http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Anesthesia-Drugs-a-Possible-Cure-for-Depression-1137964.htm

    I think it's always interesting to hear different perspectives about depression. In this article, the basic argument is (as the title says) that small amounts of anesthesia can help provide relief from depression. It is in part due to the increased demand for anesthesia in the market (more surgeries being done, etc.) that other applications for it are the subject of current research.  In the study, researchers "(administered) a single low dose" of an anesthetic that "produced almost immediate relief from depression in (a group) that did not respond to any other type of depression therapy."

      It may be very important to note that anesthesia was only given to patients who did not respond to other forms of treatment. Although I believe modern forms of anesthesia are likely to be relatively safe in moderation, we must be very careful not to get carried away with this type of research. We should conduct these studies in as safe of a way as possible and be ever wary of problems that arise. As any of us who have taken BioPsychology probably know, it was just within the last century that procedures like prefrontal lobotomies were lauded as a great procedure until the full extent of their effects became known. My main point here is that we may have a moral obligation to remain skeptical of any procedures when we have not yet been able to study its long-term effects. Only then can we be more confident that such procedures are the right course of action.

    In any case, the doses of anesthesia that have been applied thus far are relatively low and seem to be well within safety guidelines. Because of this, I would have to agree that this treatment does sound very promising for patients facing depression for which nothing else has worked. Another reason this research is promising is not just about the level of effectiveness, but also the amount of time it takes until the drugs take effect. Many common treatments for depression require at least a few weeks to produce noticeable alleviation of symptoms. As mentioned before, some of the effects of low dose anesthesia can occur almost immediately. One reason for this is because the anesthesia approach "targets a different system in the brain." Having taken BioPsychology last semester, I found this part of the discussion especially interesting - it mentioned that "all (current) antidepressants work on monoamine transmitters... but ketamine (the anesthesia) involves (blocking the action of glutamate)."   

     I was very happy to read the final section of the article - it mentioned that psychosis was a possible side effect of the drug, and that it is unlikely that is will be approved for treating depression. As in so many psychology articles, the conclusion was that more research needs to be done. I think this touches on a point that is sometimes difficult to appreciate. It is very difficult for us to watch our loved ones in pain and suffering, from mental diseases such as depression, but unlike on television, it is very rare to find some miraculous experimental drug that will solve all problems. It is not that researchers are unkind or uncaring, but rather that new procedures that have not yet even been fully investigated can very well make a person's problems even worse. I believe the work of clinical psychologists and medical doctors is in many ways more stressing because it is not a lifeless object they are working on, but rather a human being. Mistakes are not acceptable, in both a moral and legal sense. I hope my meaning is not misconstrued here; I believe this research is very important, but I also am very concerned that people will try to pursue this treatment before trying more well-known, better established treatments for depression.  

Main Article:  

          One reason I found this article very interesting is because I believe that each of us, including myself, do not often think about the effect that our diet has on our emotions and mood. The researchers in this study came to the conclusion that "Food really does have a lot of power." By properly maintaining a well-balanced diet we can significantly improve our mood. This article analyzes several different foods and provides the possible effects each one can have on a person's health.

     An important point here is that mood can affect your eating choices, and what you have eaten can subsequently affect your mood. In some ways, this can be a cyclical process. People who eat harmful foods may sometimes feel bad as a result of their nutritional effects and continue consuming the harmful food to (temporarily) get rid of the negative feelings. In psychological terms, there is negative reinforcement.

    This is a very important topic today, and I think each of us should take time to consider this study. As these researchers report, " the average consumer isn't eating a healthy enough diet, let alone a diet that will put them in a good mood." As of today, over a third of adults are obese - not just overweight, but obese. As they say in the article, "Though no studies show that mood disorders and increased obesity are directly related, many agree that there is some correlation."

      As I mentioned in my last article, the prevalence of fast food should be of great concern to us, and I say this for a few reasons. Fast food restaurants, such as McDonalds, often use addictive ingredients within their products that may taste very good and increase short-term feelings of happiness, but these artificial chemicals increase the motivation to eat more through grossly unnatural means. When I suggest that we may need to have higher standards on our food (fast food, grocery store products, etc.), I realize some of the criticisms that may arise. Some people would say that consumers could just make these foods in their own home, or people would just find ways around the standards. There are many European restaurants, however, that do have higher standards on fast food than we do. The food may not taste as good in the moment it is consumed, but it is much healthier for one's physical and mental health over the long term.

      There are a few psychological concepts at play here. To avoid the tastier, yet unhealthier foods a person must possess effective gratification delay strategies. Another important point here is that many people are not at a "natural" homeostasis level as determined by their DNA and genetic predisposition. I believe the problem here is largely cultural. Also, this is not just an obesity problem or mood problem - there are many factors at work here, and it may take a bit of critical thinking to get a grasp on what is actually going on. As these researchers reported, "(The) rising rates of depression and other mood disorders (parallel) the rise of obesity in the U.S... It is hard to establish cause and effect, but it's not by chance that stress has been going up and depression has been going up and obesity is going up." There is a very big difference between psychological disorders that require medication and mild mood impairments, but the effects of dietary behavior are a critical part of the equation. Some individuals with anxiety problems have shown significant improvement by simply eating a healthier diet. The effects of this problem are very widespread, long lasting, and have proven devastating to the lives of many people.  

      I would also like to focus on a few of the findings of this study as they relate to happiness in terms of neurotransmitters and overall mood. It mentions all of these foods in depth on the website, but I will try to summarize their information here. 

   Fast Food is known to be a "mood downer." These are the main points about them the article mentions...

- Unequivocally, fast foods are mood downers. While it may be cheap, fast, or just easy to reach for a donut, a bag of chips, or a hamburger, eventually, your mood will pay the price.

- The immediate effects of a high-fat or sugary snack can be misleading. Often, they give a quick burst of energy and may reduce tension. But these effects run in reverse rapidly. They shift to increase tension and reduce energy.

- Fast food and junk food are usually the most processed foods, where the nutrients are refined to the point where they are absorbed immediately or not at all, leaving no long-term sustenance for the body to feed off of. It is addictive to eat that sort of lipid-laden diet.

- Besides the poor nutrient content, fast food often contains many additives and preservatives that can affect mood negatively. Food colorings and preservatives, like benzoate, and added flavorings like monosodium glutamate (MSG), can cause anxiety, according to Scott.

-  Studies have shown that the omega-6 fatty acids often found in these foods, can compete with omega-3 fatty acids and an imbalance between the two can lead to obesity and depression. Since Americans often don't get enough omega-3s in their diets, consuming too many fast food items puts them at risk for mood problems.

   Luckily, we have a great variety of other choices, which include...

Salmon -  Salmon is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which help to improve one's mood, one's heart, and possibly even one's mind. Omega-3 fatty acids are used for building neurotransmitters like serotonin in the brain, and some studies have shown that eating plenty of these fats has depression-preventing qualities. Other foods with these acids include flaxseeds and walnuts.

In fact, countries where oily fish are a part of the diet, such as Japan, have lower rates of depression than other countries. These countries often have a healthier diet and lifestyle overall, but their omega-3 intake is higher as well.

Milk

- rich in calcium and the amino acid tryptophan

- bone-building properties

- calcium is known to calm nerves when feeling stressed or anxious

-  tryptophan is important for producing serotonin, which elevates mood.

Chocolate

- rich in a variety of mood-lifting ingredients (most concentrated in dark chocolate)

- dark chocolate is high in polyphenols, which are shown to improve cognitive function

- chocolate also contains phenylethylamines, a neurotransmitter that, in low levels, is associated with depression and in high levels can be associated with schizophrenia

- phenylethylamines work by releasing endorphins in the brain and promote feelings of attraction and giddiness.

- "Both sex and dark chocolate activate the same parts of the brain"

(additional foods are analyzed in the main article)

• Abuse. Past physical, sexual, or emotional abuse can cause depression later in life.
• Certain medications. For example, some drugs used to treat high blood pressure, such as beta-blockers or reserpine, can increase your risk of depression.
• Conflict. Depression may result from personal conflicts or disputes with family members or friends.
• Death or a loss. Sadness or grief from the death or loss of a loved one, though natural, can also increase the risk of depression.
• Genetics. A family history of depression may increase the risk. It's thought that depression is passed genetically from one generation to the next. The exact way this happens, though, is not known.
• Major events. Even good events such as starting a new job, graduating, or getting married can lead to depression. So can moving, losing a job or income, getting divorced, or retiring.
• Other personal problems. Problems such as social isolation due to other mental illnesses or being cast out of a family or social group can lead to depression.
• Serious illnesses. Sometimes depression co-exists with a major illness or is a reaction to the illness.
• Substance abuse. Nearly 30% of people with substance abuse problems also have major or clinical depression.

As an introvert (I once scored 95 on an introvert scale) I am usually one to watch others. I have been noticing more and more that my extroverted friends are more likely to go out on weekends and usually make conversations easier and with more people. I have always wondered about the difference between my friends and myself, why do we each act the way we do? In the article "Extrovert V. Introvert: Personalities Hardwired by Neurotransmitters in the Brain" it states that extroverts are motivated by dopamine. Extroverts have a higher tolerance to dopamine; therefore they need to engage in more outgoing activities to have stable levels of dopamine. Introverts on the other hand have a lower tolerance to dopamine, not needing as much stimulation as extroverts to have the same amount of the neurotransmitter. For introverts the parties that extroverts seem to love instead create stress. I have definitely noticed that, for me, parties are not much fun. After only about an hour or two I am begging my extroverted friends to leave. They, of course, do not understand my discomfort and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why they can't seem to get enough of going out.  

So, what about you? Are you more of an extrovert or introvert? Do you enjoy parties or hate them? And do you think the differences in personalities are based on neurotransmitters, or is something else?

http://neurologicalillness.suite101.com/article.cfm/extroversion_v_introversion

http://www.themedguru.com/20100114/newsfeature/people-happiest-during-weekends-study-86131803.html

I found this article to be rather interesting, the study suggests that weekends have a significant effect on the body. Researchers suggest that, "simply being in charge of your own day, spending quality time with family, provides better mood, greater vitality and (fewer) physical ailments from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon."

While the results of this study are probably to be expected - most people are visibly happier on the weekends -  it is interesting to hear about what they believe specifically causes physiological changes, such as hormone release, and a more positive attitude overall.

They attribute some of these changes to higher feelings of autonomy. At first, I wondered if this effect was mainly seen in those with relatively low paying jobs (those with consistently low autonomy throughout the week), but the effect was found regardless of occupation, age, gender, or relationship status.

I actually found it very interesting that even those with high status jobs experience this effect on weekends. I have generally thought that workers with high status already tend to have significantly higher levels of autonomy and leisure, so the presence of the weekend would not make as much of a difference to them. According to this study, I may be wrong.

 I wonder if another reason for this affect is that people are often able to rest more on weekends. In BioPsychology I remember the author (John Pinel) mentioning that over time people can gradually reduce the amount of time they sleep to as little as two hours per night with only minor effects, but I have not yet looked at the studies on which he based those statements. I wonder how much of a role (perhaps 2 additional hours) additional sleep can play in improving one's mental and physical condition. I find studies involving sleep to be among the most interesting, and from what I have read it seems like much more research needs to be conducted in this area.   

Another question I have is, "Why don't the effects seem to carry past Sunday afternoon?" I suppose the answer may lie in their original report, but if it does it would be rather odd for them not to have included it in the article. I have often heard people say that they will be revitalized and refreshed for work after the weekend, but in my experience I'm not sure people tend to be any better or any worse at their jobs whether it is a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. In any case, I think some of the questions that arise from this article merit further research.