Talk:Depression (mood)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Point of view

I am uneasy with this as it does not seem to have a NPOV. It seems very "them and us" with people in the field of psychiatry very much being "them". I won't change this at the moment but any comments please. --CloudSurfer 06:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IM NOT NEW TO WIKI AND I AM TOTALLY DEPRESSED I am new to Wiki so please bare with me. It is rather them and us becuase the whole concept of 'clinical depression' is a medical concept and a social construction invented by the medical profession. Depression that interferes with life and or meets the criteria for 'clinical depression' is nonetheless manifests the very same symptomatology, its all a matter of degree. What I think needs to be acknowledged for a NPOV is the extent to which the the concept of depression has been medicalised and turned into an illness rather than just a normal part of adapting to life. Psyhcotherapists and Psychologists know that it is often just life events that precipitate a depression and that there is rarely any proof at all of organic brain disease being a truly causal factor. Low neuro transmitter levels do not make them causal as we all know that correlation must not be confused with cause. Hence we need to explain and acknowledge that it is life events ie negative cognitions that maintain chronic depression. Drugs too frequenty do too little to help perhaps becuase depression is not really an illness at all but part of ordinary living for many people --Jpbehrman 11:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have edited out the POV as far as I can see. If anyone disagrees, please edit it further. --CloudSurfer 08:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is sort of creeping away from the area it needs to address I think. We have a disambiguation page at depression and the large article at clinical depression - this page really needs to cover the more day-to-day use of the word as a description of mood, and the use of the term for low mood as a symptom of various illnesses (including, but not limited to, clinical depression). What we need out of this page is somewhere to link to on occasions when a link to the clinical depression article wouldn't be appropriate... "A symptom of Kuru is [[depression (mood)|depression]]" or "watching Eastenders always makes me feel [[depression (mood)|depressed]]" (bad example, but you see what I mean). What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 15:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very good point Sannse. This really is about the symptom and sign of a depressed mood. Mind you, to achieve that it needs a complete rewrite! I will now have a go at that. P.S. If you have a look at the history, it is not a matter of creep. It started out that way. --CloudSurfer 20:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yup, you're right - perhaps I was thinking of another page. But anyway - what you've done is a great improvement. Good work :) -- sannse (talk) 21:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I think we are talking about the same thing. There is depression the illness, in all its forms, and there is a depressed mood, which is what this article is about. From my medical standpoint, we are talking here about the signs and symptoms as opposed to the disease. By the way - great picture of the caterpillar. I particularly liked the chewed leaf in the background. --CloudSurfer 22:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yep, the sign/symptom from the medical standpoint, and the mood from the layman's viewpoint - it describes both of those well now, without confusing in the illness itself with all its other symptoms. (And thanks about the caterpillar - my second featured!) -- sannse (talk) 10:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV'd, there is a point of view that doesn't seem to be represented very well and is the mechanistic, materialist, chemical point of view if you will. There is a belief and possibility that some depressed moods are purely caused by chemical imbalances and that the initial or ultimate cause is unknown. --Jim 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Very Helpful

I brought up this article, because I was feeling down. It is very helpful as it is. The Disambiguation page was also great, because I knew that I wasn't suffering from clinical depression.

Thanks to all that have contributed to it. --Osprey 17:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aww, empathizes, and feels very sorry for people in such a mood. *wishes everyone could have as excellent pick-me-up dreams!*

ok well for every one who is depressed, remember, "to the world you may be one person, but to one person you may be the world" i'm unsure of who origianl said this, but it has taken me a very long way, i can sympathise w/ alll of you, and i am praying for you

leading country?

is there a leading country in treating depression? which country is the best or most well known at treating depression?

I looked around on google a bit but I couldn't find any information about which country is best at treating depression. If I had to guess, I'd say the the best treatments would be in countries with developed healthcare like the U.S., Canada, Europe, etc. Monkeyman 23:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For a while Western (read American) psychologists in other countries thought that people of those cultures didn't develop depression. We kinda' had to rework our definition of how it manifests because of this. The people of some cultures barely change when affected. In some areas it can be ridden of in ways that 1st world countries would find foolish. The point being that developed healthcare alone isn't a good assessment of which areas are best at treating the problem. Also, prevention, which is a part of treatment, should be looked at. -- It seems that I'm not signed in. DA

Lincoln

Lincoln was not a qualified therapist but I would argue that the Wright brothers were not certified pilots either. Monkeyman 4 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)

Depression is like

Looking into a mirror and not seeing your own reflection. I came up with this as a way to describe how depression affects my own ability to see that I exist when I feel like others think I do not.

Proposed merge

I fail to see the distinction between depression (mood) and clinical depression. What am I missing? Is it 'clinical' when you feel "down" for 2 weeks?

I think we need a clear definition of "happiness", first of all. Then we also have to describe mental health theories which view mood and all other aspects of the mind as mere manifestations of the physical body, e.g., the brain and brain chemistry.

Dorothy Rowe writes:

Research on patients who are already depressed might show alterations in brain chemistry, but, as psychiatrists should know, a correlation cannot be considered to be a cause. A particular alteration in brain chemistry would have to be demonstrated invariably to precede depression, and this has not been done. Meanwhile, there is an increasing body of evidence that cognitive therapy enables people diagnosed with schizophrenia or depression to lead ordinary lives. [1]

Dorothy, if it was only a correlation and there were no causation, then why do the chemicals we call antidepressants outperform placebos in trials? Yes, I know they don't always alter everyone's mood, but more often than not they have a more positive effect than the placebo. How could the antidepressant chemicals so frequently cause a positive change in mood greater than the placebo's if there was no cause and effect relationship? --Jim 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me the reason antidepressants are often not given for just a depressed mood is that most of them usually take about as long as the mood lasts to take effect.

Because cognitive therapy sometimes helps those who are depressed does not demonstrate that chemicals are not involved in causing or improving the depressed mood. Cognitive therapy may be affecting the chemicals that cause the depressed mood. --Jim 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Is love a chemical state in the brain? Is aggression or depression or religious conversion the result of a chemical imbalance?

A lot of scientist have reason to believe they all could be caused by chemicals. They don't necessarily have to be imbalances, it seems to me sufficient to say there was a change in the chemicals that caused the mood or feeling. --Jim 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that a lot of U.S. psychiatry is based on materialistic theories which do not stand scientific scrutiny. There is bias and wishful thinking, and even corruption here. Uncle Ed 17:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, what evidence can you give that the human is made up of anything but materials (i.e. chemicals)? Many believe there is more than chemicals to a human, but where's the proof? I personally do have such a hope but it is irrational because I don't have anything that would qualify as evidence. Science not only stands on "materialistic theories," it creates, proves, lives and breathes them. Science is not even really capable of evaluating non-materialistic theories. When they are evaluated it either turns out there was a materialistic explanation all along or the matter remains unknown. Thanks, --Jim 20:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that materialism and reductionism are being confused here. We do agree that we are built out of atoms: but is that level of complexity really the best level to describe the situation in here? Santtus 01:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

While there is a definite difference between biological and enviromental depression the two must be considered in relation to each other. Vote yes for merge.

Vote no for merge. This is apples and oranges. Depression is a disease process. Depressed mood is a state of mind. Depression is driven by emotions, which are a chemical representation of the body's condition. Depressed mood is a feeling, which is the cognitive interpretation of that chemical representation. Emotion is a product of the hind-brain, or medulla oblongata, in conjunction with the amygdala and thalymic process. Feeling is a product of the cerebral cortex. Bottom line...two completely different things and should under no circumstances, for the sake of academic integrity, be combined. Mjformica 03:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Support merge, in case the issue happens to come up again (yes, I know I'm writing this two years after the fact). The main difference between "depression" and "clinical depression" is that insurance and pharmaceutical companies notice your existence when you're diagnosed with the latter. In all seriousness, though, a "state of mind" does not magically metamorphose into a "disease process" once it has lasted for two weeks. Sure, there are biological substrates and genetic influences, and the degree of their identifiable influence may rise proportionately with the length of time one has felt depressed. But the point at which depression becomes "clinical," or at which "mood" becomes "disorder," is not determined by any substantial disjunction between one mental condition and another; rather, it is stipulated by committee. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A view on merging this page

I feel that the pages on depression (mood) and clinical depression should not be merged. It is very important to distinguish between depression as a symonym for sadness and clincial depression, where the mental state is disproportionate to the eliciting events. For some it may be challenging to understand the difference between the two without having lived with or known someone with depression, and may feel the articles should be merged. In my opinion, the two articles should remain separate.

-Sadness may be a subset or symptom of depression but sadness is also a free standing emotion of it’s own with its own behavior and effect. It is quite common, normal and generally only an annoyance.

In my opinion, the article should remain separate from clinical depression, or you would have to then merge Happiness with Mania. Bdelisle 03:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• -Agree with Bdelisle and strongly oppose merging the articles. Even if you would define the two concepts as the same phenomenon, just varying in magnitude, the difference in magnitude alone would be a reason for split. Santtus 20:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Additional note: I suffered from somewhat depressed mood for about a year and kept pondering, whether I should consider myself as clinically depressed or just having reacted normally to adverse life situation. As a somewhat analytical type, stubborn and inclined to deny the extent of the problem - altho with mixed feelings - I began to study both descriptions. There are extremely important differences between the two, which can't be overly emphazized: requirement for hospitalization/medication/therapy or lack of any of them. One of these problems can be considered 'cured' if you win the situations that have threatened your well-being, the other stems from within and requires other kind of approach. I would very much appreciate to see the articles better reflect this distinction between the two. In the end I "failed" the test for clinical depression by a large margin, but I was unable to understand the difference between the two before having the experience in the first place. Santtus 20:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:Bdelisle and oppose merging. I feel that where this article went wrong was in redirecting 'Sadness' to 'Depression' to begin with. Sadness DOES NOT equal depression, and for this reason half of this article talks about sadness, and the other half about clinical depression. I'll admit, I just finished editing a piece of th article that falls into the latter category. If someone could go to the trouble of possibly presenting an outline for this article that emphasized 'sadness' the emotion instead of 'depression' the condition, I think we would be taking a big step forward to improving this article. I might do some research into the organization of the other emotion articles myself. Shaggorama 11:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I learned in European History 5 that pursuing happiness is an idea that gradually developed, and was never actually really emphasised or around until around this past century.. (Mei}

Strongly Oppose a merge. There's a disambiguation page, and this page gives enough info to let readers know there is another page, while making the distinction between depression the medical term and the mood. It should be emphasised how these are separate, especially since the term 'I'm so depressed' seems to have come into usage for the mood. Srxcef 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another view FOR merging the two pages

These pages should be merged to one page called "depression". All the DSM stuff really should just be in a section. In my opinion most people mean clinical depression when they use the word depression-- at least where I live in the USA. In addition people with Major depression really don't need to get a book out to know that. Another point is that anyone you needs information about the DSM probably is already trained in that. With all respect to whoever donated the DSM information its of secondary importance and shouldn't have its own page. Its potentailly confusing to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.8.29 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 23 December 2005

I was very surprised to find there were these separate pages. Simply put, they are the same thing. Sfahey 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate as to why you think they are the same thing? One is a diagnostic classification in medicine, the other is a common emotion which the former may or may not have as a symptom. Is it the everyday belief that things people do to 'cheer up' when 'down in the dumps' will work for clinical depression (you may well be right, but many would disagree)? If they are the same thing then what can you make of a statement like "Clinical depression affects about 16%[2] of the population on at least one occasion in their lives"? Have less than 16% of the population ever been depressed? Everyone is low/sad at some points in their life, but not to a degree that falls within the medical classification. See also the 'Helpful' section above. --Cedders^tk 07:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it a social construct?

"Depression is ultimately a social construction whatever its chemical or neurobiological explanations and analogies."

I suspect a lot of what we think we know about Depression may be socially contructed, but the actual Depression itself? Are the neurotransmitters and affected areas of the brain socially constructed? Can someone tell me what this means and what kind of supporting evidence there is? Thanks --Jim 19:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Calling depression a social construct is a fairly ignorant and undefensible statement. If the author of this piece disagrees, feel free to duke it out with me here or on my talk page, but i'll be deleting it from the article presently. Shaggorama 11:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the underlying meaning may have been that depression is defined by its everday visible or tangible effects, and would not be a subject of study at a physical level if these effects were not significant. Depressed mood is certainly real, and can't be relativised out of existence. On the other hand, it could have referred to the medical concept, which of course is a social construction as are all diagnostic categories, whether in mental or physical illness. Cedders 10:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Sadness Depression?

I entered sadness in the search and was redirected to depression. I was quite shocked to see this happen because they aren't the same thing! 2 examples: My best friend is going to leave to other town. When I say goodbye to him I'm sad. But then I go on with my life, I'm not depressed by it, just sad at that moment. Also people that have a bipolar disorder, which by many is considered a depression, aren't even expressing sadness when they are, say, in a maniac mood. As there's no concept of sadness in wikipedia I'll try to create one. Altough I never done it before. Hope I don't screw up :) 85.240.131.218 14:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Ricardo Silva, Portugal

Well the decision for the redirect from sadness to this article was made through this AfD vote. If it deserves a valid article, I don't mind having it. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 14:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I already did the article, altough it's still a little short... i have to do more research in order to complete it... I have altered the redirections, I hope I didnt do a wrong thing, I am new to wikipedia and didn't knew of the votings, for instance. I would like some feedback on what I did, thankx. Soneca mfr 16:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Ricardo Silva, Portugal

Soneca, I have altered the wording slightly to avoid ambiguous interpretation with sad and S.A.D. but also, to fit the intention of this article, and make feeling depressed (down, sad) distinguished from the formal definition of the clinical condition, depression, according to the Index Medicus.Trevor H. (UK) 00:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT merge Depression (mood) article with Clinical Depression article

These two distinct conditions are frequently misunderstood because of the common name. Merging would only further confuse readers.

What if the medical community renamed clinical depression to, say, serotonin deficiency syndrome. The exact same symptoms and treatment, just a name change. Would you still want to merge them? This isn't an impossibility, as manic depression has been renamed to bipolar disorder. It illustrates the fallacy of merging two articles because the names and some symptoms are similar.

Clinical depression isn't just a more severe, longer lasting form of depressed mood. It often includes difficulty thinking clearly, physical weakness, unnatural anxiety, insomnia not caused by stress or life events, abnormal physical aches with no cause, and memory problems.

Encyclopedias typically have separate articles for topics with similar names but different meanings. For example they don't have one article for both clinical depression and economic depression, despite both being called a "depression". Likewise depressed mood is completely different from clinical depression and should be kept separate. Joema 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is apples and oranges. Depression is a disease. Depressed mood is a state of mind. Depression is driven by emotions, which are a chemical representation of the body's condition. Depressed mood is a feeling, which is the cognitive interpretation of that chemical representation. Emotion is a product of the hind-brain, or medulla oblongata. Feeling is a product of the cerebral cortex. Bottom line...two completely different things and should under no circumstances, for the sake of academic integrity, be combined. Mjformica 03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote?

Should there be a vote on the possible merge to settle this issue, so that we could have one less template on the article page some day? Santtus 12:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to vote upon. These are two completely different topic areas. Mjformica 19:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll take away the template. -Santtus, 22nd Jan.

Just a suggestion: how about resurrecting "Sadness" article, putting up there all non-clinical depression stuff (grief and other stressful external events and traumas & adaption to them) and using disambiguation from "depression" with one link going to "sadness" and the other to "clinical depression"? - Nika

Grief and trauma are both clinically defined conditions. Although they are not included in the formal diagnosis set, they are noted and given ancillary daignosis codes in the "Other Clinical" of the DSM. Mjformica 12:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sad but not Happy?

I just found it ironic that Depression and Sadness draw so much controversy, but that no one cares to complain about the article on happiness

Good point. And, in fact, the article on happiness could use some attention. In fact, this line, "For non-human animals, happiness might be best described as the process of reinforcement, as part of the organism's motivational system." is completely wrong, as a researcher at Stanford recently (like, publsihed last month) discerned that the "fast panting" that dogs do when they are at play is laughter! Mjformica 11:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps more people are sad than happy, and that is why this page gets more attention. If you suspect someone of being depressed, you might look here, but if you think someone is happy you wouldn't look it up. Just a thought. --The1exile 19:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition in opening paragraph

The opening paragraph says depression "refers to a state of non-clinical melancholia that is shorter than 2 weeks in duration" -- clearly wrong since depression is not limited to any particular timeframe. Any takers for something better? Otherwise I'll think of something. -- Barrylb 09:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Psychonutritional Approach to Depression and other forms of Mental Illness

I've voiced my concerns to this section (which appears in other forms in Clinical Depression and Anxiety on the talk pages of those articles. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it from article to here until it is rewritten. -- Barrylb 05:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Psychonutritionists offer a much simpler approach to the treatment of depression by looking at the nutritional biochemical underpinnings of depression.

Most depressions are endogenous meaning that they are a biological rather than a mental disorder.

It is well known that only about 40% of patients using antidepressant medications, such as SSRIs, may have some benefit, whereas about 60% who do not benefit from drug therapy are left with treatment resistant depression. (See Insel TR 2006

To understand the nutritional approach we need to understand that all biochemical activities in the brain is fueled by biological energy called ATP. Without that energy the body is unable to manufacture the feel good neurotransmitters such as serotonin and hence people may become depressed.

The source of that energy is derived form the carbohydrates in food, which is converted via glycolysis and the citric acid cycle (the Krebs cycle) into molecules of energy. An active cell requires more than two million molecules of ATP per second to drive its biochemical machinery.(Hale WG, Margham JP, Saunders VA (1995), COLLINS DICTIONARY OF BIOLOGY, Harper Collins Publishers, page 68). Hence the energy sources are very important in the manufacture of feel good hormones.

One major obstruction in the production of biological energy is Insulin Resistance which may lead to unstable blood sugar levels often found in the hypoglycemic syndrome. There are many studies showing a significant association between depression and insulin resistance.

Hypoglycemia can be medically tested with Glucose Tolerance Test for Hypoglycemia. It can also be tested with a paper-and-pencil test called the NBI.

The non-drug treatment for depression and many other forms of mental illness, can be treated by the adoption of the Hypoglycemic Diet.

For a fuller explanation please read:

Depression: a Disease of Energy Production

Depression can also be due to Food Intolerance [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloerc (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)