- Kelly Clarkson, 41, admits she was so depressed after Brandon Blackstock divorce she went into therapy: ‘You f Daily Mail
- Kelly Clarkson Working Through Depression, ‘Extraordinarily Hard’ Divorce (Exclusive) PEOPLE
- Writing ‘Chemistry’ Helped Kelly Clarkson Weather Depression and Divorce: ‘I’m Taking My Power Back’ Rolling Stone
- Kelly Clarkson Reveals the One Thing That Most Allowed Her to Heal After Brandon Blackstock Divorce SheKnows
- Kelly Clarkson wants a partner who “doesn’t need anything from me” – 97.9 WRMF 97.9 WRMF
Tag Archives: Depressed
Housing market analyst ‘Poison Ivy’ Zelman, who called the 2008 bust that led to the Great Financial Crisis, sees ‘extremely depressed levels’ of existing home sales for years – Fortune
- Housing market analyst ‘Poison Ivy’ Zelman, who called the 2008 bust that led to the Great Financial Crisis, sees ‘extremely depressed levels’ of existing home sales for years Fortune
- US home sales on pace for the worst year since 1993 CNN
- Heard on the Street Recap: This Home Not for Sale The Wall Street Journal
- First-time homebuyers finding it ‘tough to break in’ to real estate market: Danielle Hale Fox Business
- Gold prices holding above $2000 as U.S. existing home sales fall more than 4% in October Kitco NEWS
- View Full Coverage on Google News
One in Five Americans Is Depressed, CDC Study Says – Gizmodo
- One in Five Americans Is Depressed, CDC Study Says Gizmodo
- Nearly 1 in 5 US adults have been diagnosed with depression and the prevalence varies dramatically by state, CDC report finds CNN
- National, State-Level, and County-Level Prevalence Estimates of Adults Aged ≥18 Years Self-Reporting a Lifetime Diagnosis of Depression — United States, 2020 | MMWR CDC
- Brazos Valley reporting higher rates of depression than national and state average KBTX
- New CDC study says depression rates in the U.S. varies on where you live CBS Philadelphia
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Francis Ngannou’s ‘depressed’ coach reveals ‘heartbreak’ behind PFL signing — ‘It let me down in a lot of way… – MMA Mania
- Francis Ngannou’s ‘depressed’ coach reveals ‘heartbreak’ behind PFL signing — ‘It let me down in a lot of way… MMA Mania
- Morning Report: Brendan Schaub questions sustainability of Francis Ngannou’s ‘game-changing’ PFL contract MMA Fighting
- Israel Adesanya: Francis Ngannou’s ‘big f*cking move’ to PFL will cause ‘a ripple that forces change’ MMA Junkie
- Video: Watch Jon Jones bust up UFC interview to annihilate (expletive) Francis Ngannou MMA Mania
- ‘Francis is a p-ssy’ – Jon Jones video bombs interview to diss Ngannou Bloody Elbow
- View Full Coverage on Google News
‘Instagram Makes People Depressed’: Elon Musk Doubles Down On Criticism Of Non-Twitter Social Media Platforms
The owner of one of the largest social media platforms in the world shared his latest criticism of a rival platform. Could the comments keep people from the rival platform or have them avoiding social media all together?
What Happened: One of the biggest news stories of 2022 for the financial world was the $44-billion purchase of Twitter by Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
Musk had been a fan of Twitter for years, using the platform as his social media outlet of choice to share his thoughts, memes and also important updates and commentary from Tesla and SpaceX.
One platform Musk has not been a fan of is Instagram, a photo and video based social media platform owned by Meta Platforms META.
“Instagram makes people depressed & Twitter makes people angry. Which is better?” Musk recently tweeted.
The comments by Musk prompted huge reactions from his large base of followers.
One user replied with “LinkedIn makes people depressed, not Insta.” Musk responded to the comment with a fire emoji.
Twitter user @WallStreetSilv replied with “Twitter doesn’t make me angry. It makes me laugh all day long.”
Musk replied that Twitter does make him laugh a lot.
Dogecoin DOGE/USD co-founder Billy Markus responded that “Instagram is for narcissists, Reddit is for assimilating into hivemind of idiots, Facebook is for old people, Twitter is for crazy masochists.”
Related Link: Elon Musk’s Reasons For Buying Twitter: ‘I Didn’t Do It To Make Money, I Did It To Try aTo Help Humanity’
Why It’s Important: The comments from Musk about Instagram were not his first takes against the social media platform.
In 2018, Musk said Instagram could be a place where “people look like they have a much better life tan they really do” while appearing on “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast.
Musk said that people on Instagram might look better and appear happier “than they really are.”
Musk expressed his distaste for both Instagram and Facebook during an interview with the Tesla Silicon Valley Owner’s Club in 2022. Musk took down company pages for both Tesla and SpaceX on Facebook.
“It’s not a political statement and I didn’t do this because someone dared me to do it. Just don’t like Facebook. Gives me the willies. Sorry,” Musk previously said.
Musk admitted during the interview that he has a secret Instagram account, also known as a “finsta.”
Musk said he previously had a public Instagram account, but found himself taking a lot of selfies as a result.
“Instagram, man — it’s a thirst trap, you know,” Musk said.
Musk said he found himself questioning why he took so many selfies and was hunting for likes on Instagram.
Instead, Musk prefers Twitter where he can get across “whatever message I’m trying to get across.”
“I only need one means of communicating.”
On Twitter, Musk also recently responded to a post showing a 2021 study that found people’s social circles have shrunk significantly over the last 30 years, which could be due to the rise of social media.
“Maybe we should spend less time on social media,” Musk replied to the post. The comment from Musk prompted many responses, including those questioning the comments from the new owner and CEO of Twitter.
“You just dropped $44 billy on a social media company maybe give it a few years before taking that stance,” user StockTalkWeekly replied.
The Last Word: The latest comments about Instagram from Musk could create distance between several of the social media platforms and also see fans of Musk and Tesla spending less time on Instagram and more time on Twitter.
Read Next: If You Invested $1,000 When Elon Musk Said Tesla’s Stock Price Was Too High, Here’s How Much You’d Have Now
Photo via Shutterstock.
Reduced-Nicotine Cigarettes Result in Less Smoking in Anxious and Depressed Smokers
Summary: Lowering nicotine levels to non-addictive levels reduces smoking without worsening symptoms of depression and anxiety for those suffering from mental health disorders.
Source: Penn State
Lowering the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels may reduce smoking without worsening mental health in smokers with mood or anxiety disorders, according to Penn State College of Medicine and Harvard Medical School researchers.
They said reducing nicotine content in cigarettes could also lessen addiction, lower exposure to toxicants and increase a smoker’s chances of quitting.
Tobacco remains the leading preventable cause of premature death and disease in the United States. Recent proposals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the New Zealand government seek to limit the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to minimally addictive levels.
Prior research indicates that reducing nicotine content could help smokers quit, but there is little evidence to demonstrate if these policies could adversely affect smokers with current or prior affective disorders like depression and anxiety disorders — which affect an estimated 38% of U.S. cigarette smokers.
According to Jonathan Foulds, professor of public health sciences and of psychiatry and behavioral health, smokers with mental health conditions are more likely to have severe nicotine withdrawal symptoms and less success at quitting.
He also said there is speculation that lessening nicotine content to very low levels could worsen psychiatric symptoms in smokers with mental health conditions and lead to heavier smoking and increased exposure to toxicants, or harmful chemicals.
The researchers studied 188 smokers with a history of or who had a current mood or anxiety disorder and had no plans to quit.
Volunteer participants were randomly assigned to a group that received either research cigarettes containing the usual amount of nicotine (11.6 mg nicotine/cigarette) or a progressively reduced amount of nicotine for an additional 18-week period (the final amount was 0.2 mg nicotine/cigarette).
At the beginning and conclusion of the study, the researchers measured levels of cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, levels of harmful chemicals, cigarette dependence indexes and various mental health measures.
The researchers observed no statistically significant differences in mental health measures between the two groups at the conclusion of the study.
The team used the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, a six-item self-report assessment where participants reported on a 5-point scale the degree to which they experienced feelings or emotions like “nervous,” “hopeless” or “so depressed that nothing could cheer them up.” Scores are developed by summing points for the six experiences.
Participants in the reduced nicotine content group scored an average of 5.3 at the beginning of the study and finished at an average score of 4.6, while participants in the usual nicotine content group scored 6.1 at the beginning of the study and finished around 4.9.
“These findings are important because we want to understand the effect these policies would have on smokers with anxiety or depressive disorders,” said Foulds, a Penn State Cancer Institute researcher.
“Our data showed that there wasn’t a significant difference in mental health measures between the groups, suggesting reduced nicotine cigarettes might not have adverse psychological effects on this population.”
Similar to what prior studies reported, Foulds and team found that groups in the reduced nicotine content group were absorbing lower amounts of nicotine and ingesting lower levels of harmful carcinogens such as the biomarker 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pryidyl)-1-butanol), more commonly known as NNAL. That group also smoked fewer cigarettes and reported lower levels of nicotine addiction by the end of the randomized phase of the trial.
The results were published in PLOS ONE today, Nov. 2.
Unique to this study, participants in both groups were also given the choice to “choose their treatment,” after the 18-week period. They could go back to using their own cigarettes, continue smoking the research cigarettes or attempt to quit.
Of the 188 participants in the study, those randomized to reduced nicotine content cigarettes were more likely to have quit smoking 12 weeks later (18.1%), compared to those in the control (usual nicotine content) group (4.3%).
“We believe this is the first randomized trial to find that smokers who used very low nicotine cigarettes were significantly more likely to have quit smoking (with biochemical verification), three months after the end of the trial,” Foulds said.
“Our results suggest that these policies will likely result in reduced nicotine absorption from cigarettes without worsening the mental health of smokers with mood or anxiety disorders,” said Dr. Eden Evins, Cox Family Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “They also suggest that with proper support and resources, smokers with mood and anxiety disorders could quit successfully as a result of these policies.”
For more information on nicotine, smoking and health studies at the Penn State Center for Research on Tobacco and Health, visit https://research.med.psu.edu/smoking/#participants.
See also
Susan Veldheer, Ahmad Hameed, Sophia Allen, Jessica Yingst, Erin Hammett, Jennifer Modesto, Nicolle Krebs, Courtney Lester, Neil Trushin, Lisa Reinhart, Emily Wasserman, Junija Zhu, Jason Liao, Joshua Muscat and John Richie of Penn State College of Medicine; Shari Hrabovsky of Penn State Ross and Carol Nese College of Nursing; and Gladys Pachas, Corinne Cather, Nour Azzouz and A. Edin Evins of Harvard Medical School also contributed to this research. Foulds and Evins have done paid consulting for pharmaceutical companies involved in producing smoking cessation medications. Other author conflicts of interest are noted in the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health through the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health (award P50DA036107) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences through Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Institute (award UL1 TR000127). The research was also supported by the Center for Tobacco Products of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the Food and Drug Administration.
About this nicotine addiction and mental health research news
Author: Sara LaJeunesse
Source: Penn State
Contact: Sara LaJeunesse – Penn State
Image: The image is in the public domain
Original Research: Open access.
“The effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes on biomarkers of nicotine and toxicant exposure, smoking behavior and psychiatric symptoms in smokers with mood or anxiety disorders: A double-blind randomized trial” by Jonathan Foulds et al. PLOS ONE
Abstract
The effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes on biomarkers of nicotine and toxicant exposure, smoking behavior and psychiatric symptoms in smokers with mood or anxiety disorders: A double-blind randomized trial
Background
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the government of New Zealand have proposed a reduction of the nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels. This study examined the potential effects of this regulation in smokers with affective disorders.
Methods
In a randomized controlled parallel group trial conducted at two sites in the USA (Penn State University, Hershey, PA and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA) 188 adult smokers with a current (n = 118) or lifetime (n = 70) anxiety or unipolar mood disorder, not planning to quit in the next 6 months, were randomly assigned (1:1) to smoke either Usual Nicotine Content (UNC) (11.6 mg nicotine/cigarette) research cigarettes, or Reduced Nicotine Content (RNC) research cigarettes where the nicotine content per cigarette was progressively reduced to 0.2 mg in five steps over 18 weeks. Participants were then offered the choice to either receive assistance to quit smoking, receive free research cigarettes, or resume using their own cigarette brand during a 12-week follow-up period. Main outcomes were biomarkers of nicotine and toxicant exposure, smoking behavior and dependence and severity of psychiatric symptoms. The pre-registered primary outcome was plasma cotinine.
Results
A total of 143 (76.1%) randomized participants completed the randomized phase of the trial, 69 (73.4%) in the RNC group and 74 (78.8%) in the UNC group. After switching to the lowest nicotine content cigarettes, compared to smokers in the UNC group, at the last randomized visit the RNC group had significantly lower plasma cotinine (metabolite of nicotine): difference between groups, -175.7, 95% CI [-218.3, -133.1] ng/ml. Urine NNAL (metabolite of NNK, a lung carcinogen), exhaled carbon-monoxide, cigarette consumption, and cigarette dependence were also significantly lower in the RNC group than the UNC group. No between-group differences were found on a range of other biomarkers (e.g. 8-isoprostanes) or health indicators (e.g. blood pressure), or on 5 different psychiatric questionnaires, including the Kessler K6 measure of psychological distress. At the end of the subsequent 12-week treatment choice phase, those randomized to the RNC group were more likely to have quit smoking, based on initial intent-to-treat sample, n = 188 (18.1% RNC v 4.3% UNC, p = 0.004).
Conclusion
Reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels reduces some toxicant exposures and cigarette addiction and increases smoking cessation in smokers with mood and/or anxiety disorders, without worsening mental health.
Trial registration
TRN: NCT01928758, registered August 21, 2013.
Depressed people aren’t just more ‘realistic,’ new study finds
A new study contradicts a 1979 study that found that the students who weren’t depressed overestimated their own level of control over a light turning green when they pushed a button. Photo by pasja1000/Pixabay
Some people believe in the idea of “depressive realism” — that depressed people are just more realistic than others about how much they control their lives. But a new study upends that theory.
The idea has been around for about four decades, ever since a 1979 study of college students that seemed to support the theory.
That study looked at whether students could predict how much control they would have over a light turning green when they pushed a button. The researchers back then found that students who weren’t depressed overestimated their own level of control and that depressed students were better at identifying when they had no control over the lights.
In the current study, researchers tried to replicate those findings but were unable to do so.
The original depressive realism study is cited more than 2,000 times in later studies or research. It is infused into science, culture and potential mental health treatment policy, said study co-author Don Moore. He’s chair of leadership and communication at the University of California, Berkeley School of Business.
The study’s widespread acceptance in both the scholarly and popular literature is a reason to revisit it, Moore said. That means a lot of people are building theories or policies with the belief that this is true, making it important to know if it is or not. (For more on research into depressive realism, click here.)
Researchers in the new study worked with two groups of participants. The first group included 248 people from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, an online service that provides paid survey-takers. The other group of 134 volunteers were college students who participated in return for college credit.
Similar to the 1979 study, participants did a task with 40 rounds, each choosing whether to press a button, after which a lightbulb or a black box appeared.
Participants had to figure out whether pushing or not pushing the button affected whether the light came on. They reported how much control they had over the light after each of the rounds.
The researchers added a mechanism to measure bias to the original study measurements. They also experimentally varied the amount of control participants actually had over the light.
People in the online group with a higher level of depression overestimated their control, which directly contradicts the original study. That finding may be driven by anxiety rather than depression, the researchers said. This merits further study, Moore noted in a university news release.
In the student group, depression levels had little impact on how the students viewed their control.
Depression also had no impact on overconfidence when asking study participants to estimate their scores on an intelligence test, the investigators found.
Moore said the results of this new study undermined his belief in depressive realism. He added that the study does not suggest that there are benefits to being depressed.
How to accurately gauge a person’s level of control in various situations does have broader implications in life, Moore said. To make good choices, it can be helpful to know what people do and don’t control.
The findings were published online recently in the journal Collabra: Psychology.
More information
The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health has more on depression.
Copyright © 2022 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
New Study Undermines the Theory That Depressed People Are Just More Realistic
Summary: “Depressive realism”, a theory that has been touted since the late 1970s, states those with depression are more realistic in how they judge the control they have over their lives. A new study says the evidence is not there to sustain this old theory.
Source: UC Berkeley
Are depressed people simply more realistic in judging how much they control their lives, while others view the world through rose-colored lenses, living under the illusion that they have more control than they do?
That’s the general idea behind depressive realism, a theory that has held sway in science and popular culture for more than four decades.
The problem is, it’s just not true, new research finds.
It’s an idea that exerts enough appeal that lots of people seem to believe it, but the evidence just isn’t there to sustain it, says Professor Don Moore, the Lorraine Tyson Mitchell Chair in Leadership and Communication at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and co-author of the study in the journal Collabra:Psychology. The good news is you don’t have to be depressed to understand how much control you have.
Depressive realism
The concept of depressive realism stems from a 1979 study of college students examining whether they could predict how much control they had over whether a light turned green when they pushed a button.
The original research concluded that the depressed students were better at identifying when they had no control over the lights, while those who weren’t depressed tended to overestimate their level of control.
Moore and his colleagues set out to try to replicate those findings as part of a broader effort to restore trust in scientific research, much of which is woven into the fabric of the scientific community and wider culture. Researchers are revisiting bedrock studies to shore up the most basic of scientific principles: Can the research—and its conclusions—be replicated?
Why test the theory of depressive realism in particular? Its decades-long infusion into science, culture, and even potential mental health treatment policy makes it important, Moore says. The original study, for instance, was cited more than 2,000 times in subsequent studies or research, according to Google Scholar.
At the top of the list of reasons why we ought to revisit this particular article is its widespread acceptance in both the scholarly and popular literature, says Moore, who studies overconfidence, confidence, and decision-making. That means a lot of people are building theories or policies premised on this effect being true. If it’s not, it’s really important to establish that.
Replicating the original study
Moore co-authored the study with University of California Berkeley psychology professor Sheri Johnson and former undergraduate student researcher Karin Garrett, BA 21, along with University of Miami doctoral student Amelia Dev, BA 17.
The authors studied two groups of participants, whom they screened for depression via a questionnaire. The first group of 248 participants came from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, an online service that provides paid survey-takers and study participants from a range of backgrounds, in this case all over 18 years old. The second group was made up of 134 college students who participated in return for college credit.
The researchers added or used more modern and robust measurements for the study. For example, they added a mechanism to measure bias, and experimentally varied the amount of control participants actually had.
Participants performed a task similar to that in the 1979 study. In 40 rounds, each chose whether to press a button, after which a lightbulb or a black box appeared. Each was told to figure out whether pushing (or not pushing) the button impacted whether the light came on. After the rounds, each reported how much control they had over the light.
Both the online groups and college student groups were split into three experimental conditions. Each condition experienced different relationships between the button and the light during the 40 rounds.
The participants in the first two conditions had no actual control over the light’s appearance, yet saw it illuminate one-quarter or three-quarters of the time, respectively. Participants in the third condition had some control, seeing the light three-quarters of the time after pushing the button.
The researchers were unable to replicate the original study’s results. In fact, people in the online group with a higher level of depression overestimated their control—a direct contradiction to the original study. That finding may be driven by anxiety rather than depression, the researchers note, an observation Moore says merits further study.
In the college student group, depression levels had little impact on their view of their control, the authors found.
Researchers also tested for overconfidence. Study participants were asked to estimate their scores on an intelligence test. Depression had no impact there, either.
Results undermine the theory
The results, Moore says, undermined his belief in depressive realism.
The study does not suggest that there are benefits to being depressed, so no one should seek depression as a cure to their cognitive biases, Moore says.
See also
Imagine, for example, a manager hiring someone who is depressed because they believe—based on the original study—that the person is less likely to be overconfident and will have better judgment. That would be a mistake, Moore says.
While depression may not improve judgment, the issue of how to accurately gauge our level of control in various situations has broader implications throughout life, Moore says.
We live with a great deal of uncertainty about how much control we have—over our careers, our health, our body weight, our friendships, or our happiness, says Moore. What actions can we take that really matter? If we want to make good choices in life, it’s very helpful to know what we control and what we don’t.
About this depression research news
Author: Press Office
Source: UC Berkeley
Contact: Press Office – UC Berkeley
Image: The image is in the public domain
Original Research: Closed access.
“Sadder ≠ Wiser: Depressive Realism is not Robust to Replication” by Amelia Shepley Dev et al. Collabra:Psychology
Abstract
Sadder ≠ Wiser: Depressive Realism is not Robust to Replication
The theory of depressive realism holds that depressed individuals are less prone to optimistic bias, and are thus more realistic, in assessing their control or performance.
Since the theory was proposed 40 years ago, many innovations have been validated for testing cognitive accuracy, including improved measures of bias in perceived control and performance.
We incorporate several of those innovations in a well-powered, pre-registered study designed to identify depressive realism. Amazon MTurk workers (N = 246) and undergraduate students (N = 134) completed a classic contingency task, an overconfidence task, and measures of mental health constructs, including depression and anxiety.
We measured perceived control throughout the contingency task, allowing us to compare control estimates at the trial-level to estimates assessed at task conclusion. We found no evidence that depressive symptoms relate to illusory control or to overconfidence.
Our results suggest that despite its popular acceptance, depressive realism is not replicable.
Why today’s girls are so anxious and depressed
CNN
—
My teenage years, like many of our teenage years, were raw ones. I felt vulnerable, destabilized and confused, and I chronicled every bit of it on the pages of highly guarded diaries.
Looking back, I see there was a beauty to this rawness. All those strong feelings helped me figure out who I was and what kind of people I wanted around me. I also feel lucky to be a part of the last generation to experience childhood without much in the way of digital life, and the last to be influenced by Gen X slackers rather than the self-optimizers who came next. This rawness was somewhat protected from societal influences telling me I should do and be more.
That’s not true today. Girls are growing with a rising number of external pressures, making their transition into teen and adulthood far more psychologically disturbing than it used to be. Research shows sharp spikes in depression and anxiety among girls in recent years, at rates notably higher than boys.
In her new book, “Girls on the Brink: Helping Our Daughters Thrive in an Era of Increased Anxiety, Depression, and Social Media,” Donna Jackson Nakazawa looks into why this is the case, and what we can do about it. CNN spoke with Nakazawa about new brain science on girls and puberty, and how our fast-paced, online lifestyle doesn’t work well with our psychological needs.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
CNN: What is it about this moment in time that makes life so much more emotionally challenging for teenage girls?
Donna Jackson Nakazawa: There is so much focus on performance and competition. Our children are missing that important part of childhood, those in between years, ages 7 to 13, when they should be doing things like hanging out with their friends and lying in the grass to chat about whatever. We’ve replaced that with a fast-moving culture and have also added in social media, which kids are not supposed to be on until age 13, but many get on much earlier.
Once they are on social media, the focus on appearance hits girls especially. They are more likely to be “liked” or “disliked” based on their looks, and sexualized, than boys. They learn that the more clothes you take off, the more “likes” you get, and that their bodies are going to get evaluated.
Add to this the threats of global warming, school shootings and everything else. It’s all heating up, literally, and social media platforms are created to increase the intensity of emotion. And then we have to layer upon that the stark reality that girls routinely face added threats like sexual harassment, rape and violence against women by virtue of being female.
CNN: And girls’ brains are particularly sensitive to these stressors?
Nakazawa: Puberty is a super vulnerable time for girls’ brain development. Of course, this is true for boys and everyone on the spectrum, too, but it is especially true for girls. When estrogen comes on board during puberty, it is particularly powerful at increasing a potent stress response to unmitigated stressors, and there is good reason for that.
Estrogen, evolutionarily speaking, is a very groovy hormone and master regulator in the brain. On the good side, in normal circumstances, it gives women this added immune response that helps keep them healthy and strong. But when a woman faces big ongoing stressors in the environment, it can make our systems overreact. This is why women have a more robust response to vaccines, and why women suffer from autoimmune diseases at many times the rate of men. Social stressors can evoke an immune response similar to that of experiencing physical harm.
When girls experience overwhelming social and emotional stressors at the same time that estrogen is coming onboard during puberty, this can exacerbate the ill effects of stress on health and development.
CNN: On top of all that, girls are going through puberty at younger ages.
Nakazawa: Puberty is happening earlier at a time when the brain isn’t supposed to be remodeled. All those parts of the brain that help discern what we should respond to and what we shouldn’t, and when we need help, haven’t fired up yet.
Scientists are still trying to parse out why puberty is happening earlier, but we do know that it is happening. Back in 1800, girls got their periods around age 16; in the 1900s, it was around age 15; and in 2020, the average age was 11. It might be that development is sped up by stress or a shift in diet. Some neuroscientists posit that it is possible that the sexualization of girls at an early age is perhaps another part of the reason why they are going through puberty early. If the environment is telling you you are sexual, then it might trigger the pathways that trigger puberty. But for each of these theories there is always someone who says we don’t know.
Whatever the reason, more and more girls are going through puberty younger, which means they are having feelings and experiencing increased stress before their brains are fired and wired up to handle it. This is an evolutionary mismatch.
CNN: Puberty, for everyone, tends to be a time of strong feelings and some level of alienation. How can you tell the difference between typical moody teens and a mental health disorder?
Nakazawa: The classic sign is that your child is no longer talking to you or anyone. They are isolating, irritable, picking fights with friends, sleeping all the time or not sleeping at all, and experiencing persistent sadness, hopelessness and fatigue.
This is why, when your daughter comes to you with hard things, try to make it a good experience for her. If a child says they can talk to their parents about anything, that says a lot about how the child is doing. Parents need to try to find ways to keep the conversation open, and not just with them, but with anyone, whether a favorite aunt or teacher.
CNN: Still, the solution to this problem isn’t something parents can or should handle on their own, right?
Nakazawa: There are so many different ways to bring in the wider community. Too many parents think they are alone in dealing with this, but we are not alone, and we shouldn’t be thinking this is all on us. There is going to be a time when our kids aren’t talking to us, and it is OK to reach out to the school and say you need help. You are not a failure if your child is anxious or depressed, and you can’t handle it on your own. Why should we think we are the only ones with viable advice?
Talk therapy can help; there is very good evidence. So can having a wider community, which can provide a lot of reassurance for kids — because that is how humans evolved across evolutionary time — we knew that the tribe had our back. We came from communal settings, but today there is so much isolation, and kids feel as though they are competing against each other, which makes them less likely to feel connected.
When you get the community involved, your kids get a sense from the wider world that they matter and that there are other adults in the world that say, “I see you over there.” We want to get our kids involved in community-wide events that are not about performance or evaluation, or about external validation, or building up their resume. Instead, we want these experiences to help them know they matter because they matter and build up their intrinsic worth.
Overall, the more we make the wider world seem compelling, inviting and exciting to our girls, full of healthy connection and different from their online social media world, the more our girls feel safe.
When they feel safe, the stress machinery in their brains is less likely to get engaged, and they have a better chance at getting through their teen years without depression or anxiety. Girls’ brains at puberty are incredibly agile; they are taking a lot of social cues at once. If these cues are good and we eliminate a lot of the stressors, the adolescent female brain is a superpower.
Vegetarians More Likely to Be Depressed Than Meat-Eaters
Summary: A new study reveals vegetarians are two times more likely to suffer from depression than those who eat meat. While nutrition plays a role in depressive symptoms, researchers say social factors and upset over the treatment of animals contribute to symptoms of depression.
Source: The Conversation
Vegetarians have around twice as many depressive episodes as meat-eaters, according to a new study.
The study, based on survey data from Brazil, chimes with earlier research that found higher rates of depression among those who forgo meat. However, the new study suggests that this link exists independent of nutritional intake.
It may seem straightforward to look at a link between a diet and specific health problems and assume that the former is causing the latter via some form of nutritional deficiency.
Yet the new analysis, published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, took into account a wide range of nutritional factors, including total calorie intake, protein intake, micronutrient intake, and the level of food processing. This suggests that the higher rates of depression among vegetarians are not caused by the nutritional content of their diet.
So what might explain the link between vegetarianism and depression? Is there some non-nutritional mechanism that makes the former cause the latter? Or is the relationship down to something else entirely?
First, it is possible that being depressed causes people to be more likely to become vegetarian rather than the other way around. The symptoms of depression can include rumination on negative thoughts, as well as feelings of guilt.
Assuming that depressed and non-depressed people are equally likely to encounter the upsetting truth of slaughterhouses and factory farming, it is possible that depressed people are more likely to ruminate on those thoughts, and more likely to feel guilty for their part in creating the demand.
The depressed vegetarian, in this case, is not necessarily wrong to think this way. While depression is sometimes characterised as having unrealistically negative perceptions, there is evidence to suggest that people with mild to moderate depression have more realistic judgments about the outcome of uncertain events and more realistic perceptions of their own role and abilities.
In this case, there really is cruel treatment of animals in meat production. And this really is caused by consumer demand for cheap meat.
Second, it is possible that adhering to a vegetarian diet causes depression for reasons other than nutrition. Even if there is no “happy nutrient” lacking in a vegetarian diet, it could be the case that forgoing meat causes depression through other means.
For example, adopting a vegetarian diet might affect one’s relationship with others and involvement in social activities, and sometimes may be associated with teasing or other forms of social ostracism.
Notably, the new study is based on survey data collected in Brazil, a country famous for its meat-heavy diet. Some survey data has pointed to a sharp increase in vegetarianism in Brazil in recent years, going from 8% in 2012 to 16% in 2018. However, the recent paper surveyed over 14,000 Brazilians and found just 82 vegetarians – scarcely more than half a percent.
One has to wonder if the same link between vegetarianism and depression would be observed in India or other countries where vegetarianism is more of a social norm. More importantly, as the rate of vegetarianism increases in the UK and other developed countries, will we see the relationship disappear over time?
Finally, it is possible that neither vegetarianism nor depression cause the other, but both are associated with some third factor. This could be any number of characteristics or experiences that are associated with both vegetarianism and depression.
For example, women are more likely than men to be vegetarian, and to experience depression. However, the Brazilian study took sex into account, ruling out this particular third variable.
Not examined
One variable that was not examined, but is plausibly linked to both vegetarianism and depression, is exposure to violent images of the meat industry. Preventing cruelty to animals is the most commonly cited reason vegetarians give for avoiding meat.
Documentaries like Dominion and Earthlings that depict the cruelty in the meat industry cannot readily be described as feelgood films. One can easily imagine that a person who consumes this kind of media would become both vegetarian and, especially when most people choose to look the other way, depressed.
There are several possible reasons for the link between vegetarianism and depression. This new study suggests that vegetarian nutrition is not the cause of depression.
Instead, the vegetarian social experience may contribute to depression, depression may cause an increased likelihood of becoming vegetarian, or both vegetarianism and depression may be caused by a third variable, such as exposure to violent meat industry imagery.
See also
About this diet and depression research news
Author: Chris Bryant
Source: The Conversation
Contact: Chris Bryant – The Conversation
Image: The image is in the public domain
Original Research: Closed access.
“Association between meatless diet and depressive episodes: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the longitudinal study of adult health (ELSA-Brasil)” by Ingrid Kohl et al. Journal of Affective Disorders
Abstract
Association between meatless diet and depressive episodes: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the longitudinal study of adult health (ELSA-Brasil)
Background
The association between vegetarianism and depression is still unclear. We aimed to investigate the association between a meatless diet and the presence of depressive episodes among adults.
Methods
A cross-sectional analysis was performed with baseline data from the ELSA-Brasil cohort, which included 14,216 Brazilians aged 35 to 74 years. A meatless diet was defined from in a validated food frequency questionnaire. The Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R) instrument was used to assess depressive episodes. The association between meatless diet and presence of depressive episodes was expressed as a prevalence ratio (PR), determined by Poisson regression adjusted for potentially confounding and/or mediating variables: sociodemographic parameters, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, several clinical variables, self-assessed health status, body mass index, micronutrient intake, protein, food processing level, daily energy intake, and changes in diet in the preceding 6 months.
Results
We found a positive association between the prevalence of depressive episodes and a meatless diet. Meat non-consumers experienced approximately twice the frequency of depressive episodes of meat consumers, PRs ranging from 2.05 (95%CI 1.00–4.18) in the crude model to 2.37 (95%CI 1.24–4.51) in the fully adjusted model.
Limitations.
The cross-sectional design precluded the investigation of causal relationships.
Conclusions
Depressive episodes are more prevalent in individuals who do not eat meat, independently of socioeconomic and lifestyle factors. Nutrient deficiencies do not explain this association. The nature of the association remains unclear, and longitudinal data are needed to clarify causal relationship.
