Science of Eating Disorders Tumblr
Tetyana here. I run the Science of Eating Disorders blog. This is the SEDs-associated Tumblr. I post about ED research, (mental) health, psychiatry, and medicine. I reblog pretty art and photography, promote critical thinking, and rant about stuff. Previously answered questions are here. Content is not always on topic and may be triggering.


Ask Archive Random FAQ + READ METag List Theme
»
Not random though. Very important for marketing. Big profits etc etc

ohhh man, in retrospect that’s so obvious; it is embarrassing i didn’t think of that! maybe the cross-cultural aspect and the fact that it was in PubMed threw me off, haha (« excuses).

Granny Smith »»» Pink Lady > all other apples

A good granny smith apple is better than a shit pink lady apple. I’ll concede that. That’s science. Not. even. debatable. I’m sure there’s a study on PubMed somewhere… 

Holy shit the kind of random research people do.. 

Understanding apple consumers’ expectations in terms of likes and dislikes. Use of comment analysis in a cross-cultural study.

Argentineans and French consumers agreed that quality apples should be juicy (most used term in both countries), tasty, firm and fresh. However, for Argentineans quality was more related to visual characteristics, whereas for French it was driven by flavor. Argentineans used more words but French were more specific, particularly for flavour description.

Okay I’ll stop spamming. Maybe. 

cognitivedefusion replied to your post: All of these convos with cognitivedefu…

Apples > oranges. Easy comparison.

True. I’d argue:

Pink Lady apples »> all other apples » oranges. 

❝ In the areas of psychiatry and psychology, two key paradigms have emerged as a means to conceptualise treatment and recovery from mental illness: the medical model and the recovery model (Mountain and Shah, 2008; Roberts and Wolfson, 2004). Historically, the medical model, emerging from professional-led research and practice, is the primary way in which recovery has been conceptualised (Andresen et al., 2011). This model positions recovery as an objective ‘cure’, a condition defined by the absence of symptoms and a return to normal, pre-morbid functioning (Roberts and Wolfson, 2004). This is the model under which most research in AN has been conducted, with dominant thinking in AN treatment tending to support symptom-centric treatments. Accordingly, the AN treatment research to date has similarities: traditional clinician led therapy conducted from a medical model perspective where ‘good’ outcome is conceptualised as symptom abatement. However, in other areas of psychiatry the recovery model has emerged as an alternative way to conceptualise treatment and outcome. The recovery model, which emerged from the consumer/survivor movement, emphasises the personal experience of recovery, involving hope, connection, and establishing a personally fulfilling life. This model stands in contrast to the medical model and traditional understanding of good outcome, which is conceptualised as symptom reduction alone (Anthony, 1993; Jacobson and Greenley, 2001).

— The recovery model and anorexia nervosa

All of these convos with cognitivedefusion really motivate me to find out more about psychiatric training and psychiatric practice in different countries. I feel like we are comparing apples to oranges sometimes, or something like that, anyway. 

Antidepressant drugs do not improve well-being in children and adolescents - Medical News Today

(cut a lot of convo)

I think a big reason is that it is what is at their disposal. Maybe it might just work. They can prescribe anti-depressants. They are pretty safe drugs, compared to a helluva lot of other stuff that really probably shouldn’t be prescribed. And so I think when they see a patient that is in need, even though the drugs are sub-par, they might not be for that person, and what else can the psychiatrist really do? Particularly, I’d say, in the US. (My psychiatrist totally does therapy/hates just playing a role of monitoring meds, but that’s a dying breed, unfortunately.)

I don’t think it has much to do with misunderstanding the literature. Is there evidence of this? You are so damn prejudiced against psychiatrists, it is like aarghegd.

I do think pharma reps play a role, for sure, and maybe that’s where some of the misunderstanding is coming from, but we don’t have the same culture of that in Canada, at least as far as I know/from what I understand. 

I really, really, really hate that SSRIs are called antidepressants. It is such a misnomer. 

I wouldn’t say I’m prejudiced against psychiatrists so much as the system under which American psychiatrists operate (namely, their education). How many [American] medical schools teach statistics/research methods beyond what you would find in a bachelor’s or maybe master’s program? From what I’ve seen, very few (unless students are actively seeking that out on their own through electives). And I think that’s a major issue.

Considering PhDs have enough trouble understanding pretty simple concepts like statistical significance, I’d be surprised if MD’s were any better given they have even less training.

Fair enough. I do think that most people have difficult with statistical concepts. PhDs too. 

Loads of American psychiatrists still think depression is a medical problems stemming from a chemical imbalance.

I’m not in the US, so I don’t know, but do you have evidence for this? I actually wonder what %age of psychiatrists think that about depression and how it varies by age/when they were trained/where they were trained, etc. 

And that might be heavily due to the pharmaceutical companies stressing that idea.

Probably. 

Further, why aren’t they being taught about psychological treatments? Why aren’t they being taught, “hey psychological treatments are better long-term and pose less risk of adverse effects”? Or are they and they are just neglecting it? Either way, it’s a problem either within their education or within them, depending on the source.

Power. Capitalism. Inertia. Influence of pharmaceutical industry. I generally always tend to put way more blame on institutions than on individuals. 

(Disclaimer: I do not deny the distinct possibility that the individuals they are seeing simply cannot afford psychological treatment, though typically if you have insurance that would cover psychatric drugs then they often cover ~8-16 sessions of therapy, sometimes more.)

In Ontario, psychiatrists are covered by government insurance. I’ve paid nothing out of pocket. Psychologists are not. (I don’t agree with this, and don’t think it should be the case, but that’s how it is right now.) 

I don’t think the long-term data would support the idea that most any psychotropic drug is “safe” long-term. Even SSRIs. Maybe safer than others, but I would be hesitant to label it safe.

Well, we don’t have sufficiently long-term data, do we? But certainly safer than benzos and antipsychotics.

(Source: psychbunny)

Why Psychotherapy Appears to Work (Even When It Doesn't)