the two of you insulting. Do what you will with the article, but the picture does not add anything special or worthy of mention, unlike the diagram shown on top. Eugene2x►talk 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Enough. You are edit warring by every known definition of the term, and you've been warned about it on your talk page. This talk page discussion shows there is no consensus for the removal of the photo, yet you continue to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, warned by you and Badagnani. This is appalling and you are behaving no better than what you claim I am doing. Eugene2x►talk 02:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Any number of reverts is edit-warring. It's a terrible way to get things done. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC) To answer your question, if I am not mistaken, three of the editors expressing a wish to remove the photo hadn't contributed to this article before this week, but I believe were drawn here due to their general interest in my edits. Badagnani (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) From the discussion above: For removal Crossmr Ronz (1) Caspian blue (1) Eugene2x (1) Against Badagnani RexxS ChildofMidnight Viriditas (1) Note, these three editors have been hounding Badagnani and have simultaneously started an RFC against him and followed his contribution list to revert his edits, and this article is part of their hounding campaign, so this is not a conensus formed from a consideration of all points of view but rather an attempt to counter everything Badagnani does with malice and without adhering to the core principles that support the goals of Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Against Badagnani (!) Viriditas (!) ChildofMidnight (!) RexxS (!) This should be noted that Viriditas has been hounding Ronz and Eugene as well as having made dreadful personal attack, threats, and curses. Don't make such untruth, Viriditas. I recommend you to realize the reality of how poorly Badagnani has behaved to the community including his harassment and wikistalking of me for over one year and his recent racist attack to me and other editors as well as his recent wikistalking.[1][2][3] See the dates. Hounding? look who's kidding? Do you think you can freely continue such personal attack campaign? I wonder why does this kind of disruptive editor not get admonished.--Caspian blue 04:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Besides, I did not comment anything about the removal but said edit warring over the image is a "silly thing". Do not distort my stance. You're the one hounding Ronz and Eugene to revert for Badagnani's sake. That is called "meatpuppeting" based on your dreadful swear to Eugene.--Caspian blue 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I am disgusted by this comment. Honestly. I have a strong reason to believe that you yourself and ChildOfMidnight are heavily biased for Badagnani. The RFC was started in light of his behavior, but now that I think about it you could also be worthy of mention. Eugene2x►talk 02:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC) You were recently involved in one of the lamest edit wars in Wikipedia's history, a dispute over Foam take-out container, that eventually went to mediation, and you were blocked for your disruptive behavior. You learned absolutely nothing from your block, except that you returned angrier to "get" Badagnani in any way you could. I have observed all of this, as have other editors. Recently, you begain hounding Badagnani, and followed him to every one of his contributions, reverting him right after each of his edits. I called you on that too, and you claimed you found the articles by "chance". Given the above evidence, how likely is such an explanation? Now, you are threatening to expand your disruptive behavior to those who are tyring to put a stop to it? No, your childish antics have no place here. Grow up, or go away. Wikipedia is not your personal video game. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC) You yourself need to learn to be civil. If you have nothing better to do except flame the heck out of other users here, expect to be ignored. Your behavior here needs to improve, and yes I did find the article by chance. No looking at his contributions for this one. Acting like a meatpuppet on behalf of Badagnani and causing flame wars accomplishes nothing. Any further nonsense that you manage to come up with next and blatant attacks will be completely ignored. Eugene2x►talk 03:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC) If you talk about how each other are uncivil, that puts us... 3? steps removed from talking about this article. Why don't we just agree to start being more civil, and talk about why it is or is not a good photo for the article? This is an article talk-page, after all. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Comment Badagnani restored Viriditas (talk · contribs)'s comments that at least two editors consider it "personal attack" to escalate the situation that he has caused[4] (but well, missing Viriditas (talk · contribs)'s attack compaign would've made my rely to her something missing, so I'm okay with Badagnani's restoration) --Caspian blue 04:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Suggestion: How about we remove this entire section as a distraction and disruption of this talk page? What little here that's relevant to the article can easily be rewritten. --Ronz (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I think that people might react badly to having their comments deleted, which would make such a move counter-productive. Better would be to start a new section, and try to remain focused. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC) People react badly to many things. That's the problem here. People need to WP:CHILLOUT and start treating this article talk page as an article talk page. Let's archive the section and move on. --Ronz (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Kindly undo collapsing of discussion here, thanks (edit summary said "making collapsible - always wanted to figure this out - revert if you like"). Badagnani (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • He said "revert if you like." What more do you want? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo removed; please restore

Photo removed here; please restore. Badagnani (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone request an RfC on the photo in question. Apparently we need additional input. I would do it, but I always seem to mess up the template. :P ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone covering there eyes to protect them from the light. Remove.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the light is coming straight down and the individual in the photo is suffering from the effects of an ice-cream headache. The father wrote in the caption of the original Flickr photo that the boy was suffering from an ice cream headache, and dancing the pain away. Kindly go to the original photo and read the above discussion. Badagnani (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth posting a request for the comments of interested editors on the food and drink project and whatever the appropriate medical page is? As there is a high level of acrimony I don't want to be accused of canvassing by anyone. :) I still think an RfC might be a good idea also to get more input. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd stop by. As an uninvolved editor I have to say the image, while a good photograph, doesn't seem to add that much encyclopedic value. ([5]) Keep removed. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 05:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The best photo of this condition available at Flickr is not good and should be kept removed (unlike the Headache article, which has a similar image)? Why is that, exactly? Don't we wish to have the best, most thorough and encyclopedic article about this subject? It seems clear that the photo does add a great deal to this article, in showing the real-life condition, not a brain scan or X-ray. Badagnani (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the image is suitable just because a Flickr uploader defined it as such. For example, is a picture of someone throwing salt over their shoulder necessary to define the act of throwing salt over the shoulder?

Meh, maybe I just find it a bit silly. Not all viewers will know what the image is without reading the caption, which is bad in all cases except those including complex science or obscure phenomena... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it even possible to accurately show how the "real-life condition" looks like? There is no reasonable or accurate way to explain the ice cream headache through a picture. I think it conveys excessive silliness to the article rather than any relevant information. Snapshots of a child acting like a monkey is not what I consider very appropriate on Wikipedia. Eugene2x►^talk 01:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the best photo illustrating the real-life effects of this condition, similar to the photo at Headache, and, as such, improves this article immeasurably. Badagnani (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please restore photo (3)

The Flickr photo is the best image showing an individual suffering from this condition at Flickr and, as such, is comparable to the image at Headache; kindly restore. Badagnani (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually bothered to read the comments above you? The image at Headache adequately portrays what someone with a headache might appear. She is obviously experiencing signs of discomfort, while the picture here shows nothing but a child acting in a silly manner. In my experience, people who get ice cream headaches or brain freeze do not look like that at all. Now instead of taking advantage of fellow editors to restore it for you, consider its appropriateness on the page. Adding information to an article does not entitle you to ownership of it. To tell you the truth, in all my years on Wikipedia, I've never seen a guy who is this protective of their edits. Eugene2x►^talk 16:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from your stubborn obsession with the image that you uploaded. Three uninvolved editors including "a medical doctor" additionally said that image does not illustrate the symptom well, so said "keep removed". WP:Consensus is formed, so please do not continue your drama further. --Caspian blue 17:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Badagnani, you've always asked for consensus on removal of "x" content, but now that the consensus disagrees with your opinion you choose to ignore it? As I said above, taking advantage of other editors does not amount to anything but trouble. Eugene2x►^talk 17:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kindly moderate your tone. Badagnani (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also ask you to kindly stop with these kinds of unwarranted and nonsensical reverts: [6]. Being bold warrants an automatic revert? This is outrageous behavior on your part, and is the primary reason why an RFC was created about you. Eugene2x►^talk 18:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of "Discussion" before making large removals from an article (especially when requested to by another long-time editor) is very reasonable, useful, and positive, and contributes very much to our collaborative spirit. It would be wonderful if you would moderate your tone. Badagnani (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not reasonable, useful, or positive if you disrupt Wikipedia simply to illustrate your point. You call for these "discussions" all the time, never comment on it except maybe once, and ignore consensus when the discussion is over. This is disruptive editing and certainly does not contribute to this "collaborative spirit" you refer to. Should a user be punished or warned for making such a small, reasonable edit? Eugene2x►^talk 18:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All editors here are "long-term" editors.--Caspian blue 18:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, your asking on this page to have the photo restored will probably never work. We'll all be older, and you'll still be asking, and it still won't work. That's because you're doing it wrong. Once people have decided they disagree with you, and you have nothing new to say (that's "new", in the sense of something you haven't already said), then you've only got two options: (A) Find other people who agree with you (try the village pump, for example), or (B) Accept that consensus is not with you, so you won't get your way. There is no other choice.

Well,... I guess you could keep doing what you're doing. That might be fun. Is it wise to keep doing the same thing and expect different results? Is it clever, to keep asking the same question and expect a different answer? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Thank you for this kind and sincere comment. It does not, however, solve the problem of the three editors who followed me here, making their first edits here just a few days ago, simply to oppose whatever I was doing (and you, as an admin, have not assisted, that I can detect, in remedying this very serious situation, which is actually a policy issue rather than a content dispute). Badagnani (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, I can't tell someone to stop reverting an edit when that edit is made against consensus. Wikipedia is not a criminal justice system, and I can't punish someone for not liking your picture. The people who have come to this page subsequently also think the photo is a poor one; are they hounding you as well?

The problem of the three editors following you will be easy to solve if you can point me to an edit they're reverting that shouldn't be reverted. So far, I've seen commercial links taken out of one article (good work), and a photo that most people seem to think is a poor illustration taken out of this article.

The removal of your content here is not "a very serious situation," as you call it, because the content is not supported by consensus. If the content were good, then I could do a lot more.

You will never get your content into articles by insisting on it. You will get there by convincing people. How many times will you have to hear this before you listen? Is it wise, to never even try alternatives? Is it clever to ignore the way forward, and instead knock your head into the same wall, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again? Is that how you wish to spend your time on Earth? If not, then go find people who agree with you. We'll wait here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone, and solve the issue of the three editors following me to nearly two dozen articles, including this one, simply to reverse everything I do? This is a serious policy issue. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will. I'll do that as soon as you do what I'm asking you. I suppose you think I should do what you say, but you do whatever you want. Is that fair? I've offered you a deal, over and over and over and over again. Take it or leave it, but stop complaining that you're not being helped. I've extended my hand, and you've spat in it. How do you think I feel. Think about that, Badagnani. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani is saying such the untruth again. You know I reinserted your image "twice"[7][8] because of your constant nagging. Then you stopped requesting "Please restore photo" on the page and canvassing to your dreadful friend. The next day, I got a complaint from another admin about me reinserting the less useful image. I thought you of course was thanking me, but you're blatantly lying again.-Caspian blue 20:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Caspian... this doesn't help. Don't act like him. Rise above it. Play the adult - fake it if you must. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone? Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you kindly refrain from making lies and dramas? --Caspian blue 21:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Caspian, this doesn't help. If you're not going to say something helpful, don't say anything. Otherwise, you're just like him. Just like him. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds awful (I don't want to be like him), but I really hate him resorting to "incivility" and "lies". I should "fake" myself regardless of his untruth? I respect Ronz's ability to keep himself in cool composure.--Caspian blue 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, don't fake anything. Forget I said that. Just each time you post, ask "will this be helpful?", as in, actually helping. If not, don't post. It's that simple. Nobody's believing any lies; don't worry. It's not as if he's got a lot of credibility right now. I understand that it's frustrating, but the only thing that will form people's impressions of you is what you type, not what others type about you. From where I'm standing, you're a guy who's been frustrated by a very frustrating and stubborn person. It's perfectly natural. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You said:

“ It's not as if he's got a lot of credibility right now ”

Kindly refrain from impugning another long-time, sincere, and productive editor's credibility (!!!), would that be all right? Did an admin, in whose position we entrust the maintenance and good faith of our project, just say such a thing? Such language really undermines our fundamentally collaborative spirit. Badagnani (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ease up there. Admins aren't gods that are forced to adhere to the strictest and most formal tone and language possible, and it is true that your credibility is somewhat low at this point. Eugene2x►^talk 03:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Title

I moved the page back to Brain Freeze. That is the most common name and even if it wasn't, a consensus must first be reached before a move can take place. Grk1011 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is most known as "Brain Freeze". Greekboy (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Brain Freeze", despite a somewhat well-known popular term, has no references whatsoever. I'm not going to immediately move it back, because I would have preferred moving the page to "Ice cream headache". Bulbous (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares, the ultimate arbiter of pop-culture, Homer Simpson, made reference to an "Ice Cream Headache" in The Simpsons' episode GABF14. That should be the final nail in the coffin for "Brain Freeze". Bulbous (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As this is a recognisable medical symptom, the article should probably conform to WP:MOSMED which gives the guideline: The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term (common, unscientific, and/or slang name). Commonly used names should therefore be redirects and specified in the first sentence. However, I'm not sure what this condition's medical name actually is. Searching medical references for "ganglioneuralgia" doesn't get any hits on PubMed, for example, but "sphenopalatine ganglion neuralgia" leads to Sluder's neuralgia, which is not the same thing. Failure to find any sources describing this symptom with anything but a common name is a reasonable justification for using the commonest name - checking google would suggest "Ice-cream headache". --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually if we're going by common names, Brain Freeze wins by a landslide. Remember, when doing Google searches with multiple words you should use quotations to find the exact phrase. Otherwise, you'll get results for sites with any combination of the words "ice", "cream", and "headache". A search of "Ice Cream Headache" turns out 31,000 results, while a search for "Brain Freeze" yields 311,000 results. FantajiFan (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

This page should be moved to "Ice cream headache" as supported by all the references. The title "Brain freeze" is unencyclopedic and completely unreferenced. I would suggest that "Brain freeze" properly redirect to "Ice cream headache". Bulbous (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, would imply that ice cream was the primary cause, which it isn't, since it can be caused by cold beer, cold milk, etc. "ice cream headache" is unencyclopedic, and "brain freeze" can easily be referenced and is widely used. Use the scientific name sphenopalatine ganglioneuralgia or cold-stimulus headache, if you want an "encyclopedic name". 70.51.8.56 (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ice cream headache" is the medical term used in all references in this article, and all of those I have been able to locate to date. Despite your suggestion that "brain freeze can easily be referenced" , I have seen no references whatsoever (outside of blogs and the usual nonsense). In fact, there isn't really enough citation to prove that "brain freeze" is even a real thing, never mind a proper page title. Bulbous (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you check here a very reliable source? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clearly Merriam-Webster is a reliable source that supports the current title. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, and as such you should support the move as ice cream headache precedes brain freeze in usage by almost 30 years according to MW, [9].--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Ice cream headache predates brain freeze by almost 30 years according to MW and the article even states "primarily known as..." there is no reason for it to sit here. There is no point of view issue with the implication as to the cause as this is the most common name associated with it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic behind the move to "Ice-Cream Headache", was it a single editor who decided they preferred it there? I only see one other editor voice support with what I would consider weak reasoning, namely that "Ice Cream Headache" is the archaic term and thus should be used over a modern term that nearly everyone uses. The term "Ice Cream Headache" sounds much less scientifically rooted than "Brain Freeze", not that either are scientific terms. The term Brain Freeze is no longer completely unreferenced. I'm wondering if it'd be possible to open up discussion for a move since it looks like the original move was done before there was any kind of agreement on the issue (and discussion on how it fits Wikipedia standards). FantajiFan (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hangover/ withdrawal

I know this may sound weird but when I am having an exceptionally bad hangover/ withdrawalal from alcohol I purposely do this and it seems to help the throbbing pain and mental dullness that goes along with the worst hangovers. The effect only lasts a short time and i don't know anyone else who does this but it provides a immediate relief and huge morale boost. Not sure why this works? I know it must have some effect on my blood vessels and sinuses which are areas that are hit hard by hangovers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.227 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Can a brain freeze kill you?

I had a brain freeze one time that almost killed my friend and me. I was driving and I drank a slurpee too fast and ended up passing out for about 2 minutes. My friend said my eyes rolled into the back of my head. If I have another massive brain freeze again, could it possibly cause damage to the brain or even death?

Can anyone tell me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.86.224.66 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would guess only if the brain freeze induces some kind of secondary effect, maybe a seizure or an epileptic episode, but that's only a wild guess on my part and nothing scientifc. 193.215.199.34 (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You should go have yourself checked by a doctor just in case. --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Brain Freeze

I'd like to bring up again a previously discussed topic. Namely, this should really be moved to Brain Freeze, as there seems to be more editor support for that title than the current one. Tad Lincoln (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

However, "brain freeze" has several meanings, while "Ice-cream headache" has only one meaning. AnonMoos (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think ice cream headache is the older term. The condition is caused by greed. In the past it was only children who would rush their food, get a headache, and blame it on ice cream. Now that adults eat and drink like pigs, adults have come up with brainfreeze.82.42.126.68 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never head the phrase "ice cream headache" before, at first I wondered if someone had defaced the article. Ikmxx (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not be titled "Ice-cream headache," given that more than just ice cream can cause the effect that the topic discusses. Coming to this article just now and seeing "ice-cream headache" for the title made me scrunch my face up in confusion, as I was expecting it to be titled Brain freeze or by a scientific name (its scientific name is listed in the lead as an alternative name; "cold-stimulus headache," which it mentions, is a scientific name as well in my view). And I knew that the title of this article must have been discussed on this talk page various times (which is the case). "Ice-cream headache" is certainly not the WP:COMMONNAME. I'll ask WP:MED to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The current title should be kept. According to the ICD information the term "ice-cream headache" is correct, unless we want to rename this article "headache attributed to ingestion or inhalation of a cold stimulus". It should be clarified that this article does relate to headaches caused by other cold stimuli though.Peter.C • talk • contribs 04:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The ICD-10 calls it "cold-stimulus headache," one of its alternative titles mentioned above; again, I prefer that title over "ice-cream headache." I am aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Naming conventions. But, in the #Title section above, RexxS mentioned uncertainty with regard to knowing what the medical name actually is. And, yes, the article already clarifies that "ice-cream headache" relates to headaches caused by other cold stimuli as well. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point, that would be a better title for it and various other literature on the subject refers to it now too. Peter.C • talk • contribs 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, since you are the only WP:MED member to weigh in on this at my request thus far, I don't know if we should wait for more replies from WP:MED or editors in general...or if one of us should be WP:BOLD and move the article without waiting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Remarks about the 12 year old should be trimmed down

The remarks about a 12 year old doing a study on ice cream head aches and getting it published in a medical journal are cute but don't really belong here. The subject at hand is the headache and not the achievements of kids in their science projects. We don't report on the age of other authors, so why should it be mentioned here? 129.63.129.196 (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ice-cream vs. Ice cream

Shouldn't it be ice cream like the ice cream article is? What's the hyphen for? JakeDowell (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This can't be right

It couldn't be because of quick warming of the hard palette because I always get brainfreeze while I'm chugging a glass of cold milk and the only thing that stopped it was to stop drinking the milk.

As a former 7-Eleven employee I did my own research on this subject and the second theory is the correct one. The headache happens when the interior of your throat gets too cold. You can hold a mouthful of Slurpee for as long as you like and you'll never get it, but if you swallow that mouthful very slowly it can hurt pretty bad. 67.168.176.62 (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

History of "brain freeze"

"Brain freeze" appeared in print before 1991, as a cursory search reveals. --Ori Livneh (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirected *to* "Ice-cream headache"?

Shouldn't a search for "ice-cream headache" be redirected *to* "brainfreeze", rather than the other way around?

Sure, the medical term is "sphenopalatine ganglioneuralgia", but brainfreeze is the vernacular nomenclature. "Ice-cream headache" is... well, I dunno. I'd honestly never heard the term before perhaps a decade ago. Might be confusing for some people. Just a thought. Anyone else? Alexis (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Second/Third/Whatever. I've never heard Ice Cream Headache until now. Sadly I have no idea how to change this or initiate whatever Wikipedia process needs to happen to do that.75.34.178.58 (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Who the hell uses ice-cream headache? The most common and mainstream word is brainfreeze. Somebody that knows how to change it do it! =) Mbenzdabest (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone I know (Massachusetts area) calls it an ice-cream headache. Also, "brain freeze" is very misleading as it implies that something drastic is actually happening to your brain. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone call it an 'ice cream headache'. Where I'm from (U.K.) the term is always 'brain freeze'. I suggest we rename the article 88.104.254.163 (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of an "Ice Cream headache" either. I feel like this should redirect to brain freeze... I guess only Massachusetts know an ice cream headache. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.205.135.128 (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)