natural

You are currently browsing articles tagged natural.

unstuck bookDr. James Gordon, a renowned psychiatrist and integrative medicine pioneer, is teaching a four-part online series beginning November 18th on treating depression naturally. Dr. Gordon is the author of Unstuck, which is in my opinion the most complete resource on the holistic treatment of depression available.

A graduate of Harvard Medical School and the founder and director of The Center for Mind-Body Medicine in Washington, DC, Dr. Gordon has been helping people to recover from depression without drugs for almost 40 years. If what you’ve been learning on The Healthy Skeptic about depression and antidepressants rings true, you’ll love Dr. Gordon’s work.

The web-based series, called “A Natural Approach for Treating Depression,” will include video lessons focused on four of Dr. Gordon’s main themes to treating depression and is based on Dr. Gordon’s treatment program, which he developed and has been teaching around the world for almost 40 years.

Dr. Gordon’s program asserts that prescription antidepressants are often ineffective and create significant side effects. He teaches natural self-care techniques, such as relaxation exercises, physical exercise, proper nutrition and others, that have been proven to successfully treat depression and its symptoms. The program allows the patient to take an active, effective role in their own healing. The series and its related downloadable resources for participants are free.

If you or anyone you know is suffering from depression and could use some extra guidance, I would highly recommend this program. Dr. Gordon writes with clarity, compassion and decades of firsthand experience in treating patients with depression. Although I haven’t yet heard him speak or teach, I can say with confidence from reading his book that his online program will be an invaluable resource to those struggling with depression.

For more information and to sign up, follow this link.

bicyclistThe most widely prescribed drugs in the U.S. are not for pain management, cholesterol lowering, heartburn or hypertension.

They’re for depression.

Last year doctors wrote $232.7 million prescriptions for antidepressants. That’s an increase of 25 million prescriptions since 2003 and translates into an estimated 30 million patients in the United States who spent $12 billion on antidepressants in 2007.

With numbers like these, a person might make these assumptions:

  • Antidepressants are effective treatments for depression
  • There are few, if any, effective alternatives to antidepressants

As reasonable as these assumptions would be based on the popularity of antidepressants, they are both wrong.

In my preceding articles in this ongoing series on depression and antidepressants, I’ve presented clear evidence that antidepressants are not effective for treating depression.

In this article and the following two, I will present evidence that several non-drug treatments for depression are at least as effective as antidepressants, with few (if any) of their side effects, risks and costs.

As you may recall from the previous articles in this series, recent meta-analyses have shown that antidepressants have no clinically meaningful advantage over placebos. What I have not yet pointed out is that the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs has probably been overstated due to methodological factors in the studies.

In the studies performed on antidepressant drugs, the people taking the drugs also received supportive weekly visits with doctors or researchers along with the medication. The resulting “therapeutic alliance” may have enhanced the efficacy of these drugs and given an inaccurate picture of their effectiveness in a managed care environment where antidepressants are often delivered in conjunction with infrequent visits to a physician or mental health professional.

We know from placebo research that the contact which occurs between the patient and practitioner can be a powerful treatment in itself. Therefore, the supportive visits that patients received during the drug trials could have easily amplified the effect of the drug and made it seem far more effective than it would be in a “normal” clinical situation where visits to a physician or psychiatrist are not regular or frequent.

With this in mind, it is very likely that antidepressants are less effective than placebos in normal clinical practice. Indeed, researcher Joanne Moncrieff has repeatedly pointed out that the term “antidepressant” is a misnomer. The drugs collectively referred to as “antidepressants” do not specifically treat depression (any more than placebo), and therefore should not be called “antidepressants” at all.

What are the alternatives, then, to treating depression? Imagine having a choice between five treatments. Treatment A produces a therapeutic response but also a large number of adverse effects including diarrhea, nausea, anorexia, sweating, forgetfulness, bleeding, seizures, anxiety, mania, sleep disruption and sexual dysfunction. Treatments B, C, D & E produce therapeutic responses similar to Treatment A, but with far fewer adverse effects and costs. Treatments B & C, in fact, have no adverse effects at all and have been shown to be significantly more effective than Treatment A in the long-term.

This is not, of course, simply a hypothetical question. Treatment A corresponds to the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that have become so overwhelmingly popular. Treatment B is psychotherapy, which is as effective as antidepressants in the short term (even for serious depression), and is more effective in the long term. Treatment C is exercise, which has been reported to have lasting therapeutic benefits in the treatment of major depression with no “side effects” except for improved physiological and mental health. Treatment D is light therapy, which has been recently assessed in several clinical studies and is just as effective as antidepressant medication. Treatment E is St. John’s Wort, an herb that has been extensively studied and shown to be similar in efficacy to antidepressants with 10 times fewer adverse effects.

As depression researcher David Antonuccio points out, “whether one subscribes to the Hippocratic dictum ‘first do no harm’ or takes a cost-benefit approach to treatment, it is impossible to ignore the fact that antidepressants are not medically benign treatments. Antidepressants have serious side effects (listed above) as well as medical risks (including increased risk of dying) when combined with other medications – as is often the case in clinical settings. Antidepressants have been shown to cause potentially permanent changes to the brain that can predispose a patient to depression in the future, and the withdrawal symptoms of SSRIs are substantial for many, if not most, patients.

A frequent argument made by supporters of antidepressants is that patients with serious depression need antidepressants to stave off suicide. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that antidepressants reduce the risk of suicide or suicide attempts in comparison with placebo in clinical trials. On the contrary, in a recent analysis of the data that compensated for erroneous methodologies, Dr. Grace Jackson found that antidepressants increased the risk of suicide by two to four times in adults, and by three times in children (Jackson 2005, p.122)

It has also been demonstrated that recent sharp increases in antidepressant use have been accompanied by increased prevalence and duration of depressive episodes and rising levels of sickness absence (Patten 2004). Naturalistic studies have also shown that depressive episodes are more frequent and last longer among antidepressant users than among nonusers, and that sickness absence is more prolonged (Moncrieff 2006). Finally, long-term follow-up studies show very poor outcomes for people treated for depression with drugs, and the overall prevalence of depression is rising despite increased use of antidepressants (Fombonne 1994).

Please allow me to summarize the research and simplify the preceding paragraphs:

Antidepressants don’t work. If anything, they make things worse.

Now that we have firmly established the ineffectiveness and dangers of antidepressants, let’s look more closely at the alternatives. We will evaluate each treatment based on Antonuccio’s criteria above:

  • Does the treatment do any harm?
  • How do the “costs” compare with the “benefits”?

and we will also compare their efficacy with that of antidepressants.

Psychotherapy

Several studies show that psychotherapy (particularly cognitive therapy, behavioral activation, and interpersonal therapy) compares favorably with medication in the short-term, even when the depression is severe, and appears superior to medications over the long term (Antonuccio 2002). When medical cost offset, relapse and side effects are considered in a cost-benefit analysis, psychotherapy can be very cost-effective – particularly in a psychoeducational (e.g. therapist-assisted bibliotherapy) or group format (Antonuccio et al. 1997). Finally, studies show that most patients prefer psychotherapeutic intervention to drugs when given the choice. (Unfortunately, they are rarely given the choice; today, fewer than 10% of psychiatrists offer psychotherapy to their patients.)

It is important to note that several studies have shown that combined treatment (psychotherapy + medication, exercise + medication) produces inferior results when compared to the non-drug modality alone (Hollon et al. 1992). The failure of this combined approach is not surprising when one considers the counter-productive effects of invasive chemical interventions (e.g. suppression of REM sleep, elevation of cortisol, induction of mania).

Unfortunately, the mental health profession remains largely ignorant to this “tragedy of its own making”:

“Some investigators have argued that the relatively high relapse rate after drug treatment indicates that depression should be treated like a chronic medical disease requiring ongoing, long-term medical treatment indefinitely. This logic appears tautological: Drug treatment results in a higher relapse rate than cognitive-behavioral therapy; therefore, the patients should be maintained on drugs to prevent relapse.” (Antonuccio 1995)

Exercise

Several studies have shown that aerobic exercise is at least as effective as antidepressants in treating depression. For example, one recent study published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine in 2005 indicated that the “public health dose” (5x/week frequency burning 17.5 kcal/kg/week) of exercise led to remission rates of 42%. For the sake of comparison, the Collaborative Depression Study, conducted by the National Institute for Mental Health, indicated remission rates of 36% for cognitive behavioral therapy and 42% for antidepressant medication.

A frequent criticism of exercise as a treatment for depression is the supposed lack of compliance in patients. The argument is that people who are depressed are too depressed to exercise. While this may be true in some cases, adherence rates in exercise studies were comparable to many medication trials, where rates vary from 60%-80%. Thus, evidence does not support the notion that exercise is not a feasible treatment for depressed patients.

Another benefit of exercise as a treatment for depression is that the only “side effects” are improved physiological and mental health. In contrast to antidepressants, exercise has no adverse effects whatsoever. Instead, it has a moderate reducing effect on anxiety, can improve physical self-perceptions and in some cases global self-esteem, and can enhance mood states and – in older adults – improve cognitive function.

In a study published in Psychosomatic Medicine in 2000, another important advantage of exercise over antidepressants was revealed. Participants in the exercise group were less likely to relapse than participants in the two groups receiving medication. Other studies have confirmed this effect, demonstrating that aerobic exercise is especially helpful in the prevention of relapse and recurrence of depression.

Once again, as was the case with psychotherapy, there was no benefit when combining antidepressant drugs with exercise. In fact, the opposite was the case, at least with respect to relapse for patients who initially responded well to treatment. According to the authors of the study:

“This was an unexpected finding because it was assumed that combining exercise with medication would have, if anything, an additive effect.

The authors go on to speculate on why antidepressant drugs would decrease the exercise’s beneficial effects on depression:

“One of the positive psychological benefits of systematic exercise is the development of a sense of personal mastery and positive self-regard, which we believe is likely to play some role in the depression-reducing effects of exercise. It is conceivable that the concurrent use of medication may undermine this benefit by prioritizing an alternative, less self-confirming attribution for one’s improved condition. Instead of incorporating the belief “I was dedicated and worked hard with the exercise program; it wasn’t easy, but I beat this depression,” patients might incorporate the belief that “I took an antidepressant and got better”.

It is also possible that the metabolic and physiological effects of antidepressants described above (suppression of REM sleep, elevated cortisol levels, etc.) could counteract the positive benefits of exercise to a certain degree.

In part II of this article I will discuss light therapy, St. John’s Wort and acupuncture as treatments for depression. In Part III I will examine other lifestyle modifications that can both prevent and treat depression, such as proper nutrition, stress management, getting adequate sleep, the experience of pleasure and prayer or spiritual practice.

veggie basket In today’s article we’ll discuss how to prevent heart disease without drugs. If you haven’t already read Part 1 of this series, which examined the problems with statin drugs, and Part 2, which debunks the myth that cholesterol causes heart disease, you might want to do that before reading this article.

Last week I mentioned the INTERHEART study, which looked at the relationship between heart disease and lifestyle in 52 countries around the world. What this study revealed is that approximately 90% of heart disease could be prevented by simple changes to diet and lifestyle.

Let’s just make this crystal clear: 9 out of 10 cases of heart disease are completely preventable without drugs. With sales of statin drugs reaching close to $30 billion this year with Lipitor alone bringing in close to $14 billion, this might come as some surprise. But the pharmaceutical companies are, quite literally, invested in people taking their cholesterol-lowering drugs in spite of the complete lack of evidence that lowering cholesterol prevents heart disease.

In order to understand the changes we need to make to prevent heart disease, we have to briefly examine what causes it. By now you know that the answer is not “cholesterol”. In fact, as I mentioned briefly in last week’s article, the two primary contributing mechanisms to heart disease are inflammation and oxidative damage.

Inflammation is the body’s response to noxious substances. Those substances can be foreign, like bacteria, or found within our body, as in autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis. In the case of heart disease, inflammatory reactions within atherosclerotic plaques can induce clot formation.

When the lining of the artery is damaged, white blood cells flock to the site, resulting in inflammation. Inflammation not only further damages the artery walls, leaving them stiffer and more prone to plaque buildup, but it also makes any plaque that’s already there more fragile and more likely to burst.

Oxidative damage is a natural process of energy production and storage in the body. Oxidation produces free radicals, which are molecules missing an electron in their outer shell. Highly unstable and reactive, these molecules “attack” other molecules attempting to “steal” electrons from their outer shells in order to gain stability. Free radicals damage other cells and DNA, creating more free radicals in the process and a chain reaction of oxidative damage.

Normally oxidation is kept in check, but when oxidative stress is high or the body’s level of antioxidants is low, oxidative damage occurs. Oxidative damage is strongly correlated to heart disease. Studies have shown that oxidated LDL cholesterol is 8x greater stronger a risk factor for heart disease than normal LDL.

Since there may be some confusion on this point, I want to make it clear: normal LDL cholesterol is not a risk factor for heart disease in most populations, but oxidated LDL cholesterol is. This points to oxidation as the primary risk factor, not cholesterol. Why? Because when an LDL particle oxidizes, it is the polyunsaturated fat that oxidizes first. The saturated fat and the cholesterol, hidden deep within the core of the lipoprotein, are the least likely to oxidize.

It follows, then, that if we want to prevent heart disease we need to do everything we can to minimize inflammation and oxidative damage.

Top four causes of oxidative damage & inflammation

  1. Stress
  2. Smoking
  3. Poor nutrition
  4. Physical inactivity

By focusing on reducing or completely eliminating, when possible, the factors in our life that contribute to oxidative stress and inflammation, we can drastically lower our risk for heart disease. Let’s take a brief look at each risk factor.

Stress

In the INTERHEART study, stress tripled the risk of heart disease. This was true across all countries and cultured that were studies. The primary mechanism by which stress causes heart disease is by dysregulating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. The HPA axis is directly intertwined with the autonomic nervous system, and it governs the “fight-or-flight” response we experience in reaction to a stressor.

Continued activation of this “fight-or-flight” response leads to hyper-arousal of the sympathetic nervous system, which in turn leads to chronically elevated levels of cortisol. And elevated levels of cortisol can cause both inflammation and oxidative damage.

Stress management, then, should be a vital part of any heart disease prevention program. In fact, some researchers today believe that stress may be the single most significant factor in the cause and prevention of heart disease. There are several proven methods of stress reduction, including mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), acupuncture and biofeedback. It doesn’t matter which method you choose. It just matters that you do it, and do it regularly.

Smoking

I assume that you are already well aware of the dangers of smoking, so I won’t spend much time on this one. For the purposes of this discussion, I will point out that smoking as few as 1-4 cigarettes a day has been shown to increase the risk of heart disease by 40%. But smoking 40 cigarettes a day increases that risk by 900%.

So if you smoke and you’re concerned about heart disease – quit.

Nutrition

Over the past century we’ve seen a consistent decline in the consumption of traditional, nutrient-dense foods in favor of highly processed, nutrient-depleted products. The flawed hypothesis that cholesterol causes heart disease has wrongly identified health-promoting foods like meat, organ meats, eggs and dairy products as harmful, and replaced them with toxic, processed alternatives such as chips, white breads, pastries, crackers, cookies, frozen foods, candy and soda.

There are two ways that nutrition contributes to heart disease: too much of the wrong foods, and not enough of the right ones.

The average American gets 57% of his/her calories from highly refined cereal grains and polyunsaturated (PUFA) oils. The #3 source of calories, behind grains and PUFA, is sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Refined grains, polyunsaturated oils and sugar are all major contributors to both inflammation and oxidative damage.

Not only do refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and sugar contribute to inflammation and oxidative damage, they are also completely devoid of micronutrients that would protect us from these processes. Meats, fruits and vegetables are all high in antioxidants that prevent oxidative damage, and rich in other micronutrients that play important roles in preventing heart disease.

More than 85% of Americans are not getting the federally recommended five servings of fresh fruit and vegetables each day. The intake of dark leafy green or yellow/orange veggies for the average American is equivalent to 18g – one-half of one small carrot. Iceberg lettuce, tomatoes, french fries, orange juice and bananas constitute 30% of fruit and vegetable intake for most Americans.

Many people know that the “Standard American Diet” is extremely unhealthy. But what most do not know is that the so-called “heart-healthy” diet that has been vigorously promoted for decades actually contributes to heart disease! The “heart-healthy” diet is high in refined carbohydrates and polyunsaturated oils, which, as we have seen, cause inflammation and oxidative damage.

On the other hand, saturated fats (which have been demonized by the medical mainstream) such as butter, coconut oil, lard, tallow and ghee are protected against oxidation and possess many other important health benefits. These fats are the ones we need to be eating to protect ourselves from heart disease.

It is extremely important to buy organic meat, eggs and dairy products that come from animals that have been raised on fresh pasture rather than in commercial, factory feedlots. See this article and this one for more information on why this is so essential.

Finally, it must be pointed out that not all “organic” products are healthy. Most packaged food (including organic cereals, crackers, chips and so-called “nutrition bars”) are full of highly refined carbohydrates, sugar, and vegetable oils. And by now, I don’t need to tell you what that means!

So what would a truly heart healthy diet look like, then? Download my Guidelines for Natural Prevention of Heart Disease to find out.

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is likely a major causative factor in the explosive rise of coronary heart disease in the 20th century. During the vast majority of evolutionary history, humans have had to exert themselves to obtain food and water. Even at the turn of the 20th century in the U.S., a majority of people had jobs that required physical activity (farmers, laborers, etc.) Now the majority of the workforce has sedentary occupations with little to no physical activity at all.

Currently more than 60% of American adults are not regularly active, and 25% of the adult population is completely sedentary. People that are physically inactive have between 1.5x and 2.4x the risk of developing heart disease.

On the other hand, regular exercise reduces both inflammation and oxidative damage. Even relatively low levels of activity are protective – as long as they are consistent. A public review at Harvard University showed that 30-minutes of moderate physical activity on most days of the week decreases deaths from heart disease by 20-30%.

The best strategy for people struggling to find time to exercise is to make it part of their daily life (i.e. riding a bike or walking to work, choosing the stairs over the escalator or elevator, etc.)

When combined, the four strategies listed above will significantly reduce your chances of getting heart disease – without taking a single pill of any kind.

If you already have heart disease, or you are at high risk for heart disease (overweight, high blood pressure, diabetic, etc.), then you may need additional support. See my

Recommended articles

 

Bad Behavior has blocked 1411 access attempts in the last 7 days.