Do ADHD meds fuck up your brain?

holy fucking sextuplet

that's a new personal record for me, never got higher than quints before

we got some digits over here boys

Nice get bro

bump

am I the only one who finds piercings and similar bullshit really fucking disgusting and retarded?
I can't be the only one...

...

you are not the only one don't worry
piercings are indeed primitive and disusting

CHECK'D

Bump

nice

Person with actual ADHD, reminder not to take highschool dropout quacks thinking they're debunking some great conspiracy.

For me ritalin is like wearing glasses, it's 100% essential for me in order to function. After starting ADHD meds I no longer hate myself and dread the future.

Same here, I'm just looking for someone who knows what they're talking about to help me understand this paper.

short answer: No, meds aren't gonna hurt you.

stop trying to understand your condition by reading random papers that you are unable to understand.

I have a problem doing one task. I constantly have to move to another thing to keep occupy. I don't know if this adhd or add. I used to be sharp as hell in my daily routines. It seem playing viyda is the only way to calm it down. Most ADHD/D meds research shows it promotes better life for the affected. The whole bullshit about these meds will make you a zombie comes from a study in teh 90s which has been debunked. Doctors prescribing these meds will give a proper dosage that will allow you function properly in society/school.

Don't tell me what I should or should not do, faggot.

Now that we got that out of the way maybe you can actually try to be constructive here and tell me what you make of that paper. But probably you didn't understand it either.

This.

>hurr durrrrr he told me no
>let me call him a faggot
Nice rebuttal, pleb. Go back to
.

Can you link the paper or anything?

So thanks for proving my point by ignoring the actual paper

I'll read the paper OP.

Brb.

Thanks bro! I appreciate it.

You're free to do whatever you want, but blindly fumbling around reading random papers will not get you anywhere.

You're asking people to tell you what the paper means based on their own subjective opinion, so why are you so adamant about not being told what to do when you're asking to be told what to think?

Thanks for that completely unnecessary advice. I'll use my freedom to do whatever I want and ignore it.

I'm not asking to be told what to think, I'm looking for external input. Those are two very different things.

Cool, thanks.

Just to clarify though, they use atomoxetine which is what I take for ADHD. It's different from Ritalin because atomoxetine isn't a stimulant so you don't have the same side effects like not being able to sleep etc.

I just wondered what it means if activity fluctuations are reduced. Like, what does that do to your brain and how does it affect behavior.

I remembered that it was used to treat ADHD after posting.

Here's a second draft:

The paper showed that increased catecholamine levels reduced spontaneous neural activity fluctuations.

That is to say, increased levels of neuroepinephrine and dopamine decreased the baseline activity fluctuations of neural networks at rest.

That's it.

It's surprising, as neuroepinephrine and dopamine are typically thought of as primarily excitatory neurotransmitters.

There is nothing in this study that implies the potential for ADHD meds to fuck up your brain.

If ADHD is caused by higher than average baseline activity fluctuations, then this study would explain why ADHD medications are effective at relieving symptoms.

There you go.

Right okay yeah that makes sense. Do you know of any papers that show that people with ADHD have stronger activity than normal?

And thanks by the way, I appreciate the time you're putting in here

I don't; however I'll have a quick look.

I am more confused by the opposite suggestion, that the regular usage of them promotes positive development of the structure of the brain? If this were true could it ultimately just be the creation of "positive" habits owing to usage of the drug lasting afterwards?

Let me find a study

Strattera (atomoxetine) works very differently from other ADHD medications such as Adderall.

First, it's not a stimulant.

Second, it works on norepinephrine, not dopamine like amphetamines (Adderall, Vyvanse, Dexedrine) or methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta).

Third, it wasn't even initially developed as an ADHD medication.

Eli Lilly was trying to create an antidepressant with less side-effects re: concentration by making a substance that has much higher affinity to norepinephrine than serotonin (in SSRI antidepressants, the substances have very high affinity for serotonin and very little for norepinephrine).

Strattera failed to show efficacy for depression or anxiety, but patients consistently reported ability to better concentrate, so Lilly dropped effort to seek FDA indication for depression and skipped right to ADHD, which was the secondary indication they were exploring.

If anything, Strattera is more similar to antidepressants, especially SNRI antidepressants (Effexor, Cymalta, Pristiq), which binds strongly to norepinephrine receptors, than other ADHD medications.

>not dopamine
In the study in the OP they clearly say that it increases dopamine too.

My friend's uncle is a psychiatrist and speaking to him a couple months back he confirmed a lot of my suspicions. That I have a form of ADHD, and he additionally suspected that I probably have bipolar disorder (which runs in my family). Trying someone else's Adderall really helped me, but I'm really just uncomfortable with dealing with the whole psychiatry system

Any suggestions, should I just stop worrying and make an appointment?

Just make the appointment bro, things got a whole lot better for me

Ok, these studies show that ADHD patients have abnormal activity fluctuations, either manifesting in higher than average or lower than average baseline/rest activity depending on region:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23861089/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21810451/?i=3&from=/23861089/related

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24034912/?i=2&from=/23861089/related

Get an appointment.

Awesome, thanks dude

Bump

ADHD meds are like adding 0 resistors to a circuit

witnessed!! too bad we aren't a hugely popular board :( wtf why is that , we offer the most pertinent informtation!

Psychiatry is not a science.
All of their claims fail empirical evidence.
The people in this thread have no idea how science nor scientific skepticism works.

>"dude"

Cringest bullshit I've read all day

You and dweeby mc'bullshit artist there need to have a baby and then name it "I don't know how scientific statements work".

For myself the thing which has been just as important as being able to regulate my attention has been the ability to regulate my emotion.

No longer do I have the wild mood swings with the wind, I can actually emotionally self regulate now.

>I can't see you so you're not there nah nah nah nah boo boo

nice counter argument there champ

>Asks for a source with which to validate pretty wild claims
>Nice counter-argument

It's not even a counter-argument, just a request for clarification...

It isn't like glasses. You just have better performance and a stimulant induced psychosis.

It is NORMAL to hate yourself, unless you are actually God. Treating anxiety with a stimulant is bad, you develop a thought process that "emotionally solves" the mania, yet it is just a delusion, you just have this constant happy voice in your head over your anxiety. The fact that you think ADHD medication is like glasses means you abnormally fear not using it, to the point of going AGAINST current science.

>It is NORMAL to hate yourself
Veeky Forums in charge of giving life advice

So what about the study in the OP then?

Did you read it? Do you understand every sentence?

>wordpress.tobiasdonner.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/vanDenBrinkJN2016.pdf

The study makes no mention of, Ritalin or Adderall, only Atomoxetine (Strattera).
Atomoxetine interferes with the brain, acting as a monoamine reuptake inhibitor.
This causes a sedation effect in some, and stimulant effect in others.
This doesn't actually prove:
- Brain disease
- Chemical balance
- Evolutionary teleology
- Social teleology
- DSM concepts
- Actions/reactions are pathological
- DSM diagnostic protocols are based on science

Yes, and yes. Did you?
It also doesn't prove string theory or the Bible, because that's not the point.

witnessed

>It also doesn't prove string theory or the Bible, because that's not the point.
But it means OP's question "Do ADHD meds fuck up your brain?" can't be answered using this study, as it doesn't concern itself with all kinds of ADHD meds, you autistic smartass.

>It also doesn't prove string theory or the Bible, because that's not the point.
Non-sequitur.
It doesn't prove psychiatry and that's what the thread is about.

He was asking about this specific one, smartass. It falls in the category of ADHD drugs.

It isn't, it's about the effects of a drug on the brain.

You're right I should not try to have a happy life, it's not normal to be happy so why should I? I hope I can manage to one day hate myself as much as you hate yourself user, you're an inspiration.

No, it's about psychiatric claims about what it does to the brain.
ADHD is a psychiatric only term.
It is trademarked by the APA.
That is not what the study is about, although they make mention of ADHD and psychiatric medication.
They're seeing whether the drugs are beneficial or harmful compared to a placebo.
The conclusion what that people acted sedated or stimulated more so than the placebo, and conjecture followed.
It's the conjecture that isn't science, at least when they don't wish to test their hypothesis and instead cycle in circle jerk presumptions.
Why would they do this?
Because they're still trying to market non-detectable brain diseases, behaviorism, drugs, control, teleological culture, etc.

Are you retarded or just lazy? You either didn't understand or didn't read the study in the OP.
>They're seeing whether the drugs are beneficial or harmful compared to a placebo.
No. They don't interpret the data in this way at all, they only look at how the drug affects communication between various brain areas. This has noting to do with 'beneficial' or 'harmful' effects.
>The conclusion what that people acted sedated or stimulated more so than the placebo, and conjecture followed.
Jesus user, they don't even look at behavior at all. The whole outset of the study is to see how the drug affects brain processing at rest, when the participant isn't doing anything. In fact, they even compare their results in the discussion to studies in which the participant WAS actually doing something.
>Why would they do this?
>Because they're still trying to market non-detectable brain diseases, behaviorism, drugs, control, teleological culture, etc.
This is just a laughable misinterpretation of the study and the authors' intentions. They just use a drug to study a particular endogenous brain chemical, it has nothing to do with marketing. It's not even a clinical study.

Stay classy Veeky Forums

No one here really seems to know what they're talking about. Some come close but are still fuzzy on the details, which are actually quite important here.
OP, the short of it is that you don't need to worry about the drugs 'fucking with my brain correlations and connections'. The most important part of the study and how it relates to your condition is the following sentence:
>Second, we do not know whether atomoxetine would have similar effects on functional connectivity in clinical populations characterized by disturbed catecholaminergic function (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression).
So assuming that you take this drug to threat a clinical condition, it's unclear how the drug would act in YOUR brain.
>if anyone could have a look at it and tell me what it actually means that would be great
The drug lowers correlated activity across the brain. It doesn't actually lower the activity itself, but only how *correlated* this activity is. You can interpret this as the drug reducing the communication *between* brain areas, while leaving the processing *within* these brain areas unaffected. Moreover, this holds true for some brain areas more so than others (for instance, visual cortex). The people who wrote this study interpret this in terms of the drugs' neurochemical effect (increased availability of norepinephrine and dopanine). They propose that - specifically during rest - these chemicals act to suppress large scale brain communication, and in some areas more so than others. This was surprising, because they expected these chemicals to enhance communication, and given their widespread nature, that this would hold true approximately evenly across the brain.

Thanks bro, that makes sense!

The only thing I have to contribute is that women who are on higher end prescribed doses of amphetamines begin to get a touch of the faces of meth look. I've only noticed it in women I've met who admit to being on them.

good thing that I'm not a woman then

> Tumblr loves themselves
> Are fat HAES feminists
I'd rather hate myself and being smart and athletic, desu.

Whatever motivates you, senpai, but that's a false dichotomy. There's no need to plunge into self hate to rationally analyze flaws in oneself and work to fix them.

this thread is a good example of Veeky Forums failing to understand science and then presenting opinion as fact

I was under the impression they did it to show their independence and how much they didn't care about sex, I don't think they expect it to look attractive.

Search Amphetamine neurotoxicity on pubmed, Ritalin is neuroprotective but damages Cardial tissue at chronic doses. Amphetamine salts cause neurotoxicity, Levo more than Dextro

Here we go again. The paper in the OP isn't about amphetamines, it's about atomoxetine, which isn't a stimulant. I appreciate the effort, but please read.

Bump

>rationally analyze flaws in oneself and work to fix them.

What kind of flaws could you rationally analyse and how?

Fucking check'd

Well for instance imagine if you had ADHD, you could do the rational choice of taking meds instead of choosing self loathing as you are currently advocating.

its pilled fear of knowledge so kids are quaiet

>if you have ADHD
Which has been scientifically debunked.
Every person that has been studied in depth via psych screening and then genetic testing and brains scans show zero signs of any physiological difference than anyone else.

About 1% of people diagnosed have a serious nerve disorder and they're told it's ADHD.

The rest are just people that don't believe in fascism.

>Take your soma and conform!
>Only conformity is rational!
>You're insane and ill if you don't conform!
Blah blah blah.

>brains scans show zero signs of any physiological difference than anyone else.
Fucking moron, there are literally multiple links in this very thread to peer reviewed papers that directly contradict your nonsense. Are you a scientologist?

Never mind I think you actually deserve to hate yourself as much as we hate you.

>Fucking moron, there are literally multiple links in this very thread to peer reviewed papers that directly contradict your nonsense. Are you a scientologist?

Actually, it's a scientific fact and a common misconception that brain scans CAN NOT be used to diagnose someone with "mental illness".

Same is true about "testing chemical imbalances"... no such test exists and never has.

And no, I'm not an Scientologist, what a weird "poisoning the well" sort of thing to imply.
Borderline ad hominem.

No, I'm an Empiricist, like all TRUE scientists.
The people in the HARD SCIENCES reject the nonsense in the SOFT SCIENCES which has been proven to be based on slick authoritative social marketing, circular logic and confirmation bias.

see
So you can stop being childish and immature and join the side of real science, aka Empiricism.

There is a reason why the Nobel Prize Committee snubs Psychology, Sociology and Psychiatry. They're not science.

So you're going to go ahead and ignore the only empirical evidence on the table then?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23861089/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21810451/?i=3&from=/23861089/related

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24034912/?i=2&from=/23861089/related

>They're not science.
By that reasoning it would be impossible to 'scientifically debunk' ADHD.

You talk so much about hard science, when are you going to post your credentials? By the way "highschool dropout" is not an academic title

this user: here, I actually meant mundane stuff like being fat, but whatever.

Your fedora is showing, faggot

He is usually found in every thread about mental illnesses trying to "debunk" mental illnesses with his "hard science". It's funny how he is unable to see how mentally ill he is himself, but there's no helping those who do not help themselves...

Oh, sorry, I assumed he meant more of a broad spectrum of pharmaceuticals when he said "ADHD meds."

ad hominem attack + appeal to authority?
go fund yourself
because you need some education

oh! another... ad hominem/poisoning the well attack/
how ever will I got on?
an hero? right now?
someone called me a faggot on the internet!
oh dears me!

>pretending to know whom anonymous posters because they use the same arguments
>not understanding those same arguments have been used by hard scientists and hundreds of professionals in the field themselves to discredit 90% of the field
+ ad hominem/poisoning the well
++ bulverism!
you win a new... nothing.

At least try to understand how PROOF works before you start shitposting ad homs and shit.

dude, i designed car on woood and sun before i finish the basic, but it was oilcrusher