What is the best for preventing sea sickness?

Re: Seasickness remedies

It's quite clear from the above that you have to experiment to find your own personal solution - perish the thought! Most people leave it too late (pride?) so I always have Scopoderm patches on board (hard to find? Ask your GP.)

Yes, it needs discipline to avoid rich food and vino the night before, especially if abroad, but it is important, and have snacks and soups made up beforehand if the forecast is unfriendly.

You can't helm all the way cross-Channel! Victims must not be allowed to suffer out in the cockpit where they're a danger to themselves and others; get them down below, wrapped up warm - and don't lose sight of the watch system unless they really are at death's door.

If introducing someone who has still to discover these delights, keep it short. Make passage from Hamble to Yarmouth on a nice day, then repeat into F5 and try it in F7.
It's all about pushing back thresholds - bearing in mind that 80% of the population will succumb.
 
I have used the reliefband medical device...it was fantastic! Myself and my wife ( me more than her!) always used to get sea sickness in difficult situtations....but this device was a life saver... apparently it uses a "nerve stimulation technology"-(from manufacturer website!) relieve motion sickness ......regardless it works great...i now have 5 on my boat for friends just in case
 
I have used the reliefband medical device...it was fantastic! Myself and my wife ( me more than her!) always used to get sea sickness in difficult situtations....but this device was a life saver...

apparently it uses a "nerve stimulation technology"-(from manufacturer website!) relieve motion sickness ......regardless it works great...i now have 5 on my boat for friends just in case
 
Going down below and having a kip works well for me - even when rough I find the motion has enough of a rythmn to not prevent sleep.

I have taken Sturgeon before - helped me sleep better /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Apologies to those who've read parts of this story before . . .

Experiments have been conducted since WWII to look closely at the causes of seasickness. They clarified the issue a little, but found no solutions.

'Motion sickness' is indeed caused by conflict between what Mk I eyeball senses as 'motion', and what the rest of the body senses as 'motion'. I was a subject in such experiments in the early '70s. I'd had a high level of exposure to turbulent living (offshore racing, flying) and brashly claimed to be reasonably immune. Others were very prone to motion sickness. Some 30 subjects participated

I was completely humbled by being made violently sick within 10 minutes while sitting, static, in a seat. The cause was the rocking projection of an apparent horizon around a hemispherical screen which surrounded the static seat. Other 'runs' were made with the seat and horizon moving together (like being below in a yacht), others were made with the seat moving, but the horizon static (real world).

Real world produced least nausea (like sitting on deck with a good visual field). The other two created equal amounts of reaction. However, the time to nausea varied widely between subjects (two lucky sods were immune) and with frequency of rocking. Several of us had 'sensitive' frequencies that quickly caused nausea, usually higher frequencies (just like those encountered in a life raft with the hood up!) And most of us increased our tolerance with exposure.

This gives clues about postponing seasickness effects. Keep a good all round visual horizon; classically, let the subject steer, or get them regularly to scan the horizon on 'lookout'. Alternatively, remove the visual field by closing your eyes. Minimise your time below with eyes open, and don't hide inside the spray hood, or read maps. Or even charts.

The other method is to 'disconnect' the conflict with a drug (any of the many mentioned in the thread above, most of which are antihistamines) so that the brain is half asleep and doesn't notice the conflict between visual and physical motion cues. Most who take these will be familiar with the drowsiness which accompanies them. Finding one which causes least drowsiness is sensible . . . but may reduce its effectiveness! But by then acclimatisation may be working its calming effect.

Best of all is exposure to the phenomenon. Which is probably how wrist bands work. First time round you're sick. You put a band on next time; but experience (exposure) has already acclimatised you. You praise the wrist band - it's actually exposure.

Interestingly, some arcade gamers are prone to nausea, as are some space travellers. I suppose we shouldn't call it motion sickness . . . perhaps 'sensor conflict nausea'. Hmm. Sounds too robotic.
 
I might be one of the lucky ones, but I have never been really sea sick.

On one occassion I did start to feel a bit icky, I had been on deck for a while, and popped down below to make a brew and started to read the headlines of the daily paper whilst I was waiting for the kettle to boil, then it happened that funny feeling inside. So I quickly went back on deck,looked at the horizon and then Mark 1 eyeball and other senses (ear drum balance etc) got their act back together. No problems after that.

I know that sea sickenss is due to eye/balance problems and relating the body to what it thinks is happening however I also think that it is partly in the mind, if you are worried about getting it, then I guess that you will get it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have never been really sea sick .... I also think that it is partly in the mind

[/ QUOTE ]

As a martyr to motion sickness, this kind of self-congratulatory, unreflective comment really irritates me, and contrasts starkly with Jim Baerselman's considered and informative response. The experience you relate certainly does not support your "expectancy" hypothesis - you were not expecting to feel sick but did so when you did something which has been shown to increase the likeleyhood of nausea. Have you considered that the link between people expecting to feel sick and doing so might be based on them (accurately) predicting their response on the basis of past experience?

There is a tendency for people who are lucky enough not to suffer from motion sickness, asthma, allergic reactions, depression etc. etc. etc. to believe that this reflects creditably on them and to look down on people who are less fortunate.

This is not the place to address what it is in the mind might mean but I recommend it as an exercise for the reader.

Thank you, I feel better now.

Alan
 
I agree - my experience of sea-sickness is that 99% of it is definitely NOT 'in the mind'.

I sometimes get sick for the first 12-24 hours of a passage. From experience this happens when I am tired and head straight out into rough(ish) weather. (I try not to sail straight into ROUGH weather..) Stugeron works for me, but makes me drowsy. This actually helps sometimes, as the real cure is to have a sleep. When I wake up, its as if the body has said 'OK, this is what its like now and I'd better get on with living'. I've sailed thousands of miles and sometimes I can go from shore to sea and into rough weather without any problems. Sometimes those waves of yuk can't be avoided, and its nothing to do with my attitude. In fact my attitide is one of knowing that its going to get better, but I can't do much about it for a while and I've got to live through it.

If I've miscalulated and not realised I'm going to need Stugeron, then the best way to take it is to allow it to dissolve under your tongue. Its gets absorbed throught the membrane straight into the blood stream I am told. Works for me anyway.

The only time I think sea-sickness IS in the mind, is when I hear people saying they're starting to feel sick on the cross channel ferry before we've even undocked.
 
99%

99% - well I reckon a large percentage of the population (non-boaty, maybe boaty as well) will be concerned/worried about becoming sea-sick. They're right so to do; it is something to be worried about, 'cos it's truly horrible and therefore something to be taken seriously by any skipper about his/her crew - and about himself/herself. This boating lark should be a pleasure, not some kind of 'proving' endurance test.
And it is something that a similarly large proportion of the population (boaty, non-boaty) will indeed suffer from, given the right circumstances (see Jim Baersleman's excellent post). Which will vary, including varying according to how much 'experience' one has.
Levity about the subject, boasting about "oh I never get sea-sick" (hidden agenda - only weak willies get sea-sick), etc don't help and are unseamanlike/poor skippering.
Calm acceptance, prevention measures (stugeron et al) taken in good time (every time, maybe), placebos (I don't know if ginger or flat coca-cola does really work, but maybe it does and certainly does no harm), keeping up top, keeping warm, helming, early recognition, lying down, etc., are certainly no more than properly sensible natural measures.
IMVHO
 
Re: 99%

[ QUOTE ]
99% - well I reckon a large percentage of the population (non-boaty, maybe boaty as well) will be concerned/worried about becoming sea-sick.

[/ QUOTE ] I think you are missing the point.

I don't think sea-sickness isn't anything to worry about. Its a debilitating condition that can be life-threatening. If you don't actually die from the dehydration, people have been know to make stupid decisions as a result of their suffering. The results of the stupid decisions have been life-threatening in the past.

What I was referring to was the claim that 99% of people suffer 'because its in their mind' - in other words they think theyare going to be sick and subconciously suffer as a result, or that 'if only they were capable of positive thought, they could make themself not be sick'. These latter two suggestions are wrong and have no basis in mine (or most other peoples) experience. Positive thinking, and keeping morale up helps, but it doesn't usually stop the onset if you are predisposed.

Those who claim that 'I've never been sick, (usually with some sort of superior air) just haven't been thrown about enough yet. I admit some people seem pretty resiliant though...
 
Re: 99%

My post wasn't really specifically in response to yours, John. Your quoting "99%" prompted mine, more like. Wasn't specifically agreeing or disagreeing, just setting out what I think. /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I know that sea sickenss is due to eye/balance problems and relating the body to what it thinks is happening however I also think that it is partly in the mind, if you are worried about getting it, then I guess that you will get it.


[/ QUOTE ]
You may be aware from early teen-age of the disturbing effects of consuming some poisons - alcohol. The eyes and the body no longer work together - the bed spins - you see double - you lose balance. Many poisons have these effects. The appropriate survival response is to get rid of the poison - to vomit.

So the theory is that the vomit reflex to a conflict between visual and bodily cues is hard wired into the majority of the population - a means of surviving poison ingestion which has an awkward side effect for sailors, gamers and space travellers.

Some don't inherit this protection device.

If this theory is right, it's not in the mind - it's in the genes. And those who don't vomit easily may be vulnerable to a range of poisons . . . although in today's protective environment the likelyhood of ingesting them is low (omitting early experiences of inhaling cigarette smoke, consuming alcohol, injecting heroin . . . all of which have made me vomit violently). You'll also note that exposure to these experiences removes the reflex . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top