Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

acc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#41

Post by Swordfish12345 »

throwaway11460 wrote: post #37
Swordfish12345 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mostly you see news/social media amplifying ableistic... It's actually the opposite. It is now practically forbidden to criticize anything related with ADHD. After reading all the literature I concluded there were huge problems with almost every aspect of it. Then you go try to tell people and you are tarred and feathered. Then look at incentives: on one side is: "a citizen concerned that maybe taking stimulant med…

Just don't take them if you're concerned.

You could have taken this advice for the opioid epidemic, and then it still would have affected you via family/friends. We've already been through this once.

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#42

Post by Swordfish12345 »

throwaway11460 wrote: post #36
Swordfish12345 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they need meds to function Once you start taking meds you develop dependence and so your definitely need them. But if there was a simpler environmental cause/solution, now that is out of reach entirely. It would take years for their mind to re-balance. If you tried everything and nothing worked, then go for the meds, and take on the risks and side-effects. But no one does this. They get diagnosed and then straight…

No, you don't develop any dependence like that. You just go back to the absolutely disfunctional state you were in before when you stop taking them. If it was anything like drug addiction then it'd go back to normal after some time - but the normal of people with ADHD is different.

> You just go back to the absolutely disfunctional state you were in before when you stop taking them.

Your brain adapts by creating more dopamine transporters...meaning you need more dopamine for same effect. This happens in an effort to maintain homeostasis. There is no free dopamine unfortunately...what goes up must come down. The brain's homeostasis system is hard-wired.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1...

> but the normal of people with ADHD is different.

This is probably the biggest misunderstanding people have.

They are told that their brain doesn't produce as much dopamine as a normal brain, which is why they can take the meds and normal people cannot.

But this is not the case. Each brain produces the right amount for itself, and if you dope it with more, then it will counteract this, and you will build tolerance.

There is no evidence about the dopamine theory of ADHD. It's total conjecture with a couple of papers here and there. There are no biomarkers or imaging for diagnosing ADHD.

The end result is you are going to end up morphing people's brains to the point that they need to take the meds to attain their original state.

But whatever, no one seems to care, too much money to be made.

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#43

Post by Swordfish12345 »

eqvinox wrote: post #33
eqvinox wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once you start taking meds you develop dependence and so your definitely need them. In this generality, this statement is plain false folk tale. It certainly applies for some conditions and treatments, but without a study to back it up you should not be making this statement in regards to ADHD and its medications. > If you tried everything and nothing worked, then go for the meds, and take on the risks and side-eff…

> If you tried everything and nothing worked, then go for the meds, and take on the risks and side-effects. By the way — you say this with some nonchalance. Those two years of "tried everything and nothing worked" cost me my university degree.

May I ask: when you say you "tried everything and nothing worked"...was this before you knew about the existence of ADHD?

The tragedy I find is that people first discover ADHD and then go straight on meds. They don't use this new realization and understanding of their condition to try to solve it without medication. And once you begin medication, your brain starts to change, and you really can't isolate whether a behavioral change is actually working independent of your medicated state. So begins a long journey of decreasing efficacy of the meds to the point that you will end up worse than where you started.

Also curious what you did try? What was the longest time you disconnected from the internet and social media? How much did you exercise?

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#44

Post by Swordfish12345 »

Woshiwuja wrote: post #24
Swordfish12345 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot reasonably ban social media at this point You can block it and measure consumption. This is easy. > 2. antidepressant Originally stims weren't suppose to be used if someone is depressed. But now heaps of people are on both. If you are spiking dopamine you are bound to have a crash and the symptoms of it. There is a lot of reports of this. This crash can feel like depression. So its like a cycle of one dr…

Measuring consumption is NOT easy for someone with adhd. You are mixing different mental problems in a random garble of words that mean nothing. Also how does that not fit? its literally the same thing.

> Measuring consumption is NOT easy for someone with adhd

There are ample tools like screen time.

Imagine being on meds for 10 years and then realizing that what you really needed was to just block distractions more judiciously and set more deadlines.

> its literally the same thing.

The cause was the acute organ transplant. What is the acute cause for ADHD?

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#45

Post by eqvinox »

Swordfish12345 wrote: post #40
eqvinox wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After reading all the literature I concluded there were huge problems with almost every aspect of it. Then you go try to tell people and you are tarred and feathered. You should probably cite some of that literature.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.81476... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626918/ https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25066615/

> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.81476...

Written by an elementary education specialist and an unknown lecturer. No medical value.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626918/

A very nice summarization paper on ADHD. You do not seem to have read the summary at the end, as it does not support your points of argument. It primarily suggests a wider approach using additional medication, as well as DNA based diagnosis and treatment. The latter does not seem to be available yet.

> https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1...

This suggests the brain adapts to long-term medication with methylphenidate, but does not go as far as establishing a causal relationship, or show that the dopamine transporter alterations are to the detriment of the patient.

In fact, this meta-study seems to be a contribution to the field of establishing the origins of ADHD; its argument is that these dopamine transporter changes may not be useful in understanding ADHD as they are caused by the treatment. However, there's this:

"It is, however, also possible that lower dopamine transporter density and lower dopamine release in medication-naive ADHD patients reflect prefrontal pathology, well demonstrated in neuroimaging results for ADHD (5), since frontostriatal glutamatergic circuits regulate striatal dopamine release."

It's hinting at a possibility that, in reverse, the unmedicated state without the long-term effects may be a key contributor to ADHD itself.

> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25066615/

This discusses distinctions between ADHD diagnostic criteria in DSM-IV vs. DSM-5. The ones in DSM-5 cast a wider net than DSM-IV. The study comes to the conclusion that the net is still not wide enough, particularly in adults. I don't know why you believe this paper supports any of your points.

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#46

Post by Swordfish12345 »

eqvinox wrote: post #30
Swordfish12345 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they need meds to function Once you start taking meds you develop dependence and so your definitely need them. But if there was a simpler environmental cause/solution, now that is out of reach entirely. It would take years for their mind to re-balance. If you tried everything and nothing worked, then go for the meds, and take on the risks and side-effects. But no one does this. They get diagnosed and then straight…

> Once you start taking meds you develop dependence and so your definitely need them. In this generality, this statement is plain false folk tale. It certainly applies for some conditions and treatments, but without a study to back it up you should not be making this statement in regards to ADHD and its medications. > If you tried everything and nothing worked, then go for the meds, and take on the risks and side-eff…

> dependence

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1...

Your brain adapts. It's pretty obvious.

If you give a mouse access to a button that triggers dopamine release, they keep pressing the button until they starve to death.

The brain has evolved a system to maintain homeostasis to prevent this happening.

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#47

Post by eqvinox »

Swordfish12345 wrote: post #40
eqvinox wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After reading all the literature I concluded there were huge problems with almost every aspect of it. Then you go try to tell people and you are tarred and feathered. You should probably cite some of that literature.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.81476... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626918/ https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25066615/

Now that I've commented on these papers in the sibling post, I can complain that you do not seem to understand what a citation is. What you provided are sources. Citations are references to sources. You're not referencing anything, just throwing them around implying they prove your point. To make them proper citations, you'll need to be clear on what you're actually pointing at.

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#48

Post by eqvinox »

Swordfish12345 wrote: post #43
eqvinox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you tried everything and nothing worked, then go for the meds, and take on the risks and side-effects. By the way — you say this with some nonchalance. Those two years of "tried everything and nothing worked" cost me my university degree.

May I ask: when you say you "tried everything and nothing worked"...was this before you knew about the existence of ADHD? The tragedy I find is that people first discover ADHD and then go straight on meds. They don't use this new realization and understanding of their condition to try to solve it without medication. And once you begin medication, your brain starts to change, and you really can't isolate whether a beh…

> May I ask: when you say you "tried everything and nothing worked"...was this before you knew about the existence of ADHD?

No, this was after I knew about the existence of ADHD, and from the structure of the comments this should have been obvious to you. I was referencing my previous comment: "they throw the kitchen sink at you for about a year or two before they progressively walk you up to the more "extreme" medication if nothing else helped." It is quite clear that this refers to the early treatment phase after diagnosis.

> Also curious what you did try? What was the longest time you disconnected from the internet and social media? How much did you exercise?

To answer all 3 questions: enough, enough, and enough.

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#49

Post by eqvinox »

Swordfish12345 wrote: post #46
eqvinox wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once you start taking meds you develop dependence and so your definitely need them. In this generality, this statement is plain false folk tale. It certainly applies for some conditions and treatments, but without a study to back it up you should not be making this statement in regards to ADHD and its medications. > If you tried everything and nothing worked, then go for the meds, and take on the risks and side-eff…

> dependence https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1... Your brain adapts. It's pretty obvious. If you give a mouse access to a button that triggers dopamine release, they keep pressing the button until they starve to death. The brain has evolved a system to maintain homeostasis to prevent this happening.

> https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1...

This paper does not say what you think it does. Please refer to my other comment discussing your sources.

Re: ADHD Stimulants May Increase Risk of Heart Damage in Young Adults

#50

Post by Swordfish12345 »

eqvinox wrote: post #45
Swordfish12345 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.81476... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626918/ https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25066615/

> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.81476... Written by an elementary education specialist and an unknown lecturer. No medical value. > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626918/ A very nice summarization paper on ADHD. You do not seem to have read the summary at the end, as it does not support your points of argument. It primarily suggests a wider approach using additional medication,…

I suggest you read the paper (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.81476) which you dismissed. I have found that it summarizes most of the realizations I had from my own research. Otherwise it takes too long for me to explain.

Assistant professor, lecturer, reviewed by post doc. It's an article that summarizes stuff nicely referencing papers.

> but does not go as far as establishing a causal relationship

I love how the attitude is: here is a drug that you would think would cause side-effects and tolerance...which is does...and then the onus is on everyone to conclusively prove that it's bad. Smoke until we realize it causes cancer. Take opiates until we realize they are extremely addictive in certain packaging.

It's very much carefree experimentation on the world, rather than being risk-averse and acknowledging what we don't know.

It is common sense that the body will seek homeostasis to deal with this artificially increased dopamine levels. Which this study seems to indicate.

But it comes down to risk-appetite.

> DSM-IV vs. DSM-5.

We changed the diagnosis criteria and got: surprise, 27% increase in expected prevalence. How convenient.

The diagnosis criteria are just made up. The cause is not proven at all. There is no biomarker or imagery that can diagnose the condition successfully.

So patients present with an impairment...then you look at who has the impairment and craft the criteria such that it explains the impairment. Its a circular definition and extremely broad.

Post reply on HN