40 replies to this topic

[imarobot]

on the first count, you're now talking about a very specific phenomenon, and to point in that direction on the basis of one "symptom" which the OP even considers quite possibly a personality trait is decidedly looking at a zebra, assuming there is even a "pathology" to this situation in the first place.

For me to offer the idea that anger might be more than a simplistic "personality trait", that anger can have biochemcial components which are affected by multiple systems, and that anger can at least be, in some people, lessened by the proper diet, was a completely reasonable suggestion. If you have suffered through hypoglycemia, you'll understand that a "personality trait" isn't so simple a thing.

Additionally, the manifestations of hypoglycemia and hypothyroidism function on different biological rhythms. Glucose levels most obviously fluctuate with diet and exposure to stress, while thyroid levels have a fairly reliable circadian rhythm. Hypothyroidism most commonly manifests as depression, while hypoglycemia should manifest with decreased cognitive function and confusion, regardless of the particular mood it induces.

I suggested that the two conditions can have a third cause -- not that hypoglycemia is causing hypothyroidism.

"Thyroid levels have a fairly reliable circadian rhythm" is true in people with a properly function thyroid. Not so true in people with screwed up thryoid.

This post is about anger. Hypoglycemia in many people causes anger. That's kind of an important consideration.

On the second, that's definitely news to me; there are instances of antidepressant augmentation with thyroid hormone in the absence of hypothyroidism, but that doesn't necessarily mean that individuals who respond have hypothyroidism; you can give testosterone to people with normal T levels and they may still "benefit" from it, though potentially with long term detriment.

True. And neither did I make the full leap of logic. Maybe a couple steps, but not a leap. I'm suggesting, though, that having complete faith in blood tests or doctors for complex systems that we're only starting to learn about stifles an understanding of those systems. Notice also my suggestion for treatment: iodine and not thyroid hormones.

I'll reiterate this: technicalities aside I think it's a zebra to look at these factors for somebody simply talking about a hot temper.

As someone who had a hot temper (a defining "personality trait" for me) for decades and then eradicated it with diet and iodine when thousands of dollars in psych docs and drugs and supplements didn't quite do the trick, I'd say we still have more to learn. And some of what we can learn is what has helped people in similar situations.

Diet and iodine do sound hokey, so I understand your reaction against them. But we're starting to learn how damaging some diets are. I resisted the idea for decades and was growing weaker and more unstable. Diet fixed about 75% of my anger and anxiety and mental energy issues, and about 50% of my physical energy issues. Iodine fixed the remaining 25% of the anger and anxiety and seems to have fixed my physical energy issues. Exactly what parts of my body improved isn't clear. But the connection is absolutely there.

Edited by imarobot, 03 July 2009 - 03:32 PM.

[StrangeAeons]

My point wasn't to associate the two, but to point out that there have been no characteristic patterns observed; and the secretion of TSH may be somewhat difficult to track, but the effects of thyroid hormone are pretty well understood. Point in case, you can take somebody's thyroid out and give them a pill instead, and they do just fine.
And I do know what it's like to be more quick to anger under certain circumstances (such as rebounding after a Geodon dose while already hormone-laden at the age of 15); but some people are just quicker to anger than others; and the readiness with which one responds in anger-- as well as the nature of the response, are very much a part of one's personality.
I don't discount the fact that these things made you better, but it doesn't prove anything. Everybody on this forum who's been cured of some condition or another by X (or the placebo thereof) touts their particular solution, even in situations where it doesn't apply; it may or may not apply here, that's hard to say. But that's the point: you can't extrapolate anything from anecdotal evidence.

[bgwithadd]

Theanine is a good one for helping me not go into a rage from too much stims but if it's this much of an issue it's likely something work looking into drugs for.

The strongest for me are guanfacine and the nmda atagonist, I forget its name. With those it's like anger never comes into existence. For the usual reasons, stay away from beta blockers they are simply inferior for psychiatric use to alpha channel blockers and specifically guanfacine which has very mild side effects and strong health bennies.

[StrangeAeons]

I believe you're referring to memantine.

[Lufega]

I was also very prone to anger. Magnesium has helped a lot.


Violence Prevention through Magnesium-Rich Water



Magnesium Deficiency Apparently Increases Violent Crime

[darla]

I have a son with anxiety issues as well as anger and rage. He is nine. I have a brother who is 35 who still suffers from this. It is something that is passed down i believe. I am currently trying him on inositol, which helps with his anxiety ocdish symptoms. Inositol increases seritonin levels. I am now trying to quite his nervous system. I believe he has low levels of Acetylcholine and/or high levels of adrenaline. I just recently purchased lecithin which has choline which increases Acetylcholine, and helps queit the stress levls and it also has inositol. So a two in one so to speak. The granuales are the most potent and there are no side effects unless your allergic to soy. check that out and see if it helps.

[TheFountain]

My point wasn't to associate the two, but to point out that there have been no characteristic patterns observed; and the secretion of TSH may be somewhat difficult to track, but the effects of thyroid hormone are pretty well understood. Point in case, you can take somebody's thyroid out and give them a pill instead, and they do just fine.
And I do know what it's like to be more quick to anger under certain circumstances (such as rebounding after a Geodon dose while already hormone-laden at the age of 15); but some people are just quicker to anger than others; and the readiness with which one responds in anger-- as well as the nature of the response, are very much a part of one's personality.
I don't discount the fact that these things made you better, but it doesn't prove anything. Everybody on this forum who's been cured of some condition or another by X (or the placebo thereof) touts their particular solution, even in situations where it doesn't apply; it may or may not apply here, that's hard to say. But that's the point: you can't extrapolate anything from anecdotal evidence.

Yes you can. Why are you trying to convince someone that something that obviously has worked for them isn't working for them? As far as anger being a part of someones 'personality'. What is personality? Where is the scientific data that suggests it is a phenomenon that is measurable and exists measurably? What is Ego? Where is the data suggesting Ego is a tangible existent construct? The only evidence 'we' have is when we say 'I am'. There is absolutely no other evidence with regard to our own existence but anecdotal. We cannot become someone else to prove our own existence.

Then comes what we so restrictively refer to as 'objective data'. Since we cannot leave the confines of our own minds how do we know what we are witnessing is nothing more than an elaborate hoax perpetrated upon us by our own diminishing subconscious shadow minds? Do we really know we are even discussing this topic or is it just me or you imagining we are having it? The point is you don't have a clue and neither do I. The individual made a citation, said something worked for them or might. You are really going to be that arrogant to try and tell them it didn't or wouldn't? So called 'objective data' exists which says Paxil works for people (this variatoon can be seen amongst many 'proven' psychiatric meds). But then it doesn't work for other's.

Isn't it logical that some herbal supplements may work for some and yet not other's (though the margin of error here may be less since with pharmacuticals you are dealing with specific chemical antagonists that not every brain chemistry will respond to, whereas with herbs it seems more all encompassing)? Point is assigning placebo status to everything just because it hasn't passed through the rigours of your perceived all important scientific process is foolhardy and childish. There's no 'data' that taking protein powder will increase muscle mass, yet how many men continue to eat 1 gram per pound of body weight (I want to add that any studies on this have not really proven any solid correlation and that there are more studies on the ill effects of high protein intake than on perceived benefits)? Oh wait, anecdotal data? You mean their own experience is enough to say it works? You might be right, it might work, for some people..

Edited by TheFountain, 28 August 2009 - 06:02 PM.

[StrangeAeons]

there are so many things wrong with your reply I don't even know where to begin, nor do I want to.
Here's the gist: you're missing the point completely. I was saying, exactly, that what works for some may not work for others; and that in the absence of scientific proof that X treats Y, all you've shown is that subject Z reports relief from Y by the use of X. This is very poor logic for anybody but Z to base treatment off of; but I am not saying that Z isn't experiencing any benefit. The only rationale for treatment based on somebody else's anecdotal evidence is desperation-- an exhaustion of the more obvious, well-established, rational, or conventional explanations. CAM thrives on this.
When people deliberately misconstrue very concrete statements like the one I made and put words in other people's mouths, it's usually a launching pad for their own highly esoteric (and usually irrelevant) diatribe.
If you don't understand scientific principle than that's your problem. If you don't feel that it makes sense, grab a book on the philosophy of science, as well as some introductory statistics.

[TheFountain]

there are so many things wrong with your reply I don't even know where to begin, nor do I want to.
Here's the gist: you're missing the point completely. I was saying, exactly, that what works for some may not work for others; and that in the absence of scientific proof that X treats Y, all you've shown is that subject Z reports relief from Y by the use of X. This is very poor logic for anybody but Z to base treatment off of; but I am not saying that Z isn't experiencing any benefit. The only rationale for treatment based on somebody else's anecdotal evidence is desperation-- an exhaustion of the more obvious, well-established, rational, or conventional explanations. CAM thrives on this.
When people deliberately misconstrue very concrete statements like the one I made and put words in other people's mouths, it's usually a launching pad for their own highly esoteric (and usually irrelevant) diatribe.
If you don't understand scientific principle than that's your problem. If you don't feel that it makes sense, grab a book on the philosophy of science, as well as some introductory statistics.

You are obviously the kind of person who automatically derives one thing from something else based on your own estimation of your ability to do so just because you know a little science. I have read a lot of theoretical science, both on quantum physics, nutrition, herbology, evolution and anatomy. Our continued existence is predicated on the idea that we shall do so. That does not guarantee we will, a meteor can strike our planet tomorrow.

I am very cynical about the things 'we' think 'we' know. And I am very dismissive of people who think first hand experience doesn't mean a damn thing compared to the 'objective model' of statistics. I have a saying, screw statistics, because basing treatment on statistics is why so many people fail to address their problem. The reason being the statistical model cannot draw conclusions based on its own delimiting factor. I.E the numbers themselves.

Whether or not x=y through objective data or personal experience is not the issue. The issue is not everyone is chemically identical, therefor not everyone will respond well to a cross section of psychiatrics or herbs. But again there is more room for expansion and experimentation in herbology since so many pharmacuticals have death defying side effects. really it appals me whenever someone immediately suggests that pharmacuticals would be better for an individual than herbs based on 'objective data'. Objective data also suggests they slowly kill people from the inside out.

Edited by TheFountain, 28 August 2009 - 08:44 PM.

[nancyd]

What if it was an increasing trend that more and more people were responding to an angry confrontation by bursting into tears?

Let's say it's always appropriate to have a cry. Every time life gets you down have a cry. Every time someone makes unreasonable demands from you have a cry. Every time someone tries to hussle you for sex have a cry. Every time someone tries to get your last dollar out of you have a cry. Every time you get interrupted by relentless telemarketers have a cry. Every time someone keeps trying to talk you into something or letting them have or use something of yours and you don't want to and you've already said no a hundred times instead of resorting to yelling and screaming it them have a cry. When people dismiss your line of work and tell you that it's worthless and irrelevant have a cry. When people try to undercut you and get work out of you without paying you fairly have a cry. When the price of living is ridiculously higher than what people are willing to pay you for your work have a cry.
When you go into a shop and all the prices are jacked up beyond belief have a cry.

When people try to get you to drink more than you're willing to drink have a cry. When people try to brain wash you with religious, marketing or other assorted dribble have a cry.

When a cop pulls you over burst into tears. Every time someone puts you down, misjudges you, jumps to conclusions, excludes, ignores or doesn't invite you have a cry and so on.

After all that then have a laugh.

Hmmm.. Kind of sounds like this would create an exterior of borderline PD with the juxtaposition of the crying and laughing. It's healthiest to feel your full range of emotions as opposed to sublimating an emotion to tears. There is no problem with anger itself. It just depends on how the person expresses it. The problem starts when someone has a pattern of burying it because then it's always with the person and eventually it gets too big to stay in its place.

Edited by nancyd, 28 August 2009 - 08:50 PM.

[TheFountain]

What if it was an increasing trend that more and more people were responding to an angry confrontation by bursting into tears?

Let's say it's always appropriate to have a cry. Every time life gets you down have a cry. Every time someone makes unreasonable demands from you have a cry. Every time someone tries to hussle you for sex have a cry. Every time someone tries to get your last dollar out of you have a cry. Every time you get interrupted by relentless telemarketers have a cry. Every time someone keeps trying to talk you into something or letting them have or use something of yours and you don't want to and you've already said no a hundred times instead of resorting to yelling and screaming it them have a cry. When people dismiss your line of work and tell you that it's worthless and irrelevant have a cry. When people try to undercut you and get work out of you without paying you fairly have a cry. When the price of living is ridiculously higher than what people are willing to pay you for your work have a cry.
When you go into a shop and all the prices are jacked up beyond belief have a cry.

When people try to get you to drink more than you're willing to drink have a cry. When people try to brain wash you with religious, marketing or other assorted dribble have a cry.

When a cop pulls you over burst into tears. Every time someone puts you down, misjudges you, jumps to conclusions, excludes, ignores or doesn't invite you have a cry and so on.

After all that then have a laugh.

Hmmm.. Kind of sounds like this would create an exterior of borderline PD with the juxtaposition of the crying and tears. It's healthiest to feel your full range of emotions as opposed to sublimating an emotion to tears. There is no problem with anger itself. It just depends on how the person expresses it. The problem starts when someone has a pattern of burying it because then it's always with the person and eventually it gets too big to stay in its place.

The real problem is when it begins to outwardly project itself upon any and all objects in its immediate path. Then you have an ID complex which separates itself from the main would-be ego only to be devoured by its own environment and its own dragon breath.

Edited by TheFountain, 28 August 2009 - 08:48 PM.