![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by mogger on May 15, 2011, at 13:21:44
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect » mogger, posted by SLS on May 15, 2011, at 12:12:06
Scott,
I can't tell you how thrilled I am to hear that you are feeling better as you have hung in there for so long and it is paying off. Just shows your strength.
Omega 3 Mood by Country Life is an awesome fish oil that I use which has balanced out my moods. I take 4 grams of EPA a day, so 4 capsules in the morning and 4 at night. Felt a bit weird at first but then calmed down and after 2 weeks I felt a difference. My pdoc says that 4 grams of EPA is the minimum dose for anti depressant and anxiety relief. If you are up for NAC I have found the best brand to be swansonvitamins.com. It has the least fillers and is extremely fairly priced. Such great news again to hear of your progress,
Joseph
Posted by Christ_empowered on May 15, 2011, at 17:51:13
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect, posted by mogger on May 15, 2011, at 0:25:31
I take 2.4 grams NAC daily (1.2 gramsx2), and it seems to work at boosting my other meds (celexa and abilify) rather than acting as an antidepressant agent in its own right.
I'd personally recommend that you maybe re-work your meds and keep taking the NAC, just based on my own experience.
Posted by SLS on May 15, 2011, at 19:08:57
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect » SLS, posted by mogger on May 15, 2011, at 13:21:44
> I can't tell you how thrilled I am to hear that you are feeling better as you have hung in there for so long and it is paying off.
Thanks, Joseph. That means a lot to me.
> Omega 3 Mood by Country Life is an awesome fish oil that I use which has balanced out my moods. I take 4 grams of EPA a day, so 4 capsules in the morning and 4 at night. Felt a bit weird at first but then calmed down and after 2 weeks I felt a difference. My pdoc says that 4 grams of EPA is the minimum dose for anti depressant and anxiety relief. If you are up for NAC I have found the best brand to be swansonvitamins.com. It has the least fillers and is extremely fairly priced. Such great news again to hear of your progress,
I appreciate your recommendations. Thanks.
Be well.
- Scott
Posted by torridcalm on May 15, 2011, at 20:03:44
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect » mogger, posted by SLS on May 15, 2011, at 19:08:57
omega 3 mood County Life is one of the best, most are crap. check out the International fish oil standards rateing system. There is perscription fish oil, Lovsa FDA approved for triglyerides or colesteriol. I believe Nardic Naterals makes lovasa. I like omega mood's ratio of epa dha if memory serves me. 2.1 or higher is what I look for. I can't afford it anymore so eat wild salmon rare and hope that makes it to my brain. I buy bulk frozen salmon individuals packed on those factory ships, Do you think the fish oil is viable after being frozen, it should be right?
Posted by Questionmark on May 18, 2011, at 1:42:07
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect » mogger, posted by SLS on May 15, 2011, at 19:08:57
Thank you so much, everyone, for the info. That is encouraging.
.. Yeah, SLS that Is good to hear you're doing well. You're on Nardil now, huh? i don't think you were last i recall, though it's been a little while. .. Best [non-abusive] antidepressant in existence, as far as i'm concerned. Continued good fortune to you.
Posted by SLS on May 18, 2011, at 5:10:17
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect, posted by Questionmark on May 18, 2011, at 1:42:07
> Thank you so much, everyone, for the info. That is encouraging.
>
> .. Yeah, SLS that Is good to hear you're doing well. You're on Nardil now, huh? i don't think you were last i recall, though it's been a little while. .. Best [non-abusive] antidepressant in existence, as far as i'm concerned. Continued good fortune to you.Thanks.
I added Nardil to my treatment regime at the end of last August. It did not start working until the end of November. Sometimes I feel like I am "stuck" at some level of illness. The rate of improvement is frustratingly slow. However, the trend is towards remission (I hope). I recently added lithium and phosphatidylserine. I was not expecting an acute antidepressant effect from either of these two substances. My rationale for doing this was to promote the growth of new neuronal membrane to form neurites (dendritic), so as to recover atrophied brain tissue and strengthen old connections. To my surprise, I experienced a more acute and stable antidepressant response of somewhat greater magnitude.
I am far from attaining remission. I expect it to take another 12-18 months unless my recovery accelerates. This is far better than not responding at all, of course. I guess my brain was FUBB.
- Scott
Posted by Questionmark on May 18, 2011, at 17:22:07
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect » Questionmark, posted by SLS on May 18, 2011, at 5:10:17
i understand the stuck feeling. i feel that way often. ... It can be very wearing.
It's unfortunate you don't consider yourself to be near full remission. i thought that's sort of what you meant. But still, as you said, it's good to be much better than baseline, or worse.
i wish i could end w a sage piece of advice, but i have no idea. However... i sincerely hope your improvement continues to climb.
> > Thank you so much, everyone, for the info. That is encouraging.
> >
> > .. Yeah, SLS that Is good to hear you're doing well. You're on Nardil now, huh? i don't think you were last i recall, though it's been a little while. .. Best [non-abusive] antidepressant in existence, as far as i'm concerned. Continued good fortune to you.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I added Nardil to my treatment regime at the end of last August. It did not start working until the end of November. Sometimes I feel like I am "stuck" at some level of illness. The rate of improvement is frustratingly slow. However, the trend is towards remission (I hope). I recently added lithium and phosphatidylserine. I was not expecting an acute antidepressant effect from either of these two substances. My rationale for doing this was to promote the growth of new neuronal membrane to form neurites (dendritic), so as to recover atrophied brain tissue and strengthen old connections. To my surprise, I experienced a more acute and stable antidepressant response of somewhat greater magnitude.
>
> I am far from attaining remission. I expect it to take another 12-18 months unless my recovery accelerates. This is far better than not responding at all, of course. I guess my brain was FUBB.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Questionmark on May 18, 2011, at 17:46:56
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect » Questionmark, posted by torridcalm on May 13, 2011, at 12:28:50
Btw has anyone (or anyone you know) had benefit for SA issues from NAC? i don't think i've seen or heard anything regarding effectiveness for this.
And torridcalm i have tried SAM-e, but it always seems to only make me feel more anxious and stressed, w negligible effect on my mood, etc. Thanks though.
Posted by SLS on May 18, 2011, at 17:52:23
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect » SLS, posted by Questionmark on May 18, 2011, at 17:22:07
Your kind sentiments and support are greatly appreciated. Thanks.
- Scott
> i understand the stuck feeling. i feel that way often. ... It can be very wearing.
> It's unfortunate you don't consider yourself to be near full remission. i thought that's sort of what you meant. But still, as you said, it's good to be much better than baseline, or worse.
> i wish i could end w a sage piece of advice, but i have no idea. However... i sincerely hope your improvement continues to climb.
>
>
> > > Thank you so much, everyone, for the info. That is encouraging.
> > >
> > > .. Yeah, SLS that Is good to hear you're doing well. You're on Nardil now, huh? i don't think you were last i recall, though it's been a little while. .. Best [non-abusive] antidepressant in existence, as far as i'm concerned. Continued good fortune to you.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > I added Nardil to my treatment regime at the end of last August. It did not start working until the end of November. Sometimes I feel like I am "stuck" at some level of illness. The rate of improvement is frustratingly slow. However, the trend is towards remission (I hope). I recently added lithium and phosphatidylserine. I was not expecting an acute antidepressant effect from either of these two substances. My rationale for doing this was to promote the growth of new neuronal membrane to form neurites (dendritic), so as to recover atrophied brain tissue and strengthen old connections. To my surprise, I experienced a more acute and stable antidepressant response of somewhat greater magnitude.
> >
> > I am far from attaining remission. I expect it to take another 12-18 months unless my recovery accelerates. This is far better than not responding at all, of course. I guess my brain was FUBB.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
Posted by SLS on May 18, 2011, at 17:59:11
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect, posted by Questionmark on May 18, 2011, at 17:46:56
> i have tried SAM-e, but it always seems to only make me feel more anxious and stressed, w negligible effect on my mood, etc. Thanks though.
My experience with S-AMe (S-Adenosyl Methionine) was very similar to yours.
- Scott
Posted by mogger on May 19, 2011, at 1:01:17
In reply to NAC High Dose But No Effect, posted by Questionmark on May 12, 2011, at 15:36:16
Try not to get discouraged about nothing yet. You are doing the right thing by sticking with it. Nac has been the most interesting supplement i have taken as it has been so slow going. I didn't have side effects nor do now. My doc says full benefits aren't achieved for six months. I am sensitive to supplements and pharmaceuticals as well so this stumped me. Don't expect side effects.
Posted by SLS on May 19, 2011, at 2:43:28
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect » Questionmark, posted by mogger on May 19, 2011, at 1:01:17
> Try not to get discouraged about nothing yet. You are doing the right thing by sticking with it. Nac has been the most interesting supplement i have taken as it has been so slow going. I didn't have side effects nor do now. My doc says full benefits aren't achieved for six months. I am sensitive to supplements and pharmaceuticals as well so this stumped me. Don't expect side effects.
I am not terribly sure about this, but taking NAC with its attendant conversion into glutathione acts as an antioxidant to protect mitochondria. Mitochondrial damage and dysfunction are noted in depressive disorders. It probably takes time for the pool of mitochondria to be effectively renewed; the rate of which is determined by their turnover rate. This could easily take months. It is important to reduce psychosocial stress to prevent further damage to the new mitochondria. Psychotherapy might allow for a quicker recovery by reducing psychosocial stress, even before there is any response to biological treatment.
- Scott
Posted by Questionmark on May 23, 2011, at 19:28:02
In reply to Re: NAC High Dose But No Effect » mogger, posted by SLS on May 19, 2011, at 2:43:28
Posted by larryhoover on May 29, 2011, at 23:09:55
In reply to international fish oil standards, posted by torridcalm on May 15, 2011, at 20:03:44
> omega 3 mood County Life is one of the best, most are crap. check out the International fish oil standards rateing system. There is perscription fish oil, Lovsa FDA approved for triglyerides or colesteriol. I believe Nardic Naterals makes lovasa. I like omega mood's ratio of epa dha if memory serves me. 2.1 or higher is what I look for. I can't afford it anymore so eat wild salmon rare and hope that makes it to my brain. I buy bulk frozen salmon individuals packed on those factory ships, Do you think the fish oil is viable after being frozen, it should be right?
Absolutely. Freezing is an excellent way to preserve polyunsaturated fatty acids. If your fish, when thawed, does not have a "fishy" smell, then you can be assured that the fatty acids are good to go. The vacuum packing in those freezer packs severely limits oxidation of the fatty acids, which is further slowed by the low temperature.
Prescription fish oil is a cash grab, trying to create an unnecessary and artificial product out of a natural food concentrate.
Lar
Posted by larryhoover on May 29, 2011, at 23:49:33
In reply to NAC High Dose But No Effect, posted by Questionmark on May 12, 2011, at 15:36:16
I think that I'd like to provide a general recommendation to supplement with NAC. It's just one of the regular supplements that I take. If you're properly replete with NAC, you have provided yourself with a high degree of stress resiliency.
NAC is an antioxidant in its own right. It need not be converted to glutathione to have a beneficial effect. It is a fair to good scavenger of a variety of reactive oxygen species, and can serve as a sacrificial binding agent to some toxic heavy metals such as mercury. Highly structured proteins such as enzymes depend on cysteine-cysteine bonds for their unique 3-dimensional form. Far better to sacrifice blood-borne or intra-cellular NAC that to lose enzyme function, to say nothing of the fact that e.g. mercury bound to cysteine can be excreted.
And then there's the growing realization that much of the physical distress that accompanies mental health issues is mediated by mitochondrial dysfunction. Mitochondria are the energy factories of every cell, but they throw off reactive oxygen species as part of their production of cellular energy. In the absence of sufficient antioxidant support, they will destroy themselves. That's where your vitamin E and NAC and selenium (preferentially as seleno-methionine) come into play. Your mitochondria are your cells playing with fire (quite literally....that's where food is burned in oxygen), and your antioxidants are your firemen, to keep the oxidation under control. If the mitochondria are permitted to destroy themselves, the cell will die.
The point I want to make is that you need not experience an overt benefit from NAC to have benefited from it. It gives you maximal resiliency. It helps to keep your liver healthy. It directly promotes brain glutathione activity levels. It's just a smart supplement to take.
Rhetorical question: How do you know when you've prevented an adverse mental state? IMHO, you don't. You just didn't have one that you might have had.
Lar
Posted by torrid on May 31, 2011, at 9:44:11
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » torridcalm, posted by larryhoover on May 29, 2011, at 23:09:55
larry another question, I stay away from farm raised due to the pcb's and mercury. I buy salmon that says "wild caught", wondering if there a is a little double talk in that statement. Are they farm raised and then released? would you trust salmon from south america? The alaskan salmon is triple the price, and how many lb's a month would I have to eat to reach 10 grams a day? it's impossible isn't it? I eat about 5 lb's a month of salmon. Trout, what do you think about trout caught in warm climates, would that be a good sorce of eda's and dha's
Posted by larryhoover on May 31, 2011, at 22:41:20
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » larryhoover, posted by torrid on May 31, 2011, at 9:44:11
I'm an environmental toxicologist (retired), and I spent many years studying the toxicity of PCBs, dioxins, furans, and so on. Some of these pollutants were found to have biological activity at part per trillion concentrations, making them as potent as hormones. At somewhat higher concentrations, they could promote tumour growth in lab animals, so we put out some strong warnings about them.
I'll give you some historical background, to give you some context for the warnings themselves in the context of fish. In the '70s and '80s, we realized that people who ate a lot of fish had better health outcomes: longer life, fewer heart/circulatory problems, less cognitive decline as they aged. Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids got much of the credit for that, but there are other fine nutrients in fish as well. Anyway, fish was elevated to a healthy food, and fish oils became popular supplements for those who didn't like fish.
But there was a bit of quandary, from a toxicological perspective. Even though the people who ate a lot of fish for decades had better health outcomes, those fish were horribly polluted. After WWII, acid rain was rampant, and was liberating mercury long before we realized that was the case. Pesticides were far more commonplace, and used far more indiscriminately. Manufacturing waste was routinely dumped into waterways. There were no scrubbers on smokestacks, and incineration was a common way to deal with trash. These heavily polluted fish from the '40s, '50s, and '60s made people who ate them healthier than those who didn't, when we looked at their health in the '70s and '80s, but we had no idea before then of all of the toxic waste that bioaccumulated in the higher level fish predators, the ones we most like to eat. We didn't have the analytical methods required to identify the hazardous chemicals, either. Just as a comparison, eggs and dairy products in Britain in the '70s were more polluted than are farmed salmon from the year 2000. We have really come a long way in controlling pollution over the last four or five decades.
And, we've discovered that a little bit of dioxin is actually protective against other cancer-causing toxins, so the picture is murkier still.
Sorry, what was the question?
I wouldn't worry too much about whether you're getting farmed or wild caught fish. Wild is better, but farmed isn't all that bad. Over 90% of the dioxins and PCBs in our diets come to us in meat and dairy products.
The issue of EPA and DHA content of trout and salmon depends entirely on their diet. I can find you some tables to look at (if they're still online), but I'll have to look around for them.
Here are some journal articles you may find interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18579573
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648613Lar
Posted by torrid on June 1, 2011, at 15:23:11
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » torrid, posted by larryhoover on May 31, 2011, at 22:41:20
Larry from what I've read farm raised has higher mercury from the contaiminated feed, but also has much higher levels of EDA and DHA. There is so much evidence about omega 3's benifits in such different area's of both mind and body. I don't consider fish safe for children due to the damage mercury can do to a develpoping brain. I'd love to hear more from you about this subject especially on the quality of the fish oil supliments. When I brake open a capcil of fish oil and is smells like old fish I figure I waisted my money.
Posted by larryhoover on June 1, 2011, at 17:42:14
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » larryhoover, posted by torrid on June 1, 2011, at 15:23:11
> Larry from what I've read farm raised has higher mercury from the contaiminated feed, but also has much higher levels of EDA and DHA. There is so much evidence about omega 3's benifits in such different area's of both mind and body. I don't consider fish safe for children due to the damage mercury can do to a develpoping brain. I'd love to hear more from you about this subject especially on the quality of the fish oil supliments. When I brake open a capcil of fish oil and is smells like old fish I figure I waisted my money.
First, let's distinguish between fish oils and whole fish; there should be non-detectable mercury in fish oils, as mercury binds to the protein, and refining the fish oil removes the proteins. And despite the number of different fish oil brands on the market, they all come from three commercial fish oil refiners. They're pretty much exchangeable.
What you want in a fish oil is that it is not exposed to oxidizers and heat between the time it is packaged and when you consume it. I believe in Carlson's fish oil, because I buy it from a retailer that refrigerates it. I believe in Walmart fish oil capsules, because they go straight from the supplier's truck onto the truck going to the store. High turnover in a short period with no warehousing is the Walmart success story, which is great for the consumer of a perishable product. And it's cheap there.
Take your fish oil with a meal, preferably one containing other fats, and make sure you have a good supply of vitamin E (as mixed tocopherols). Unless the fish oil is horribly rancid, your body is set up to handle some decomposition of the fats.
Now, about mercury. Mercury is a toxic problem because it loves to react with sulphur, and the 3-dimensional structure of proteins/enzymes depends on sulphur-bearing amino acids. However, mercury loves selenium more. So, make sure you have sufficient selenium intake, and mercury will be of little concern. The best form of selenium to take is from selenium yeast, as a good part of that is already incorporated in methionine, as seleno-methionine, where the sulfhydryl group (S-H) is replaced by Se-H. Selenium, 200 mcg/day is in the sweet spot. BTW, selenium deficiency can cause depression, so that might be a consequence of mercury exposure.
BTW, the reason farmed fish have more mercury than do wild fish is because they are fed terrestrial-sourced carbohydrates. A mercury precipitate falls rather uniformly around the world (in rain), whose major sources are coal burning, and crematoria. Those silver fillings....The ocean is better able to dilute the mercury falling from the sky, but there is a more substantial bioaccummulation effect. Still, wild fish win over farmed, in that regard.
I do not believe fish is a risk for children, except if it is from an exceptionally polluted source. Just ensure that the detoxifying nutrients are in appropriate supply (vitamin E and selenium), and all should be well.
Lar
Posted by torrid on June 1, 2011, at 18:28:04
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » torrid, posted by larryhoover on June 1, 2011, at 17:42:14
lary I'm going to give walmart's fish oil a try. what do you think of the international fish oil standards and also virgin salmon oil. I'd like to get a high ratio of EDA:DHA but they are expensive. some studys I read, one from Australia over the course of a school year using something like 10-20 grams/day was very interesting, other study's using high doses to treat ADHD were also impressive. Nordic Naturals makes the perscription fish oil lovaza but it's cost prhibitive
Posted by larryhoover on June 1, 2011, at 19:04:15
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » larryhoover, posted by torrid on June 1, 2011, at 18:28:04
> what do you think of the international fish oil standards and also virgin salmon oil.
I had never heard ever of these phrases before today.
First, virgin salmon oil....a crock o' sh*t. Pure marketing hocum. The home website for this product speaks of enzymes and trace elements, and there are none of either of those in the final product....unless it is still crude fish oil. You want salmon oil, buy salmon oil. Forget this virgin stuff.
As to the international fish oil standards, I don't see any problem with what they're doing. But in one sense, they're playing on consumer fears. There are only three fish oil producers in the world, last I checked, and they're not going to put out contaminated products under some labels, and not others. IMHO, properly refined fish oils will not be a problem, no matter where they're obtained.
> Nordic Naturals makes the perscription fish oil lovaza but it's cost prhibitive.
More hocum. Just an attempt to turn a natural product into a cash cow, by creating a patented product. Note, this is a patent medicine, not a pharmaceutical. It has a proprietary method of preparation, but there is nothing at all special about it, other than that.
I simply would not get caught up in EPA:DHA ratio, or anything else. If you want higher DHA, you go lower on the food chain. The ultimate source is algal DHA, and it's converted to EPA as it moves up the food chain. Salmon are top predators, and they give you a good EPA:DHA ratio. Sardines, herring, menhadden, somewhat less.
Lar
Posted by torrid on June 1, 2011, at 20:38:09
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » torrid, posted by larryhoover on June 1, 2011, at 19:04:15
thanks
Posted by torrid on June 18, 2011, at 20:48:17
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » torrid, posted by larryhoover on June 1, 2011, at 17:42:14
> > Larry from what I've read farm raised has higher mercury from the contaiminated feed, but also has much higher levels of EDA and DHA. There is so much evidence about omega 3's benifits in such different area's of both mind and body. I don't consider fish safe for children due to the damage mercury can do to a develpoping brain. I'd love to hear more from you about this subject especially on the quality of the fish oil supliments. When I brake open a capcil of fish oil and is smells like old fish I figure I waisted my money.
>
> First, let's distinguish between fish oils and whole fish; there should be non-detectable mercury in fish oils, as mercury binds to the protein, and refining the fish oil removes the proteins. And despite the number of different fish oil brands on the market, they all come from three commercial fish oil refiners. They're pretty much exchangeable.
>
> What you want in a fish oil is that it is not exposed to oxidizers and heat between the time it is packaged and when you consume it. I believe in Carlson's fish oil, because I buy it from a retailer that refrigerates it. I believe in Walmart fish oil capsules, because they go straight from the supplier's truck onto the truck going to the store. High turnover in a short period with no warehousing is the Walmart success story, which is great for the consumer of a perishable product. And it's cheap there.
>
> Take your fish oil with a meal, preferably one containing other fats, and make sure you have a good supply of vitamin E (as mixed tocopherols). Unless the fish oil is horribly rancid, your body is set up to handle some decomposition of the fats.
>
> Now, about mercury. Mercury is a toxic problem because it loves to react with sulphur, and the 3-dimensional structure of proteins/enzymes depends on sulphur-bearing amino acids. However, mercury loves selenium more. So, make sure you have sufficient selenium intake, and mercury will be of little concern. The best form of selenium to take is from selenium yeast, as a good part of that is already incorporated in methionine, as seleno-methionine, where the sulfhydryl group (S-H) is replaced by Se-H. Selenium, 200 mcg/day is in the sweet spot. BTW, selenium deficiency can cause depression, so that might be a consequence of mercury exposure.
>
> BTW, the reason farmed fish have more mercury than do wild fish is because they are fed terrestrial-sourced carbohydrates. A mercury precipitate falls rather uniformly around the world (in rain), whose major sources are coal burning, and crematoria. Those silver fillings....The ocean is better able to dilute the mercury falling from the sky, but there is a more substantial bioaccummulation effect. Still, wild fish win over farmed, in that regard.
>
> I do not believe fish is a risk for children, except if it is from an exceptionally polluted source. Just ensure that the detoxifying nutrients are in appropriate supply (vitamin E and selenium), and all should be well.
>
> LarLarry I been thinking about this and I went to walmart and checked out the experation dates on there fish oil and yes the dates are futher out then what I'm use to seeing but I can't get it out of my mind that there are only 3 refineries. Those three refineries must sell in bulk to other manufactures there are dozens of labs packaging fish oil. that distance of time and miles must account for the difference in viability. I have to believe that the IFOS is putting out accurate infomation, at least to some degree accurate.
Posted by SLS on June 19, 2011, at 5:47:29
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » torrid, posted by larryhoover on June 1, 2011, at 19:04:15
Hi Lar.
I apologize for jumping in on this thread, but I thought I would gain your attention here.
Have you ever heard of fish oil exacerbating one's depression? After a few rechallenges, I continue to have a depressive reaction starting with the very first dose of a teaspoonful.
I am very disappointed. I had wanted to increase my intake of omega-3 in order to provide enough nutrition to enhance neurotrophism and neuroplasticity.
I have tried a number of other "supplements" and observed a destabilization or exacerbation of my condition, which might be of a bipolar diathesis.
- P-5-P
- Fish oil
- Phosphatitylserine
- N-acetylcysteine
- calcium
- magnesium
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by larryhoover on June 20, 2011, at 11:33:52
In reply to Re: international fish oil standards » larryhoover, posted by SLS on June 19, 2011, at 5:47:29
> Hi Lar.
>
> I apologize for jumping in on this thread, but I thought I would gain your attention here.I am pleased to have you join, Scott.
> Have you ever heard of fish oil exacerbating one's depression? After a few rechallenges, I continue to have a depressive reaction starting with the very first dose of a teaspoonful.I have heard of it before, yes. Paradoxical reactions are something I personally experience. You do the research, the analysis, and then you do the experiment. The experiment should work, but....
> I am very disappointed. I had wanted to increase my intake of omega-3 in order to provide enough nutrition to enhance neurotrophism and neuroplasticity.
How are you with whole fish? There's a lot of other brain nutrition in there, too. Maybe it's the extracted food concentrate that is the problem?
> I have tried a number of other "supplements" and observed a destabilization or exacerbation of my condition, which might be of a bipolar diathesis.
>
> - P-5-P
> - Fish oil
> - Phosphatitylserine
> - N-acetylcysteine
> - calcium
> - magnesium
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> - ScottYou are an odd duck. <grin>
Maybe your doses were too high? Individual sensitivities/response might spread beyond even an order of magnitude.
BTW, have you noted the discussions re: vitamin D? It would seem that brain resiliency (my interpretation of the factors identified) is correlated with vitamin D status. And the nutrition "experts" are still mired in the obsolete thinking that the recommended daily intake need not be much above that needed to avoid overt symptoms of rickets. Optimal intake may well lie about 5000 IU/day.
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Alternative | 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.