3 ms·

I'd love to see some sort of double-blind study that bears this out, as I have serious doubts as to its veracity as ADHD is a huge spectrum of ambiguous symptom

I'd love to see some sort of double-blind study that bears this out, as I have serious doubts as to its veracity as ADHD is a huge spectrum of ambiguous symptoms. No doubt there are some people that have a lot harder time focusing than others, and there's no doubt stimulants help you focus, so in that case someone that has a harder time focusing might find them more beneficial, but the oft-repeated canard that stimulants "relax" you if you have true ADHD seems like more myth than proven theory to me. Stimulants are useful. I would say upwards of 25% of people I know use/abuse some sort of stimulant on an irregular or regular basis. Everything from adderall to speed paste from the dark net, to the people I know that enjoy a good 3 day long meth binge every few months (yes, there are highly successful and responsible meth users). Stimulants are also dangerous. They all have varying degrees of what people in the drug community call "more-ishness" -- the urge to redose. Because who the hell wants to come down when being up is so up? Some way more than others (Hi there, meth again!) They certainly tax your system -- I'm sure even the stuent popping two or three adderall to pull an allnighter has felt the next day blah of shitty brain chemicals (pro tip: sleep, eat a lot, exercise, and have sex). As far as long term effects of taking amphetamines every day, especially starting from childhood...well, we're running a population wide experiment on that now In any case, to reiterate, I believe some people have a lot more trouble than others staying focused. This can help or hinder them, depending on what they are trying to do. No doubt some people find daily amphetamines super indispensable to leading a productive life. But pretending there is some bright line between "normal people" and "people with ADHD" wherein on one side of that line amphetamine use is abuse and other the other side its just a medicine that acts totally differently obscures the murky and muddy truth. And especially keeps us from having a rational discussion about harm reduction, safe stimulant use, etc etc. And we're just getting started. New stimulants roll onto the streets from pharm labs in China and India nearly every money as research chemicals. Flourinated versions of methamphetamine and methylphenidate, etc etc etc. Some have rather unfortunate dose response curves between stimulation and psychosis for street drugs (see also: flakka) as not too many people carry their milligram scale on them. In any case, we can keep pretending that stimulants are just good medicine for a vaguely nebulous diagnosis and poison for everyone else, or we can have rational discussions about what stimulants give with one hand, and what they take away with another. Because they do both. Meanwhile, just out of sight, I assure you there's a lot more people crushing up half an adderall in their bedroom right now that you think.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Thanks for writing out this thorough overview of perception versus what we're able to quantifiably identify. I think you touched on a lot of things I was going for, but didn't expound upon, which leads people to think I was being glib or something. I'm actually genuinely appreciative because while I have a testable, physiological medical condition, I think the ADHD 'testing' without a biological marker that can be seen in a petri dish (so to speak) is wishy-washy. Yes, this goes for Autism too. Yes, I understand these views probably aren't popular, and, in closing, I do feel fine holding this definition distinction in light of people wanting to argue their fuzzy feelings about "What's real" in medical science. >well, we're running a population wide experiment on that now I suspect I also get hositility from pointing out a lot of people think their medication is helping them but they really don't know about long term effects, but don't want to hear that they might be, you know, bad.
- eridius 10y ago
  > I suspect I also get hositility from pointing out a lot of people think their medication is helping them but they really don't know about long term effects, but don't want to hear that they might be, you know, bad. Except it appears as though it's actually pretty good. Long-term treatment with amphetamines appears to decrease abnormalities in brain structure and function in people with ADHD and improves function in several other parts of the brain. Wikipedia provides 3 citations for this, but only one study appears to be available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3801446/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3801446/
eridius 10y ago
You seem to be equating therapeutic doses of amphetamines with recreational doses (i.e. overdosing). The amount of amphetamines people take for recreational purposes or for those all-nighters and whatnot are more than what people take for medicinal purposes. So it's not some magical bright line that makes amphetamines good for some people and bad for others. But it is a condition that makes therapeutic doses beneficial for some people, with different effects than people without the condition have when taking that kind of dosage (I assume that if someone with ADHD overdoses they'll see similar effects to someone without, but I don't know anyone who overdoses so I have no concrete knowledge of that). Your comment is dangerously close to "ADHD isn't real" and that bothers me. > In any case, we can keep pretending that stimulants are just good medicine for a vaguely nebulous diagnosis and poison for everyone else That is a gross misstatement of the position you're arguing against. > As far as long term effects of taking amphetamines every day, especially starting from childhood...well, we're running a population wide experiment on that now Amphetamines were discovered over 100 years ago, and have been used for therapeutic purposes since 1935. In fact, it appears that as early as 1937 amphetamines were being tested on children with severe behavioral problems (i.e. what would be finally classified as ADHD). We may be using amphetamines much more often now for therapeutic purposes, but pretending that nobody has been taking amphetamines long-term until recently is wrong.

6stringmerc 10y ago

Thanks for writing out this thorough overview of perception versus what we're able to quantifiably identify. I think you touched on a lot of things I was going for, but didn't expound upon, which leads people to think I was being glib or something. I'm actually genuinely appreciative because while I have a testable, physiological medical condition, I think the ADHD 'testing' without a biological marker that can be seen in a petri dish (so to speak) is wishy-washy. Yes, this goes for Autism too. Yes, I understand these views probably aren't popular, and, in closing, I do feel fine holding this definition distinction in light of people wanting to argue their fuzzy feelings about "What's real" in medical science. >well, we're running a population wide experiment on that now I suspect I also get hositility from pointing out a lot of people think their medication is helping them but they really don't know about long term effects, but don't want to hear that they might be, you know, bad.

eridius 10y ago
> I suspect I also get hositility from pointing out a lot of people think their medication is helping them but they really don't know about long term effects, but don't want to hear that they might be, you know, bad. Except it appears as though it's actually pretty good. Long-term treatment with amphetamines appears to decrease abnormalities in brain structure and function in people with ADHD and improves function in several other parts of the brain. Wikipedia provides 3 citations for this, but only one study appears to be available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3801446/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3801446/

eridius 10y ago

You seem to be equating therapeutic doses of amphetamines with recreational doses (i.e. overdosing). The amount of amphetamines people take for recreational purposes or for those all-nighters and whatnot are more than what people take for medicinal purposes. So it's not some magical bright line that makes amphetamines good for some people and bad for others. But it is a condition that makes therapeutic doses beneficial for some people, with different effects than people without the condition have when taking that kind of dosage (I assume that if someone with ADHD overdoses they'll see similar effects to someone without, but I don't know anyone who overdoses so I have no concrete knowledge of that). Your comment is dangerously close to "ADHD isn't real" and that bothers me. > In any case, we can keep pretending that stimulants are just good medicine for a vaguely nebulous diagnosis and poison for everyone else That is a gross misstatement of the position you're arguing against. > As far as long term effects of taking amphetamines every day, especially starting from childhood...well, we're running a population wide experiment on that now Amphetamines were discovered over 100 years ago, and have been used for therapeutic purposes since 1935. In fact, it appears that as early as 1937 amphetamines were being tested on children with severe behavioral problems (i.e. what would be finally classified as ADHD). We may be using amphetamines much more often now for therapeutic purposes, but pretending that nobody has been taking amphetamines long-term until recently is wrong.