Steroids, Creatine & other supplements

  • Thread starter Google Beta User
  • Start date



"Will Brink" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Don't give up your day job and get into research.
> >
> > My day job *is* research, bone head, and has been for decades.
>
> Research in what? If it's in biology/physiology, then you suck at it.
>
> --
> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>
Chris, you are dealing here with a known fraud - most of the people here
laugh at Brinks. He is as dishonest as the day is long.
 
"David" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Will Brink" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Don't give up your day job and get into research.
>> >
>> > My day job *is* research, bone head, and has been for decades.
>>
>> Research in what? If it's in biology/physiology, then you suck at it.
>>
>Chris, you are dealing here with a known fraud - most of the people here
>laugh at Brinks. He is as dishonest as the day is long.

<sigh> This has become rather tiresome, David. Don't you have
something more productive to do?
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net
 
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:36:05 -0500, JMW <[email protected]> wrote:

>"David" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Will Brink" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Don't give up your day job and get into research.
>>> >
>>> > My day job *is* research, bone head, and has been for decades.
>>>
>>> Research in what? If it's in biology/physiology, then you suck at it.
>>>
>>Chris, you are dealing here with a known fraud - most of the people here
>>laugh at Brinks. He is as dishonest as the day is long.
>
><sigh> This has become rather tiresome, David. Don't you have
>something more productive to do?

Does that mean you are condoning that which Will has been spouting
here today John?

He has been bullshitting like mad, getting everything **** upwards and
wrong, making false statements (lying) and generally making a bigger
fool of himself than he normally does.

"Tiresome" it may be that he has to be constantly monitored so that
people know what a "fraud" he is, but he *is* a 'spammer' selling his
wares and people need to know his limitations.

If there has been any unjustifiable criticism of that which he has
posted today, then why not tell us what it is and why. That would be
far more constructive than telling David that he is "tiresome", and
may prove to be the "productivity" you appear to be seeking.

I do hope you have a marvellous Easter weekend - mine is off to a good
start!! ;o)

TFIE!!
 
"JMW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Will Brink" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Don't give up your day job and get into research.
> >> >
> >> > My day job *is* research, bone head, and has been for decades.
> >>
> >> Research in what? If it's in biology/physiology, then you suck at it.
> >>
> >Chris, you are dealing here with a known fraud - most of the people here
> >laugh at Brinks. He is as dishonest as the day is long.
>
> <sigh> This has become rather tiresome, David. Don't you have
> something more productive to do?
> --
>
> JMW
> http://www.rustyiron.net

Well, John, actually I do do more productive things. And I do less
productive things. All are productive nevertheless. (actually thinking back,
I've seen you do less productive things occasionally - Neil Fabian etc )
 
In article <[email protected]>,
JMW <[email protected]> wrote:

> "David" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Will Brink" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Don't give up your day job and get into research.
> >> >
> >> > My day job *is* research, bone head, and has been for decades.
> >>
> >> Research in what? If it's in biology/physiology, then you suck at it.
> >>
> >Chris, you are dealing here with a known fraud - most of the people here
> >laugh at Brinks. He is as dishonest as the day is long.
>
> <sigh> This has become rather tiresome, David. Don't you have
> something more productive to do?

Can you imagine how little a life a (supposedly) professional person
must have to whine about me like this every chance he gets? How could
someone not know how pitiful they look doing it? It boggles the mind
really, but you know you have made it when you have your own personal
troll so desperate for your attention. It drives his ilk bonkers when
you don't read or respond to their posts. Like an obsessive compulsive
stalker type, it only makes them try harder to get that attention they
crave so badly.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
spodosaurus wrote:
> JMW wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in
those
> > who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
> > testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
> > suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
> > results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?
>
> Even some doctors make the error you've made in diagnosing bipolar
> disorder where it does not exist.

[a] I did not make a diagnosis. I suggested a possibility.
I see no "error" in suggesting the possibility.

> A manic response to a drug (commonly
> seen in treatment for depression with SSRIs) does not mean that a
> patient has bipolar disorder, and this leads to a lot of misdiagnosis

> and long term unnecessary treatment.

Perhaps you failed to read my post about the suggested classification
of Bipolar III, i.e., major depression with antidepressant-induced
hypomania. Whatever the cause, Ari, mood cycling is mood cycling, and
there is a difference between moving from clinical depression to
equilibrium and swinging from depression to manic/hypomanic episodes.
One of the characteristics of bipolar affective disorder is the
severity of the mood swing itself, which can lead to deeper depressions
or the horrific mixed states that Kay Redfield Jamison refers to as
"black" manic states.

In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.
After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
occurs during manic episodes.

> I'd type more, but I'm sick as hell
> right now, so perhaps if I recover before this thread trails off into

> the oblivion of the google archives I may get to say more.

I'll gladly debate the subject further if you so wish.
 
On 24 Mar 2005 13:53:55 -0800, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>spodosaurus wrote:
>> JMW wrote:
>> >
>> > I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in
>those
>> > who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
>> > testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
>> > suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
>> > results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?
>>
>> Even some doctors make the error you've made in diagnosing bipolar
>> disorder where it does not exist.
>
>[a] I did not make a diagnosis. I suggested a possibility.
> I see no "error" in suggesting the possibility.
>
>> A manic response to a drug (commonly
>> seen in treatment for depression with SSRIs) does not mean that a
>> patient has bipolar disorder, and this leads to a lot of misdiagnosis
>
>> and long term unnecessary treatment.
>
>Perhaps you failed to read my post about the suggested classification
>of Bipolar III, i.e., major depression with antidepressant-induced
>hypomania. Whatever the cause, Ari, mood cycling is mood cycling, and
>there is a difference between moving from clinical depression to
>equilibrium and swinging from depression to manic/hypomanic episodes.
>One of the characteristics of bipolar affective disorder is the
>severity of the mood swing itself, which can lead to deeper depressions
>or the horrific mixed states that Kay Redfield Jamison refers to as
>"black" manic states.
>
>In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
>manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
>episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.
> After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
>the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
>mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
>occurs during manic episodes.
>
>> I'd type more, but I'm sick as hell
>> right now, so perhaps if I recover before this thread trails off into
>
>> the oblivion of the google archives I may get to say more.
>
>I'll gladly debate the subject further if you so wish.

You could start perhaps by telling us how you calculate that the
problem is essentially "physiological" in origin, as you stated
earlier today!!

I would be delighted to discuss that with you John!! ;o)

HAGEW!!

TFIE!!
 
In misc.fitness.weights Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2005 13:53:55 -0800, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>spodosaurus wrote:
>>> JMW wrote:

>>> > I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in
>>those
>>> > who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
>>> > testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
>>> > suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
>>> > results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?

>>> Even some doctors make the error you've made in diagnosing bipolar
>>> disorder where it does not exist.

>>[a] I did not make a diagnosis. I suggested a possibility.
>> I see no "error" in suggesting the possibility.

>>> A manic response to a drug (commonly
>>> seen in treatment for depression with SSRIs) does not mean that a
>>> patient has bipolar disorder, and this leads to a lot of misdiagnosis
>>
>>> and long term unnecessary treatment.

>>Perhaps you failed to read my post about the suggested classification
>>of Bipolar III, i.e., major depression with antidepressant-induced
>>hypomania. Whatever the cause, Ari, mood cycling is mood cycling, and
>>there is a difference between moving from clinical depression to
>>equilibrium and swinging from depression to manic/hypomanic episodes.
>>One of the characteristics of bipolar affective disorder is the
>>severity of the mood swing itself, which can lead to deeper depressions
>>or the horrific mixed states that Kay Redfield Jamison refers to as
>>"black" manic states.
>>
>>In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
>>manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
>>episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.
>> After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
>>the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
>>mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
>>occurs during manic episodes.

> You could start perhaps by telling us how you calculate that the
> problem is essentially "physiological" in origin, as you stated
> earlier today!!

Since all of the current treatments for bipolar disorder are drugs
which are intended to interfere with one or other of the various
neurochemical imbalances which are characteristic of this disorder, it
hardly needs much "calculation" to suppose that it might well involve
a biochemical malfunction or a neurological malfunction in the control
of the biochemistry, both of which would come under the general aegis
of "physiological".

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>spodosaurus wrote:
>>>> JMW wrote:
>
>>>> > I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in
>>>> > those
>>>> > who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
>>>> > testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
>>>> > suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
>>>> > results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?
>
>>>> Even some doctors make the error you've made in diagnosing bipolar
>>>> disorder where it does not exist.
>
>>>[a] I did not make a diagnosis. I suggested a possibility.
>>> I see no "error" in suggesting the possibility.
>
>>>> A manic response to a drug (commonly
>>>> seen in treatment for depression with SSRIs) does not mean that a
>>>> patient has bipolar disorder, and this leads to a lot of misdiagnosis
>>>
>>>> and long term unnecessary treatment.
>
>>>Perhaps you failed to read my post about the suggested classification
>>>of Bipolar III, i.e., major depression with antidepressant-induced
>>>hypomania. Whatever the cause, Ari, mood cycling is mood cycling, and
>>>there is a difference between moving from clinical depression to
>>>equilibrium and swinging from depression to manic/hypomanic episodes.
>>>One of the characteristics of bipolar affective disorder is the
>>>severity of the mood swing itself, which can lead to deeper depressions
>>>or the horrific mixed states that Kay Redfield Jamison refers to as
>>>"black" manic states.
>>>
>>>In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
>>>manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
>>>episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.
>>> After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
>>>the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
>>>mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
>>>occurs during manic episodes.
>
>> You could start perhaps by telling us how you calculate that the
>> problem is essentially "physiological" in origin, as you stated
>> earlier today!!
>
>Since all of the current treatments for bipolar disorder are drugs
>which are intended to interfere with one or other of the various
>neurochemical imbalances which are characteristic of this disorder, it
>hardly needs much "calculation" to suppose that it might well involve
>a biochemical malfunction or a neurological malfunction in the control
>of the biochemistry, both of which would come under the general aegis
>of "physiological".

Hudson was just trolling me; that's why I didn't respond.

Actually, nobody knows what the neurological component is because it
could be neurotransmitter release, receptor expression,
neurotransmitter reuptake, metabolizing enzymes, combinations thereof,
or some other neurochemical phenomenon. All they really know is what
chemical treatments seem to abate the problem and what the
physiological effects of those treatments are. Live brain scans and
examination of brain tissue of dead patients have shown some general
irregularities but nothing conclusive.

Naturally, psychotherapy is an essential adjunct to chemical
treatment, but believing the cause of bipolar affective disorder to be
purely environmental is quite naïve.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net
 
JMW wrote:
> spodosaurus wrote:
>
>>JMW wrote:
>>
>>>I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in
>
> those
>
>>>who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
>>>testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
>>>suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
>>>results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?
>>
>>Even some doctors make the error you've made in diagnosing bipolar
>>disorder where it does not exist.
>
>
> [a] I did not make a diagnosis. I suggested a possibility.
> I see no "error" in suggesting the possibility.
>
>
>>A manic response to a drug (commonly
>>seen in treatment for depression with SSRIs) does not mean that a
>>patient has bipolar disorder, and this leads to a lot of misdiagnosis
>
>
>>and long term unnecessary treatment.
>
>
> Perhaps you failed to read my post about the suggested classification
> of Bipolar III, i.e., major depression with antidepressant-induced
> hypomania.

Perhaps they've changed what Bipolar III was going to be. As a disorder
up for consideration for inclusion in the DSM-V, it was for major
depression with no prior history of mania or hypomania but with a FMAILY
HISTORY of bipolar disorder.

> Whatever the cause, Ari, mood cycling is mood cycling, and
> there is a difference between moving from clinical depression to
> equilibrium and swinging from depression to manic/hypomanic episodes.

And giving someone a drug to cause this does not make them bipolar.
Bipolar disorder has a strong genetic basis and taking a pill that makes
you go funny does not alter your genes. Period. Drug induced symptoms of
mania do not equate to the same underlying neural problems that produce
these SYMPTOMS in a patient with bipolar disorder. The expression is
SIMILAR but the root cause is different.

> One of the characteristics of bipolar affective disorder is the
> severity of the mood swing itself, which can lead to deeper depressions
> or the horrific mixed states that Kay Redfield Jamison refers to as
> "black" manic states.

Tell me something I don't know. :)

>
> In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
> manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
> episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.

And this has what to do with misdiagnosing someone as having bipolar
disorder on the basis of a drug reaction?

> After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
> the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
> mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
> occurs during manic episodes.

What does this have to do with misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder? Or are
you just trying to impress me with crapping on (and on and on) about
things that are irrelevant to the topic of misdiagnosis? :) :)

>
>
>>I'd type more, but I'm sick as hell
>>right now, so perhaps if I recover before this thread trails off into
>
>
>>the oblivion of the google archives I may get to say more.
>
>
> I'll gladly debate the subject further if you so wish.
>


--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
 
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In misc.fitness.weights Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Mar 2005 13:53:55 -0800, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>spodosaurus wrote:
>>>
>>>>JMW wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in
>>>
>>>those
>>>
>>>>>who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
>>>>>testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
>>>>>suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
>>>>>results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?
>
>
>>>>Even some doctors make the error you've made in diagnosing bipolar
>>>>disorder where it does not exist.
>
>
>>>[a] I did not make a diagnosis. I suggested a possibility.
>>> I see no "error" in suggesting the possibility.
>
>
>>>>A manic response to a drug (commonly
>>>>seen in treatment for depression with SSRIs) does not mean that a
>>>>patient has bipolar disorder, and this leads to a lot of misdiagnosis
>>>
>>>>and long term unnecessary treatment.
>
>
>>>Perhaps you failed to read my post about the suggested classification
>>>of Bipolar III, i.e., major depression with antidepressant-induced
>>>hypomania. Whatever the cause, Ari, mood cycling is mood cycling, and
>>>there is a difference between moving from clinical depression to
>>>equilibrium and swinging from depression to manic/hypomanic episodes.
>>>One of the characteristics of bipolar affective disorder is the
>>>severity of the mood swing itself, which can lead to deeper depressions
>>>or the horrific mixed states that Kay Redfield Jamison refers to as
>>>"black" manic states.
>>>
>>>In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
>>>manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
>>>episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.
>>>After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
>>>the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
>>>mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
>>>occurs during manic episodes.
>
>
>>You could start perhaps by telling us how you calculate that the
>>problem is essentially "physiological" in origin, as you stated
>>earlier today!!
>
>
> Since all of the current treatments for bipolar disorder are drugs
> which are intended to interfere with one or other of the various
> neurochemical imbalances which are characteristic of this disorder, it
> hardly needs much "calculation" to suppose that it might well involve
> a biochemical malfunction or a neurological malfunction in the control
> of the biochemistry, both of which would come under the general aegis
> of "physiological".
>

It's far more than that. There's the research that bipolar affective
disorder can be inherited and tends to 'breed true', ie- a family
history of bipolar disorder means you're more likely to get bipolar
disorder than you are, say, cyclic unipolar depression. Beyond this,
there have been a whole host of studies dealing with receptor protein
alleles and ion regulation in normal controls compared to bipolar patients.

Ari

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
 
spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>JMW wrote:
>>
>> In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
>> manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
>> episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.
>
>And this has what to do with misdiagnosing someone as having bipolar
>disorder on the basis of a drug reaction?
>
>> After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
>> the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
>> mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
>> occurs during manic episodes.
>
>What does this have to do with misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder? Or are
>you just trying to impress me with crapping on (and on and on) about
>things that are irrelevant to the topic of misdiagnosis? :) :)

I'm making the point that bipolar affective disorder is much more
often misdiagnosed as unipolar depression than the other way around.
And I'm making that point by noting that there are plenty of people
who insist that they were misdiagnosed as bipolar when they're really
just depressed and are perfectly OK when their mood is "up."

Knowing your past arguments, I assume that your anecdotal experiences
tell you just the opposite, but the literature agrees with me:

"Bipolar disorder is a serious, recurrent, and sometimes chronic
psychiatric illness that is far more prevalent than many physicians
realize. It often is unrecognized and misdiagnosed, particularly in
patients presenting with depression." Hirschfeld RM, Vornik LA.
Recognition and diagnosis of bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry.
2004;65 Suppl 15:5-9.

"Research over the past decade indicates that the prevalence of
bipolar disorder is similar to that of major depression. *** Because
DSM-IV criteria require a manic or hypomanic episode for a diagnosis
of bipolar disorder, many patients are initially diagnosed and treated
as having major depression." Bowden CL. Strategies to reduce
misdiagnosis of bipolar depression. Psychiatr Serv. 2001
Jan;52(1):51-5.

And given your rant about antidepressant-induced hypomania *not* being
bipolar affective disorder, I'm sure you're really going to hate the
conclusions in this review:

"OBJECTIVES: To determine if the classification of
'antidepressant-induced hypomania' in DSM-IV is supported by available
data. METHODS: We reviewed the available scientific literature to
examine the incidence of mania and hypomania in non-bipolar patients
who were treated with antidepressants. RESULTS: Eighty-nine per cent
of studies of antidepressants in major depressive disorder patients
reported no cases of treatment-induced hypomania. No instances of
treatment-induced hypomania were reported in three large studies of
patients with chronic forms of depression. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of
antidepressant-induced hypomania in major depressive disorder is
within the rate of misdiagnosis of bipolar depression as unipolar.
Depressed patients who experience antidepressant-associated hypomania
are truly bipolar." Chun BJ, Dunner DL. A review of
antidepressant-induced hypomania in major depression: suggestions for
DSM-V. Bipolar Disord. 2004 Feb;6(1):32-42.

That same review reports several studies which indicate that bipolar
disorder is misdiagnosed as unipolar depression 25-40% of the time.

Not that I expect that to change your opinion or anything.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net
 
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:58:20 -0500, JMW <[email protected]> wrote:

>Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>spodosaurus wrote:
>>>>> JMW wrote:
>>
>>>>> > I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in
>>>>> > those
>>>>> > who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
>>>>> > testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
>>>>> > suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
>>>>> > results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?
>>
>>>>> Even some doctors make the error you've made in diagnosing bipolar
>>>>> disorder where it does not exist.
>>
>>>>[a] I did not make a diagnosis. I suggested a possibility.
>>>> I see no "error" in suggesting the possibility.
>>
>>>>> A manic response to a drug (commonly
>>>>> seen in treatment for depression with SSRIs) does not mean that a
>>>>> patient has bipolar disorder, and this leads to a lot of misdiagnosis
>>>>
>>>>> and long term unnecessary treatment.
>>
>>>>Perhaps you failed to read my post about the suggested classification
>>>>of Bipolar III, i.e., major depression with antidepressant-induced
>>>>hypomania. Whatever the cause, Ari, mood cycling is mood cycling, and
>>>>there is a difference between moving from clinical depression to
>>>>equilibrium and swinging from depression to manic/hypomanic episodes.
>>>>One of the characteristics of bipolar affective disorder is the
>>>>severity of the mood swing itself, which can lead to deeper depressions
>>>>or the horrific mixed states that Kay Redfield Jamison refers to as
>>>>"black" manic states.
>>>>
>>>>In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
>>>>manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
>>>>episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.
>>>> After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
>>>>the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
>>>>mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
>>>>occurs during manic episodes.
>>
>>> You could start perhaps by telling us how you calculate that the
>>> problem is essentially "physiological" in origin, as you stated
>>> earlier today!!
>>
>>Since all of the current treatments for bipolar disorder are drugs
>>which are intended to interfere with one or other of the various
>>neurochemical imbalances which are characteristic of this disorder, it
>>hardly needs much "calculation" to suppose that it might well involve
>>a biochemical malfunction or a neurological malfunction in the control
>>of the biochemistry, both of which would come under the general aegis
>>of "physiological".
>
>Hudson was just trolling me; that's why I didn't respond.

Moi? Perish the thought Williams!!

But yours is the usual response, when a couple of people here are
found to be wrong and are unwilling to admit it and have nothing
sensible to say. It's straight out of the Slippery ***** Brinks school
of ********!! ;o)

>
>Actually, nobody knows what the neurological component is because it
>could be neurotransmitter release, receptor expression,
>neurotransmitter reuptake, metabolizing enzymes, combinations thereof,
>or some other neurochemical phenomenon. All they really know is what
>chemical treatments seem to abate the problem and what the
>physiological effects of those treatments are.

It is obvious that "chemical treatments" will produce "physiological
effects", but that is a far cry from establishing that the illness is
"physiological" in origin, as you stated yesterday!!

>Live brain scans and
>examination of brain tissue of dead patients have shown some general
>irregularities but nothing conclusive.

Despite extensive studies the etiology and physiology has never really
been satisfactorily clinically established. The illness is shrouded in
'mystery' with theories in abundance, but no coherent or credible
biological facts have emerged that provide definitive physiological
reasons for the symptoms of the illness.

>
>Naturally, psychotherapy is an essential adjunct to chemical
>treatment, but believing the cause of bipolar affective disorder to be
>purely environmental is quite naïve.

I don't recall that anyone has made such a conclusive claim, but it
would also be "naive" to dismiss the clear link between mental
illness and environmental causation.

Have a great Easter weekend John old chap - I am!! ;o)

TFIGF!!
 
On 25 Mar 2005 01:57:52 GMT, Chris Malcolm <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In misc.fitness.weights Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2005 13:53:55 -0800, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>spodosaurus wrote:
>>>> JMW wrote:
>
>>>> > I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in
>>>those
>>>> > who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
>>>> > testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
>>>> > suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
>>>> > results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?
>
>>>> Even some doctors make the error you've made in diagnosing bipolar
>>>> disorder where it does not exist.
>
>>>[a] I did not make a diagnosis. I suggested a possibility.
>>> I see no "error" in suggesting the possibility.
>
>>>> A manic response to a drug (commonly
>>>> seen in treatment for depression with SSRIs) does not mean that a
>>>> patient has bipolar disorder, and this leads to a lot of misdiagnosis
>>>
>>>> and long term unnecessary treatment.
>
>>>Perhaps you failed to read my post about the suggested classification
>>>of Bipolar III, i.e., major depression with antidepressant-induced
>>>hypomania. Whatever the cause, Ari, mood cycling is mood cycling, and
>>>there is a difference between moving from clinical depression to
>>>equilibrium and swinging from depression to manic/hypomanic episodes.
>>>One of the characteristics of bipolar affective disorder is the
>>>severity of the mood swing itself, which can lead to deeper depressions
>>>or the horrific mixed states that Kay Redfield Jamison refers to as
>>>"black" manic states.
>>>
>>>In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
>>>manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
>>>episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.
>>> After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
>>>the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
>>>mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
>>>occurs during manic episodes.
>
>> You could start perhaps by telling us how you calculate that the
>> problem is essentially "physiological" in origin, as you stated
>> earlier today!!
>
>Since all of the current treatments for bipolar disorder are drugs
>which are intended to interfere with one or other of the various
>neurochemical imbalances which are characteristic of this disorder, it
>hardly needs much "calculation" to suppose that it might well involve
>a biochemical malfunction or a neurological malfunction in the control
>of the biochemistry, both of which would come under the general aegis
>of "physiological".

Chemical treatments undoubtedly involve "physiological" changes to
cell structure, but that has nothing to do with Williams' claim that
the illness is of "physiological origin"!!

Have a great Easter weekend Chris - I am!! ;o)

TFIGF!!
 
"Will Brink" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Don't give up your day job and get into research.
> >
> > My day job *is* research, bone head, and has been for decades.
>
> Research in what? If it's in biology/physiology, then you suck at it.
>
> --
> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>

Just a tip, Will - because I care about you . . . protect your reputation as
without integrity any you are not worth two *****. Too many people here have
shredded you lately. Maybe take a vacation from posting for a while. Some
people will forget. You can start over again. I care about you, Will.
 
Robert Schuh wrote:
> ViNNY wrote:
>
>> Google Beta User wrote:
>>
>>> When physical specimens like Brock Lesnar, Batista or HHH, are spoken
>>> about, it is often assumed that they use steroids. Why is it so?
>>>
>>> Is it not possible to get a Venice Beach type body without supplements?
>>> Especially for example, if one uses Periodization or other such methods
>>> in their training.
>>
>>
>>
>> John Cena used to win all-natural bodybuilding competitions. His type
>> of body is about as good as you can hope for without being a genuine
>> genetic freak and without taking anything.
>>
>>> Also, why are steroids illegal anyway. Unlike cocaine, for example, it
>>> is not a drug that impairs rational thinking. I do not understand why
>>> steroids should be illegal wheras Creatine wouldn't be.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steroids are a prescription drug that can be used in small amounts to
>> help recovery from muscle damage, or even with acne problems. They are
>> not designed to be consumed in vast quantities to pack on massive
>> amounts of extra muscle, and when you do that you do just as much
>> damage to your body as any other illegal drug.
>
>
> Really moron? Where are your facts??
>
>>
>>> On a related note - why are steroids often associated with injuries?
>>
>>
>>
>> The freakish amounts of muscle a guy like HHH builds through using
>> steroids, HGH etc is too much, basically. The muscle fiber is there,
>> but it's not particularly "good" muscle, and so it's prone to tearing
>> much more than healthy muscle is. This is how both Hunter and Vince
>> managed to tear their quads just by walking.
>>
>> -Vin
>
>
>
> Why do morons like you comment on steroids when you know NOTHING about
> them??

Because this is the internet, where any moron can say anything he likes
and you can't do jack **** about it, you roid-inflated no-dicked bald loser.

-Vin
 
ViNNY wrote:
> Robert Schuh wrote:
>
>> ViNNY wrote:
>>
>>> Google Beta User wrote:
>>>
>>>> When physical specimens like Brock Lesnar, Batista or HHH, are spoken
>>>> about, it is often assumed that they use steroids. Why is it so?
>>>>
>>>> Is it not possible to get a Venice Beach type body without supplements?
>>>> Especially for example, if one uses Periodization or other such methods
>>>> in their training.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Cena used to win all-natural bodybuilding competitions. His type
>>> of body is about as good as you can hope for without being a genuine
>>> genetic freak and without taking anything.
>>>
>>>> Also, why are steroids illegal anyway. Unlike cocaine, for example, it
>>>> is not a drug that impairs rational thinking. I do not understand why
>>>> steroids should be illegal wheras Creatine wouldn't be.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Steroids are a prescription drug that can be used in small amounts to
>>> help recovery from muscle damage, or even with acne problems. They
>>> are not designed to be consumed in vast quantities to pack on massive
>>> amounts of extra muscle, and when you do that you do just as much
>>> damage to your body as any other illegal drug.
>>
>>
>>
>> Really moron? Where are your facts??
>>
>>>
>>>> On a related note - why are steroids often associated with injuries?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The freakish amounts of muscle a guy like HHH builds through using
>>> steroids, HGH etc is too much, basically. The muscle fiber is there,
>>> but it's not particularly "good" muscle, and so it's prone to tearing
>>> much more than healthy muscle is. This is how both Hunter and Vince
>>> managed to tear their quads just by walking.
>>>
>>> -Vin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do morons like you comment on steroids when you know NOTHING about
>> them??
>
>
> Because this is the internet, where any moron can say anything he likes
> and you can't do jack **** about it, you roid-inflated no-dicked bald
> loser.
>
> -Vin

That description so reminds me of your mom!




except for the "no-dicked" part...

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:

> What I care about is rigourous science, and
> this is severely lacking in most psychology programs around the world.

Amen to that. See much of Pope's research. That's not to bash psych per
se, but it's similar to epi in the way people misuse it and misrepresent
it.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
JMW <[email protected]> wrote:

> Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>spodosaurus wrote:
> >>>> JMW wrote:
> >
> >>>> > I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in
> >>>> > those
> >>>> > who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
> >>>> > testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
> >>>> > suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
> >>>> > results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?
> >
> >>>> Even some doctors make the error you've made in diagnosing bipolar
> >>>> disorder where it does not exist.
> >
> >>>[a] I did not make a diagnosis. I suggested a possibility.
> >>> I see no "error" in suggesting the possibility.
> >
> >>>> A manic response to a drug (commonly
> >>>> seen in treatment for depression with SSRIs) does not mean that a
> >>>> patient has bipolar disorder, and this leads to a lot of misdiagnosis
> >>>
> >>>> and long term unnecessary treatment.
> >
> >>>Perhaps you failed to read my post about the suggested classification
> >>>of Bipolar III, i.e., major depression with antidepressant-induced
> >>>hypomania. Whatever the cause, Ari, mood cycling is mood cycling, and
> >>>there is a difference between moving from clinical depression to
> >>>equilibrium and swinging from depression to manic/hypomanic episodes.
> >>>One of the characteristics of bipolar affective disorder is the
> >>>severity of the mood swing itself, which can lead to deeper depressions
> >>>or the horrific mixed states that Kay Redfield Jamison refers to as
> >>>"black" manic states.
> >>>
> >>>In reality, some of the greatest opponents of bipolar diagnoses are the
> >>>manic-depressives themselves, who refuse to accept that their manic
> >>>episodes are dysfunctional and want ride the highs as long as they can.
> >>> After all, they're having a good time, and they don't want to consider
> >>>the fact that their prolonged mania may lead to severe cycling, not to
> >>>mention the classic noncompliance with medication that frequently
> >>>occurs during manic episodes.
> >
> >> You could start perhaps by telling us how you calculate that the
> >> problem is essentially "physiological" in origin, as you stated
> >> earlier today!!
> >
> >Since all of the current treatments for bipolar disorder are drugs
> >which are intended to interfere with one or other of the various
> >neurochemical imbalances which are characteristic of this disorder, it
> >hardly needs much "calculation" to suppose that it might well involve
> >a biochemical malfunction or a neurological malfunction in the control
> >of the biochemistry, both of which would come under the general aegis
> >of "physiological".
>
> Hudson was just trolling me; that's why I didn't respond.

Don't feed the trolls John :)

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Since all of the current treatments for bipolar disorder are drugs
> which are intended to interfere with one or other of the various
> neurochemical imbalances which are characteristic of this disorder, it
> hardly needs much "calculation" to suppose that it might well involve
> a biochemical malfunction or a neurological malfunction in the control
> of the biochemistry, both of which would come under the general aegis
> of "physiological".

Chris, let me apologize for my rude comments the other day. My point
being, anyone who makes the statement to the effect of ³I could not
possibly have had expectations that the steroid would affect me
psychologically as the doctor told me it would have no psychological
effects² would not be a candidate for a person with extensive
experience/knowledge of the biological sciences. Thus my (rude)
comments. We get defensive around here when it comes to accurate
statements regarding steroids. If you feel I misquoted you in the above
and or that was not you who actual said it, then that¹s my mistake.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back