![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 40 to 64 of 64. Go back in thread:
Posted by linkadge on June 7, 2007, at 14:08:20
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry, posted by Iansf on June 7, 2007, at 13:49:55
>I don't see why it's a logical fallacy to equate >feeling better with taking the drug if indeed >you do feel better after taking the drug and >feel worse when not taking it, particularly if >this happens consistently.
The best one can conclude is that the drug *may* have been responsable.
>How else can you measure the effectiveness of an >antidepressant except by observing your mood >before and after taking it?
Well, improved mood after placebo would look very much like the placebo was responsable until you find out it was placebo.
>If taking a particular med consistently >coincides with lessening or elimination of >depression and not taking that med does not >consistently coincide with lessening or >elimination of depression, then it's indeed >logical to equate the taking of the med with the >termination of depression.Its not logical. Especially since when it comes to depression, the placebo is statistically as/more effective than an active drug! By your logic, we have proven that placebo's work, which they don't. (it is the mind that is working).
So long as the patient knows he or she going to begin taking a drug, there is no way to know the degree of placebo effect that will follow.
Linkadge
Posted by Iansf on June 8, 2007, at 1:04:12
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry, posted by linkadge on June 7, 2007, at 14:08:20
> Its not logical. Especially since when it comes to depression, the placebo is statistically as/more effective than an active drug! By your logic, we have proven that placebo's work, which they don't. (it is the mind that is working).
>
> So long as the patient knows he or she going to begin taking a drug, there is no way to know the degree of placebo effect that will follow.
>
> Linkadge
>By that line of thinking, there's no way to know if ANYTHING works for anything because it could be the placebo effect. If you do cognitive therapy and your depression goes away, how do you know it's the therapy and not the placebo effect? If you get ECT and the depression goes away, how do you know it's not the placebo effect? How do you ever know it's not the placebo effect?
But the fact is the placebo effect rarely, if ever, lasts for a long period, whereas antidepressants do. Maybe not for everyone, but for many people they do. I took Prozac, Luvox and Parnate for two to four years each, and during the periods I took them I was not depressed. How many people with long-term depression get relief from placebos for that long a time?
In addition, I took Lexapro, Celexa and Citalopram. I expected them all to work, but none did. I also tried SAMe, fish oil and various other over-the-counter supplements, and none worked. Why would the placebo effect happen with some drugs but not others?
You might as well throw science out the window if you're not willing to accept a link between cause and effect that shows up consistently and repeatedly.
John
Posted by linkadge on June 8, 2007, at 11:14:45
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry » linkadge, posted by Iansf on June 8, 2007, at 1:04:12
>By that line of thinking, there's no way to know >if ANYTHING works for anything because it could >be the placebo effect.
I'm just saying that the statistical rate of placebo response should always be presented and digested alongside the "presumed" rate of antidepressant response.
>If you do cognitive therapy and your depression >goes away, how do you know it's the therapy and >not the placebo effect? If you get ECT and the >depression goes away, how do you know it's not >the placebo effect? How do you ever know it's >not the placebo effect?
You don't.
>But the fact is the placebo effect rarely, if >ever, lasts for a long period, whereas >antidepressants do.
That is debatable.
>In addition, I took Lexapro, Celexa and >Citalopram. I expected them all to work, but >none did.The placebo effect is more than expectation.
>I also tried SAMe, fish oil and various other >over-the-counter supplements, and none worked. >Why would the placebo effect happen with some >drugs but not others?
Timing.
>You might as well throw science out the window >if you're not willing to accept a link between >cause and effect that shows up consistently and >repeatedly.
I am not throwing science out the window, cause this isn't science. Science has not proven that antidperessants work. The sum of all clinical trials fails to show this.
A flawed method of gathering data will produced flawed results. There needs to be more forms of data verification in clinical trials. Active placebos, blinded placebo crossovers, active agent challenge etc etc. Even then, this would not proove anything, it would only strengthen or weaken the case.
Linkadge
Posted by Squiggles on June 8, 2007, at 11:36:42
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry » Iansf, posted by linkadge on June 8, 2007, at 11:14:45
.... There needs to be more forms of data verification in clinical trials. Active placebos, blinded placebo crossovers, active agent challenge etc etc. Even then, this would not proove anything, it would only strengthen or weaken the case.
>
> Linkadge
>There needs to be better drugs, then you would not have to verify, reverify and unverify the placebo effect. Just as you take an aspirin when you have a common headache, and feel better, so would a "clean" AD that alleviates your mood would be accepted and taken repeatedly. Belief in the efficacy of a drug is very much dependent on its tolerable effect. Placebo effects are comparatively weak in the face of a powerful and and "feel good" drug.
>
>
>
>
Posted by Quintal on June 8, 2007, at 18:16:53
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry » linkadge, posted by Squiggles on June 8, 2007, at 11:36:42
Which brings me back to opiates. Why is the opiate deficiency theory of depression not widely upheld given their rapid and almost universal antidepressant effect? Codeine fulfils the criteria for ideal an antidepressant that you outlined there. It makes just as much sense as claiming dysregulation/deficiency in other neurotransmitter systems is the underlying cause of depression. Even the psychosomatic aches and pains that are common in depression could be held up as evidence of a hypoactive opiate system. But the mood lift after taking opiates doesn't prove that there was ever anything wrong with the opiate system to begin with, because the same person would probably also feel better after taking Esterene for example (a slow-release version of crack cocaine).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n25_v136/ai_8207099/pg_3Q
Posted by Phillipa on June 8, 2007, at 19:20:54
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry » linkadge, posted by Iansf on June 8, 2007, at 1:04:12
None of them ever worked for and contrary to what some think I have been on theraputic doses many times for extended periods. Love Phillipa I have no faith in them
Posted by leo33 on June 8, 2007, at 20:25:23
In reply to Re: Depression is not a chemical inbalance, posted by Iansf on June 4, 2007, at 23:07:46
After reading the whole thread I believe noodle's post and Iansf's post describe the argument the best and most open minded. If there is anything that I have learned in the 15 plus years of dealing with this is one size does not fit all! CBT can work for some and not others. For some drugs work better than others. We are all made from different experiences and environments as well as biology, this is the reason why there is not a standard treatment that works for everyone. It is also the reason why people find treatment so ineffective when they try to follow a specific pattern for treatment, i.e. prescribe an SSRI for first line treatment for most cases.
If you live for another 30 years it will be commonplace to have our brains enhanced by nano technology just to stay competetive in the working world.
Just my two cents.
Leo
Posted by Squiggles on June 8, 2007, at 20:55:40
In reply to Re: Depression is not a chemical imbalance, posted by leo33 on June 8, 2007, at 20:25:23
I've read this analysis so many times, and
for me, rather than englightening me, just
fortifies the darkness that covers this area
of medicine.Notice, that when a gall bladder is to be removed, there is little gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing over how we are all different, and
how we cannot expect the same results for this particular patient.
Squiggles
Posted by linkadge on June 9, 2007, at 14:11:40
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry » linkadge, posted by Squiggles on June 8, 2007, at 11:36:42
>There needs to be better drugs, then you would >not have to verify, reverify and unverify the >placebo effect. Just as you take an aspirin when >you have a common headache, and feel better, so >would a "clean" AD that alleviates your mood >would be accepted and taken repeatedly. Belief >in the efficacy of a drug is very much dependent >on its tolerable effect. Placebo effects are >comparatively weak in the face of a powerful and >and "feel good" drug.
I'm sorry I don't understand.Linkadge
Posted by Squiggles on June 9, 2007, at 15:39:20
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry, posted by linkadge on June 9, 2007, at 14:11:40
> I'm sorry I don't understand.
>
> Linkadge
>
>Never mind... it's all on the wrong track.
I've made a mistake-- human error.
Posted by jerrypharmstudent on June 10, 2007, at 4:07:25
In reply to Re: And not all psychol. probs are under one's control, posted by linkadge on June 5, 2007, at 14:55:30
> Thats exactly the problem. Neuroscience is so sexy cause it is, in may ways, a product of the imagination.
>
> The idea that you can be whatever you want with the help of a pill can be very distructive.
>
> Seeing as we are far away from this reality, we can really only poke around in ways too crude for much good.
>
> Just the fact that oftentimes withdrawl can make us feel worse than when we started a med is proof that the brain is trying to counteract these pills.
>
> IMHO, we are not getting to the root of any problem, we are just pumping the brain full of mental steroids that can provide a relatively short term boost to get over problems.
>
> People are so fascenated by effect. Just because coffee makes you feel better doesn't mean you have a coffee deficiancy.
>
> Pleasure works in gradients.
>
>
> Linkadge
>
"> The idea that you can be whatever you want with the help of a pill can be very distructive. "And a group of psychiatrists denying medications do not help and that depression is a lapse in character and will (which is basically what they are saying) is VERY VERY dangerous.
How many of us have tried to educate friend, family, etc about depression NOT being "all in our heads" - fighting the stigma that we can snap out of it?
IF we all have psychological control over our depression (which i do believe we have to SOME degree) then why aren't we all better? If we just THINK we're better - POOF MAGIC! No more depression! How easy was that?
It infuriates me to think that there are doctors out there who believe depression is purely psychological and that CBT is the only way to "cure" it. Which is quite a hypocrisy - how many studies have shown CBT to be as effective as an SSRI? Quite a lot actually which would point to the "chemical imbalance" theory. If we change our thinking we CHANGE our brain neurotransmitters.
CBT is an invaluable tool for depression and other mental illnesses - I'm not saying everyone needs to be on a pill. But the pill augments the therapyt and visa versa.
As someone posted - the brain is plastic and we are NOT in control of MANY of our brain's "psychological" processes. There are numerous studies showing differing brain physiology in those with a mental illness - as there are MRI's and PET scans showing abnormal concentrations of neruotransmitters in certain key areas of the brain in those with mental illness = chemical imbalance.
Although we are using somewhat "crude" methods of treating mental illness - neuroscience is not ALL stabbing in the dark. Yeah we don't know why ECT works for some people - but it can be a LIFESAVER. Why do some people repsond to Prozac and others Effexor? Why are millions still treatment resistant? We don't know - however, that does not equate to a conclusion that depression is purely voluntary psychological "imbalances" under our control.
I've been in therapy for 15 years. Why haven't I been cured?!? Have I just seen all the wrong therapists?! Same goes for the medical side of things -have I just been seeing all the wrong psychiatrists?!
I strongly believe that depression and other mental illnesses are part environmental and part genetic abnormalities. If it were purely psychological (which -actually what DOES that mean?!) - then a hypnotist should be able to pop use all out of our misery - right??? Or we are all pathetic, weak willed, unmotivated, lazy fakers WANTING to be depressed?? I don't think so.
Who here has not tried, prayed, done EVERYTHING in his or her power to SNAP out of being depressed?? Who here has had to FAKE being cheerful simply so others would be more at ease with us and not have to deal with our "problems??" According to what this group of psychiatrists say - then we should have all been healed by now....right????
Like I said - I don't advocate popping a pill for all cases - but to trash those with mental illness with this "it's all psychological" slap in the face disgusts me.
My opinion.
Jerry
Posted by linkadge on June 10, 2007, at 7:37:23
In reply to Re: And not all psychol. probs are under one's con » linkadge, posted by jerrypharmstudent on June 10, 2007, at 4:07:25
>Quite a lot actually which would point to >the "chemical imbalance" theory. If we change >our thinking we CHANGE our brain >neurotransmitters.
Thats what I am saying. A lot of people sum up their problems to bad chemistry in kind of a fatalistic way. "I have bad chemistry and the only think that can change that is a drug."
>But the pill augments the therapyt and visa >versa.
I am not saying don't take meds, I am just saying that I am just saying that (some) people (myself included) need to be open to all forms of healing.
I just don't agree with people who sum up all their problems to bad chemistry and believe a pill is the only thing that can make any improvement.>as there are MRI's and PET scans showing >abnormal concentrations of neruotransmitters in >certain key areas of the brain in those with >mental illness = chemical imbalance.
I am not saying that there isn't a difference in the brain of depressed people. I am just saying that the brain is a different organ from other body organs. For instance, you cannot will yourself to produce more insulin, but you can actually do things that will increase your serotonin levels. Hot bath, good meal, stress reduction, petting a dog, hugging somebody, having sex, eating chocolate, sitting in the sun, etc.
>We don't know - however, that does not equate to >a conclusion that depression is purely voluntary >psychological "imbalances" under our control.I am not saying that we have all the power to solve our problems. I am just saying that we do have some influence on our moods, the extent of which is probably unknown. To give up on searching for complementary methods of healing is a mistake.
>Or we are all pathetic, weak willed, >unmotivated, lazy fakers WANTING to be >depressed?? I don't think so.People seem to have got the wrong idea from what I was trying to say.
>Who here has not tried, prayed, done EVERYTHING >in his or her power to SNAP out of being >depressed??
I am not saying anybody needs to snap out of it. I am just saying that people with depression need to *keep* open minded. It is easy for people with depression to become closed minded, and whether that is the chicken or the egg, I don't know. The brain has a high degree of placticity like you said, but giving up on looking for ways to get better is the fastest way to curb brain placticity and repair. Hope for a way to improve is a treatment itself. Hope likely promotes placticity itself.
>Like I said - I don't advocate popping a pill >for all cases - but to trash those with mental >illness with this "it's all psychological" slap >in the face disgusts me.I never said that at all.
Linkadge
Posted by Squiggles on June 10, 2007, at 8:01:32
In reply to Re: And not all psychol. probs are under one's con, posted by linkadge on June 10, 2007, at 7:37:23
In matters of conduct, biology precedes
all education and training and determines
the course of temperament most likely to be taken.
There have been mentally ill people since ancient
times who may have struggled against their demons
and rarely succeeded. Medication changes the man,
making him more reasonable and taking him out
of a madness in which he cannot exercise reason or behaviour he would like to. This is why the law recognizes and adjusts penalty according to degrees of sanity.To the anti-psychiatry group, which pretends to be able to cure madness and its results through compassion alone, i would remind them of one of Aesop's Fables:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Snake
"Caxton's translation (1484)
Of the man and of the serpent
He that leneth and helpeth the euylle men / synneth / for after that men haue doo to them some good / they hurte them afterward / For as men sayen comynly / yf ye kepe a man fro the galhows / he shalle neuer loue yow after / wherof Esope reherceth suche a fable / A man was somtyme / whiche fond a serpent within a vyne / and for the grete wynter and frost the serpent was hard / and almost dede for cold wherof the good man had pyte and toke and bare her in to his hows and leyd her before the fyre / and so moche he dyd that she came ageyne in to her strengthe and vygour / She beganne thenne to crye and whystled about the hows and troubled the good wyf / and the children / wherfor this good man wold haue her oute of his hows / And whanne he thoughte to haue take her she sprange after his neck for to haue strangled hym /
And thus hit is of the euyll folk whiche for the good done to them / they yeld ageyne euyll and deceyuen them whiche haue had pyte on them / And also theyre felauship is not good ne vtyle /"
Squiggles
Posted by JerryPharmStudent on June 10, 2007, at 8:08:17
In reply to Re: And not all psychol. probs are under one's con, posted by linkadge on June 10, 2007, at 7:37:23
Hey Link -
I apologize - I didn't mena my post to be directed towards you.Sorry for any misunderstanding.Jerry
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 10, 2007, at 15:46:11
In reply to Re: And not all psychol. probs are under one's con, posted by linkadge on June 10, 2007, at 7:37:23
>
> I am not saying don't take meds, I am just saying that I am just saying that (some) people (myself included) need to be open to all forms of healing.
> I just don't agree with people who sum up all their problems to bad chemistry and believe a pill is the only thing that can make any improvement.I agree with you. I like the way that you temper your statements. "some people" for example. I find that much of the confusion in this argument comes from statements like "all people"
My own theoretical perspective leans away from a reductionist view of the human mind. The way I understand physics, neuroscience, neurobiology, physiology, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, psychology, philosopy, religion is that they all contribute knowledge to every other discipline. They are all interrelated. To equate the mind (and its problems) to a problem at only one level (reductionism) does not do justice to the amazing complexity of our beings.
Depression is something that can be simultaneously demonstrated as abnormal thinking, abnormal physiology, abnormal hormonal states, abnormal psychology, abnormal neurobiology and abnormal neurotransmitter levels.
Any theory of the etiology or manifestation of depression (or other psychiatric illness) should at least consider whether their theory can explain and predict the abnormalities found in other systems in the body, and the other disciplines that I mentioned above.
I think that depression is an illness of a whole person, and that the entire person shoud be treated, including their thinking, their neurochemistry, etc. Western medicine and alternatives can be complementary to each other in this regard.
>> I am not saying that there isn't a difference in the brain of depressed people. I am just saying that the brain is a different organ from other body organs. For instance, you cannot will yourself to produce more insulin, but you can actually do things that will increase your serotonin levels. Hot bath, good meal, stress reduction, petting a dog, hugging somebody, having sex, eating chocolate, sitting in the sun, etc.
>Linkadge, didn't you say in an earlier post that your dad eats an unhealthy diet while taking his cholesterol-lowering medications? I think the brain is like any other organ. We can DO things to make our pancreas happy, and our kidneys, our athelete's foot, etc. The funny thing is that KNOWING what to do [eat fewer refined carbs/ drink plenty of water/ clean and wipe between our toes after bathing] and DOING it are two separate things.
To err is human. The profound apathy found in some depressed people prevents them from doing the things they need to take care of their bodies and their minds. Eating chocolate sounds simple enough, but I can attest to a chocolate hoard in my fridge that has been there for months... and I can't get excited enough about eating to eat even chocolate. yuck. I guess that's anhedonia.
> I am not saying that we have all the power to solve our problems. I am just saying that we do have some influence on our moods, the extent of which is probably unknown. To give up on searching for complementary methods of healing is a mistake.
>> People seem to have got the wrong idea from what I was trying to say.
Let me know if I've misinterpreted you
>
> >Who here has not tried, prayed, done EVERYTHING >in his or her power to SNAP out of being >depressed??me. I can't eat my chocolate. I spent my time and money on other things besides acupuncture. (scared of finding an acupuncturist), and I didn't get a job that will allow me to afford regular therapeutic massages. I don't lie in the sun. I don't get enough exercise. I don't ... many things. Despite knowledge. I guess the last few months I didn't have much time. I was trying to graduate. Sometimes life takes priority over self-improvement and healing, unfortunately.
>
> LinkadgeI'm enjoying this thread a lot, it's stimulating to my nerdy side. maybe I need to get out a little more and start pretending to be anti-depressed. Actually, what I REALLY need is a fantastic placebo. Can't exactly call up pdoc and ask him to prescribe me a placebo, though huh? :D
-Ll
Posted by FredPotter on June 10, 2007, at 15:49:55
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry, posted by Squiggles on June 9, 2007, at 15:39:20
I'm reading "Against Depression" by Peter D, Kramer (the author of Listening to Prozac). A lot has happened in our understanding of depression in the last 10 years.viz depressed people have fewer glia cells in the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus is shrunk. It seems these things may predispose to depression, requiring some kind of "stress" for its realisation, but it also seems these features are themselves worsened (further damaged) by depressive episodes making the episodes more likely as we get older.
During the decade unequivocal evidence for neuron regeneration has been discovered, particularly in the hippocampus. So this is the good news, especially as serotonin, via the serotonin transporter leads to more BDNF which promotes neuron growth.
So at this rate, who knows what will have happened to treatment or prevention in 10 years time? I'm getting on in years so I'm mainly concerned over my children's future
Fred
Posted by linkadge on June 10, 2007, at 16:08:54
In reply to Re: And not all psychol. probs are under one's con » linkadge, posted by Squiggles on June 10, 2007, at 8:01:32
>In matters of conduct, biology precedes
>all education and training and determines
>the course of temperament most likely to be >taken.Well, thats where the debate is at. Nature > Nurture is just one position in the argument.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on June 10, 2007, at 16:31:56
In reply to Re: Depression change in brain anatomy, posted by FredPotter on June 10, 2007, at 15:49:55
>A lot has happened in our understanding of >depression in the last 10 years.viz depressed >people have fewer glia cells in the prefrontal >cortex and the hippocampus is shrunk.
I agree.
>It seems these things may predispose to >depression, requiring some kind of "stress" for >its realisation, but it also seems these >features are themselves worsened (further >damaged) by depressive episodes making the >episodes more likely as we get older.I also agree.
>During the decade unequivocal evidence for >neuron regeneration has been discovered, >particularly in the hippocampus. So this is the >good news, especially as serotonin, via the >serotonin transporter leads to more BDNF which >promotes neuron growth.
This is where I partially disagree. While I do agree that depression may be due to decreased cellular resiliance and repair, I would not go as far as some have to suggest that SSRI's fix this problem. Yes there are some studies that show SSRI's can increase BDNF, but there are also studies that show SSRI's do not increase BDNF. Some studies show only temporary, or biphasic changes in BDNF protien, Ie quick upregulation that peters off after a few weeks.Also, the word is not final on SSRI's and neurogenesis. Some studies show enhanced neurogenesis with antidperessants, some studies don't. Also, serotonin isn't the only neurotransmitter involved in hippocampal placiticy. Dopamine, choline, noradrenaline, gaba are also involved. Who knows if tweaking one chemcial will actually make things better or worse down the road.
Also, serotonin can trigger cellular proliferation in the perihpery. 5-ht2b agonists like the recently withdrawn parkinsons meds can affect cellular differentiation in the heart. I think it is possable that SSRI's are capable of affecting cardiac valves in the same way.
SSRI's also do not fix the circutry (ie glia atrophy or dysfunction) that may be involved in depression, nor do they undoe atrophy in the frontal cortex.
A number of studies also suggest that SSRI's "worsen" stress induced hippocampal atrophy. This study suggests that tianeptine prevents stress induced atrophy by lowering serotonin levels.
See:
http://www.aapspharmaceutica.com/search/view.asp?ID=29864&size=small
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/22/9/3638
So, I don't think the word is final on how these drugs affect the brain, or wheather they are actually doing all that they are purported to do.
Linkadge
Posted by FredPotter on June 10, 2007, at 21:29:14
In reply to Re: Depression change in brain anatomy, posted by linkadge on June 10, 2007, at 16:31:56
Thanks Linkadge for putting me right. You obviously no more than the guy who wrote the book. Would you therefore say that the situation is far too complex for there to be a cure or prevention just around the corner? As you say, SSRIs might do some things, but they don't address the glial problem in the pre-frontal cortex or the atrophy of the hippocampus.
And it seems as soon as scientists make a breakthrough in the reductionist explanation of depression, along comes what appears to be an environmental cause (or trigger). The book explains these aspects very well and has explained to me why therapy plus drugs works best
Fred
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 10, 2007, at 22:33:16
In reply to Re: Depression change in brain anatomy » linkadge, posted by FredPotter on June 10, 2007, at 21:29:14
Hi Fred,
Would you recommend the book? What is the targeted audience, do you think?
-Ll
Posted by FredPotter on June 11, 2007, at 15:50:42
In reply to Re: Depression change in brain anatomy, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 10, 2007, at 22:33:16
Kramer's Against Depression is a bit condensed and contorted in style and yet somewhat repetitious. It tries to explain exactly what depression is right now in 2007, and how devastating it is. I haven't got to any hopeful bits yet, apart from the encouraging work done by researchers. However any moderately intelligent person should understand it. Unfortunately this might rule out some doctors
Posted by linkadge on June 13, 2007, at 14:39:11
In reply to Re: Depression change in brain anatomy » linkadge, posted by FredPotter on June 10, 2007, at 21:29:14
It always works both ways of course. Depression can cause pathological brain chemistry just as pathological brain chemistry can affect depression.
One of the individuals I respect the most in the field is Dr. Manjii. Apparently, while mood stabilizers don't usually have that much acute antidepressant effect, they do have ability to affect cellular survival beyond the capability of antidepressants. Perhaps adding a low dose of a mood stabilizer may have more effect on the long term outcome of depression?
Antidepressants may poop out in that they might exhaust the underlying circutry. Theres only so much energy at the cellular level. Just as in parkinsons, there may be depletions of intracellular or mitochondrial energy. Maybe depressed people are really "insane in the membrane"
A healthy lifestype would undoubtedly have a positive effect on brain placticity, but depression can negativly affect the desire to live a healthy lifestyle.
I don't have all the answers, but it seems to me that the people who do the best in the long run don't put too many eggs in one basket, and don't rely too much on any one therapy(?)
Probably best to combat it from all possable angles, diet, exercise, therapy/social interaction, meds etc.
For instance, according to this study, social iscolation selectivly decreases BDNF protein in animals.
See:
http://biopsychiatry.com/bdnf-socisol.htm
This is interesting, since a separate animal study showing that prozac increases BDNF, failed to tell the reader that BDNF increased in any animal that had been handled, and not just prozac treated animals.
Anyhow, I am getting off base.Linkadge
Posted by FredPotter on June 13, 2007, at 15:38:06
In reply to Re: Depression change in brain anatomy » FredPotter, posted by linkadge on June 13, 2007, at 14:39:11
Thanks for the Manjii recommendation. You mention mitochondria. I wonder then if supplementation with CoQ-10 would help. For the last 6 weeks since Nardil bedded in I've felt brilliant, but muscle aches made me give up a statin drug I was on. After 2 weeks that seems to have much improved and I can now take exercise. They say statins deplete CoQ-10 so supplementation for that might seem a good idea, but might be advisable for depression anyway. Just guessing really
Fred
Posted by linkadge on June 14, 2007, at 6:36:35
In reply to Re: Depression change in brain anatomy » linkadge, posted by FredPotter on June 13, 2007, at 15:38:06
Yeah, its hard to say. I've tried q-10, and it definately helped some symptoms of depression, energy, mental reserve etc, but it may have caused irritability.
Just my experience .
Linkadge
Posted by FredPotter on June 14, 2007, at 15:33:22
In reply to Re: Depression change in brain anatomy, posted by linkadge on June 14, 2007, at 6:36:35
Linkadge I had aching, stiff, weak muscles and fatigue, which might have been due to a high dose of statin. So I've given them up and am using CoQ-10 to reverse its depletion. It's not something I'll continue doing I don't think, it's just short term to reverse the damage. Like most things, we probably don't need much of it. Of course the tiredness may have been caused by depression
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.