Yeah, seriously, the whole thing with generalizations in the face of suggested individual action is just so silly. We all know we need to hold billionaires/corporations accountable for their bullshit, energy subsides for fucking oil need to go away like yesterday, citizens United needs to be overturned by legislation, members of congress taking bribes from plastic and energy companies and making legislative decisions as a result need to straight up go to prison, etc. But wtf is the normal, everyday person actually gonna do about it? Call their representatives that may or may not listen because they're a partisan hack? Good one.
The cliché of getting involved locally is the correct course of action. It's not throwing molotovs in DC, it's getting to know your local farmers and getting food from them instead of shipped around the globe five times at some supermarket owned by a giant corporation. Get more trees planted in your neighborhood. Start some butterfly sanctuaries. Start a movement to ban egregiously wasteful lawns in your municipality. Get a coalition of people who pay attention and can mob city hall if/when the city council tries to pull some bullshit deals about yet another fucking data center. Establish better water conservation with your neighbors. This is what the actual, real, legitimate revolution looks like. It doesn't start with "AND I TOOK OUT MY GUN AT THE GUBMINT!", it starts with "My neighbors and I started our own little kinda country. ¯_(ツ)_/¯"
I mean, especially given the context, I think it's good to get this point out there. However, I do think it's important to point out that it's low risk for ADHD people, as opposed to no risk. For most of us, we really don't have much if anything to really worry about, but for anyone also struggling with some form of addiction or if they're in college, the risk is increased. To be clear about ADHD and addiction disorders, concurrent treatment is the recommendation including treatment with stimulant medication, but taking caution on a case-by-case basis. Even in those cases, a good amount of psychiatrists find the risk worth it considering the benefits.
To the primary reason I'm still giving a bit of pushback; the increased risk in college. This builds on the point you've made here in why the low risk warrants more attention in this context. There's a myth that won't fucking die going around that stimulant medication, especially Adderall, will also help Neurotypical people with their academic performance. This is NOT the case and the studies show that it may even hurt academic performance for non-medical use of stimulant medication with NTs. This is on top of a high risk for addiction. And, studies show, stimulant medication is extremely commonly used as a party drug as well. All this to say that where NTs overwhelmingly get these stimulants is diversion of someone with a diagnosis/prescription, versus trying to fake it into a diagnosis or going through an illicit dealer. I personally speculate that the relationship of the people getting the stimulants from ADHD people is what draws in a number of ADHD people to party and abuse their medication as well, greatly increasing the addiction risk. The culture around stimulant medication at college campuses should be something addressed with anyone physically going to college that has ADHD, especially if they have a stimulant prescription. The money isn't worth it, the stimulants will actually actively harm people without ADHD(all those physiological effects without any of the benefits), if they're claiming it's to help with their "undiagnosed ADHD", tell them to get a diagnosis, and just don't even associate with the "party people" that ask for your MEDICALLY NECESSARY medication that is needed for you to be able to function just so they can take it recreationally.
Yes, it's unfair, unjust, infuriating, etc that this is a problem primarily manufactured by those without ADHD, I'm with you. My main point in bringing this up, though, is to recognize the increased risk to yourself in context. The risk to people with ADHD to become addicted to their prescription stimulant is low in a vacuum. Statistically, the social and academic pressure is real enough at college for the addiction risk to skyrocket due to dramatically higher rates of stimulant medication abuse for people with ADHD in college. It may not be fair, but we must engage with the reality in front of us. If you're physically going to college, lock your shit up, don't tell anyone you're prescribed stimulants, and be honest enough with yourself that if you're unsure if you'd be able to trust yourself to not abuse the medication to find a way to leave it with the campus doctor to take there, or the disability office, or psychology department, or whatever other campus service you can find. Just do what you've gotta do, this too shall pass. Sorry for the wall of text, but the problem is bad enough at colleges in America that it's important to address.
TL;DR: It's generally true that ADHD people are low risk for becoming addicted to their prescription stimulant. The risk for abuse and addiction is dramatically higher while physically in college mostly from social pressure. Understand this and protect yourself while there.
That's the thing, I even checked their post history to see if they're just some kinda troll or whatever, and it really doesn't appear to be the case. They can be reasonable and normal, sometimes even funny. I don't understand why this particular subject seems to set them off and get irrational.
But yeah, looking at their comments just on this post, they seem like a troll. Like, I'm really trying to not be that guy, but it really does seem like their reading comprehension here is wildly inadequate. And I can also tell that Dunning-Krueger is running wild since they're very confident for pretty obviously having a sophomoric understanding of the subject. I just don't understand how people can have such strong opinions on something with such a poor understanding of the subject.
I really don't understand; I write words, I link studies, and I carefully word my arguments, then when you reply it's like you're replying to someone else completely. I mean, great job fighting that scarecrow and all, but I'm over here. No one is making the arguments you're attacking. Like, do you legitimately believe that it's my personal belief that people with ADHD have perfect resistance to addiction to stimulant medication? It really seems like you think I believe that and I have no idea how you could read what I've written above, where I'm even directly contradicting that position at times, and think I believe that. Like, what the fuck is your deal? Legitimately, I'm bewildered as to how we got here.
Also, why are you being such an abrasive asshole? You've been a dick to just about everyone in this thread. Like, seriously, what's going on? I post links to studies on the topic and your reply starts with accusational condescension? Who does that?
Oh my god, you didn't actually read my comment, did you? You obviously don't understand the difference between dependence and addiction, which is fine, you don't have to be an "expert" in everything, but if you don't know enough to have an informed opinion, shut the fuck up. It's okay to say "I don't know".
It's fucking NOT okay to characterize prescribed medication as a "managed addiction". That's some pseudoscientific nonsense. Especially considering stimulant medication prescribed for people with ADHD has META-STUDIES demonstrating a decreased overall risk of developing a substance abuse disorder. Especially considering the mountain of evidence showing the low risk of addiction to stimulant medication for people with ADHD who are prescribed said medication. There's enough ignorant stigma from grifter celebrities, news media, the fucking government, and even psychiatrists themselves when it comes to stimulant medication for people with ADHD. Definitely don't need you to throw your uninformed opinion into the void.
ADHD leaves you with a deficit of dopamine in some form or fashion, usually associated with structural inadequacy in parts of the brain. The dopaminergic affect is usually going to be one of the bigger factors in addictive behavior, and the dopaminergic affect works differently in people with ADHD versus a Neurotypical. For the NT, they will usually have a euphoric experience as a result of the dopaminergic release, whereas someone with ADHD is much less likely to experience this euphoric affect. Hence, the lower risk of addiction.
Sure, the risk isn't zero. And boy are them college kids abusing the shit out of stimulant medication right now regardless of ADHD diagnosis. But the consensus is that prescribed stimulant medication is low risk versus the consensus of high addiction risk for the general population.
Well, the studies out there disagree. While it varies from person to person, it is indeed true that people with ADHD are much less likely to experience euphoric affect when taking stimulant medication than Neurotypical people. If you take something like Adderall or Desoxyn, then the potential for euphoric affect is higher due to the faster dopaminergic release. So some people with ADHD can and do sometimes have that euphoric affect, but it's definitely less common than for Neurotypicals.
While it's true that stimulant medication still has addiction risk for people with ADHD, the addiction risk is dramatically lower than the NT population(for ADHD stimulant medication specifically, NOT addictive substances in general). Recommendations for people with SUD/ADHD suggest concurrent treatment of both, including stimulant medication due to the big reduction of relapse risk when medicated versus unmedicated. Obviously there's caution on a case-by-case basis when using stimulant medication with concurrent treatment of SUD, but the sheer effectiveness of stimulant medication on the reduction of ADHD symptoms can be worth the risk.
What? There are plenty of studies showing the dramatic reduction of addictive behavior in people with ADHD when taking medication. In fact, a recent meta-study came to the conclusion that for those suffering an addiction disorder and ADHD have better outcomes of recovery when treating both the addiction and ADHD concurrently, including stimulant medication. They even specifically pointed out the reduction of addictive behavior when people with ADHD are medicated.
I mean, obviously the recommendations included caution with stimulant medication on a case-by-case basis. Stimulants probably shouldn't be your first or even second line of treatment if someone's addiction history includes meth or really any other drugs. Lower risk still necessitates the existence of risk for an addictive substance.
Either way, the literature still definitely flies in the face of much of the stigma out there about ADHD stimulants and the perceived "danger" being at a higher level for people with ADHD than someone who doesn't. They're even finding that if you were diagnosed and medicated as a kid, you're at much lower risk of substance abuse when you get older versus someone who goes undiagnosed/unmedicated.
You are absolutely talking out of your ass. Look at the quoted text you have there. See how I'm typing out the words "lower risk" and "very low risk"? This does not "insinuate" an "immunity"(still assuming it's the popular usage) to stimulant adiction and, in fact, would have a built-in premise that there is some risk. Otherwise it would say "no risk". I really don't understand why you're strawmanning my position by directly contradicting specifically quoted from me. That's pretty fucking weird.
On top of that, let's talk the rhetoric then. Could you clarify on what you mean by attacks? I'm not convinced that I've been attacking you(as opposed to your arguments). Also, pedantry? Really? I chose my words carefully and you still immediately misinterpreted me. I'm trying to communicate clearly, why is your interpretation/reaction to that an implied accusation of arrogance? And like, you're ending your comment with an implication that I would plausibly disagree with caution and medical supervision for someone on medication? What the hell? Seriously, what's happening here?
No one made that argument. The original question was asking if it's a reliable confirmation of a correct diagnosis of ADHD if stimulant medication doesn't seem to be addictive for the individual. The further implication was research done to demonstrate the low addiction risk of people with ADHD with stimulant medication. There was no attempt at specified language that would necessitate an implication that they believed people with ADHD are "immune"(in the popular use) to stimulant addiction. Maybe their use of language was inexact, but communication is a two-way street and it's important to not assume necessity where it isn't explicitly specified. A response of "No." to the intent of the original question is irresponsibly incorrect.
Even if their intent was indeed to specifically say people with ADHD are immune to stimulant addiction, while the correct first part of a response would be to say that definitely isn't the case, it still implies some interaction with the studies showing the direct benefits of stimulant medication for people with ADHD struggling with addiction. Leaving the response at a negative would be factually correct, but still irresponsible to leave out the referred studies because the implication would be that it's just some random made-up bullshit, increasing stigma, seeding skepticism of the actual studies, and just generally being unhelpful. It's a topical discussion, so the appropriate thing is to actually address the topic at hand.
Also, starting off your comment with "chill the fuck out" and ending it with "feel free to block me." is hilarious. I'm sorry, I'm not sure how to phrase that without it seeming like I'm mocking you, I just genuinely find it funny.
Anecdotes are insufficient to support something like this, sure. However, their experience does indeed match what the studies show. People with ADHD statistically have a lower risk of addiction when treated with stimulant medication. People with ADHD have very low risk of addiction to stimulant medication. This is what the studies show.
To understand drug response as varied levels of resistance is indeed the generally accepted characterization, however, I must once again contend with the addition of "regardless of amount and duration". Drug response is actually highly dependent on both "amount and duration". Adherence is a big problem for prescribing doctors, especially concerning things like antibiotics. There are plenty of people who discontinue an antibiotic schedule whenever they "feel better", greatly increasing the risk of drug-resistant disease. The patient could then have no response upon a repeat infection, now being "fully immune" to the drug. It's possible to take low enough doses of a drug/medication that the body metabolizes it before there could be any effect. It's possible that someone's genetic makeup means a common medication can have no effect. Especially with things like addiction, "amount and duration" can easily be the deciding factor. To disregard dosage and duration of usage for someone with increased risk for addiction is wildly irresponsible. To emphasize that increased addiction risk can make it to where the risk of abuse is elevated even for lower "normal" doses regardless of effect highlights a strong justification for abstinence altogether.
In any case, you're very irresponsibly talking out of your ass.
Bro, you are straight-up talking out of your ass, and ,arguably, dangerously so. There are plenty of studies that show people with ADHD and substance use disorder are less prone to relapse when their ADHD is treated, the most effective treatment being stimulant medication. In fact, there are even studies showing that people with ADHD who were treated with stimulant medication as a kid are at significantly lower risk to develop substance use disorder later in life. While stimulant medication is definitely highly addictive for people without ADHD, studies consistently show that addiction risk is lowered when people with ADHD take stimulant medication. So while 'technically' true that it's possible for people with ADHD to be addicted to stimulants, it's flatly irresponsible to dismiss the mountain of research showing to benefits of stimulant medication in reducing addiction risk in people with ADHD.
I'm also going to make it a point to contend with your use of "physically addicted" in this context. There's a huge difference between dependence and addiction and it's very frequently obfuscated by the phrase "physically addicted" in the context of medication. Physiological dependence on stimulant medication for people with ADHD is common over longer periods of time, often requiring increased doses to maintain levels of effectiveness. It's basically a cliche at this point for many neurotypical people to characterize this normal physiological response as "physical addiction", regardless of frequently missed doses(who tf forgets to feed their addiction???), absence of euphoric effect at any point, association of the drug with symptomatic relief by the user, and a fucking prescription for an official diagnosis. Considering, once again, the mountain of evidence showing lowered risk of addiction in people with ADHD taking medication, the implied conflation of dependence and addiction with the phrase "physically addicted" is wildly irresponsible and ignorant.
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut the fuck up. You could be fucking with people's lives considering the stigma and misinformation already out there. For a good amount of people, stimulant medication is what will be the thing that helps them finally beat addiction.
Hoooo boy, yeah, from my experience, 800 calories is definitely too drastic. And the amount of protein you're taking in is plenty good. IIRC, the minimum recommended is like .61 g/lb, so .7 is great. But yeah, I get it, I'm right there with you on getting things to where you want them to be like yesterday. When I'm trying to get back into the gym, I'm fighting myself the whole way to not get impatient, reminding myself before, during, and after, and still I find myself every time getting pissed immediately. I know I expect too much of myself at a pace that just isn't physically possible, so, hard relate to constantly having to readjust by telling yourself to chill. It feels like I'm dragging myself, kicking and screaming, back to reality over and over. I know you already see it a year in, but don't forget to remind yourself that the hard, sustainable work is worth it all along the way, not just in the end.
But yeah, I'd keep the calorie deficit at a maximum of 500 when cutting if you want to maintain muscle mass/strength. Biology is fucky, though, so you may want to keep an eye on things anyway as the rules for even your own body can just change. Anyway, I think you're doing great already, so keep up the good work. Always happy to help in whatever capacity I can.
It's my understanding from reading a major (meta?)study recently that maintaining muscle should be as simple as working the muscles enough to activate a mechano-sensor protein like once a week should be enough. Basically weight lifting and maintaining that "pump" for the rest period between sets. I know that if you're not making gains, it's likely you're not getting enough protein. At least, protein is usually the first thing to double-check is more what I'm getting at. Followed by making sure you're working those muscle groups often enough, you're increasing weight/frequency enough, adequate sleep, adequate amount of calories, etc.
Im not a doctor, but I have a good few years experience in the gym, and my suspicion is that it may be diet related. You'd be surprised how often you need to adjust your macros and caloric intake, especially when doing the bulking/cutting method. If you're already at like 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight(while cutting? Doubt it), then I would see about adjusting the amount of calories. I know, super difficult to fit those macros, but you gotta adjust the diet to get the results you want at the speed you want. In any case, it sounds to me like you're not quite producing enough energy (as has already been suggested). Your body may not like the amount of calories cut per day and/or the amount of protein isn't adequate to maintain.
And one other thing is to keep in mind that you've been at it for a year, so it's common for people to keep plateau-ing in various metrics at your point. Even the usual adjustments can be much less effective at this point. The body is great at adaptation, and sometimes that can be counterproductive to the goals we're trying to attain.
In any case, it can be any number of things. I've had buddies in the gym plateau then suddenly start getting gains again by adding a little cardio, or fixing their sleeping schedule, or noticing they haven't been hydrating like they know they should. Hell, I've even heard of stretching as a "workout" on rest days working for some. If you get a good bit of the "obvious" stuff squared away (sleep, water, etc), along with double-checking your macros/calories and you're still losing strength, I would go see a doctor and/or nutritionist.
I should probably also mention that cutting and maintaining muscle is very difficult when doing the cutting/bulking method. It usually comes down to protein intake being inadequate because of the difficulty of keeping within caloric restraints. So most people kinda just accept that strength loss will happen when cutting, which is perfectly valid. Just depends on your goals and priorities.
Sorry, tl;dr: 1. Ensure adequate protein intake to maintain
2.Make sure the calorie reduction while cutting isn't too dramatic
3. Ensure adequate sleep/hydration for recovery
4.If you're sure you're hitting the above points adequately and still losing strength, probably talk to a doctor... which I am not.
Butbut, they can't do that, the banner said "mission accomplished"! The US did a war win, trump said so! Besides, it's not like trump left an of the US goals with the recent attacks unaccomplished... there were actual strategic military goals, right?
Yeah, seriously, the whole thing with generalizations in the face of suggested individual action is just so silly. We all know we need to hold billionaires/corporations accountable for their bullshit, energy subsides for fucking oil need to go away like yesterday, citizens United needs to be overturned by legislation, members of congress taking bribes from plastic and energy companies and making legislative decisions as a result need to straight up go to prison, etc. But wtf is the normal, everyday person actually gonna do about it? Call their representatives that may or may not listen because they're a partisan hack? Good one.
The cliché of getting involved locally is the correct course of action. It's not throwing molotovs in DC, it's getting to know your local farmers and getting food from them instead of shipped around the globe five times at some supermarket owned by a giant corporation. Get more trees planted in your neighborhood. Start some butterfly sanctuaries. Start a movement to ban egregiously wasteful lawns in your municipality. Get a coalition of people who pay attention and can mob city hall if/when the city council tries to pull some bullshit deals about yet another fucking data center. Establish better water conservation with your neighbors. This is what the actual, real, legitimate revolution looks like. It doesn't start with "AND I TOOK OUT MY GUN AT THE GUBMINT!", it starts with "My neighbors and I started our own little kinda country. ¯_(ツ)_/¯"
Punk means thinking for yourself.
Thinking for yourself, you recognize "hUmAn BaD" is a narrative sold to divide us and keep us consuming and complacent.
We're told our very nature is selfish greed and it's actually a good thing.
Fuck that shit. Go make some friends for free.
I mean, especially given the context, I think it's good to get this point out there. However, I do think it's important to point out that it's low risk for ADHD people, as opposed to no risk. For most of us, we really don't have much if anything to really worry about, but for anyone also struggling with some form of addiction or if they're in college, the risk is increased. To be clear about ADHD and addiction disorders, concurrent treatment is the recommendation including treatment with stimulant medication, but taking caution on a case-by-case basis. Even in those cases, a good amount of psychiatrists find the risk worth it considering the benefits.
To the primary reason I'm still giving a bit of pushback; the increased risk in college. This builds on the point you've made here in why the low risk warrants more attention in this context. There's a myth that won't fucking die going around that stimulant medication, especially Adderall, will also help Neurotypical people with their academic performance. This is NOT the case and the studies show that it may even hurt academic performance for non-medical use of stimulant medication with NTs. This is on top of a high risk for addiction. And, studies show, stimulant medication is extremely commonly used as a party drug as well. All this to say that where NTs overwhelmingly get these stimulants is diversion of someone with a diagnosis/prescription, versus trying to fake it into a diagnosis or going through an illicit dealer. I personally speculate that the relationship of the people getting the stimulants from ADHD people is what draws in a number of ADHD people to party and abuse their medication as well, greatly increasing the addiction risk. The culture around stimulant medication at college campuses should be something addressed with anyone physically going to college that has ADHD, especially if they have a stimulant prescription. The money isn't worth it, the stimulants will actually actively harm people without ADHD(all those physiological effects without any of the benefits), if they're claiming it's to help with their "undiagnosed ADHD", tell them to get a diagnosis, and just don't even associate with the "party people" that ask for your MEDICALLY NECESSARY medication that is needed for you to be able to function just so they can take it recreationally.
Yes, it's unfair, unjust, infuriating, etc that this is a problem primarily manufactured by those without ADHD, I'm with you. My main point in bringing this up, though, is to recognize the increased risk to yourself in context. The risk to people with ADHD to become addicted to their prescription stimulant is low in a vacuum. Statistically, the social and academic pressure is real enough at college for the addiction risk to skyrocket due to dramatically higher rates of stimulant medication abuse for people with ADHD in college. It may not be fair, but we must engage with the reality in front of us. If you're physically going to college, lock your shit up, don't tell anyone you're prescribed stimulants, and be honest enough with yourself that if you're unsure if you'd be able to trust yourself to not abuse the medication to find a way to leave it with the campus doctor to take there, or the disability office, or psychology department, or whatever other campus service you can find. Just do what you've gotta do, this too shall pass. Sorry for the wall of text, but the problem is bad enough at colleges in America that it's important to address.
TL;DR: It's generally true that ADHD people are low risk for becoming addicted to their prescription stimulant. The risk for abuse and addiction is dramatically higher while physically in college mostly from social pressure. Understand this and protect yourself while there.
If you're unsure, then just forget it. Problem solved... man I'm real tired and pretty snackish for some reason.
That's the thing, I even checked their post history to see if they're just some kinda troll or whatever, and it really doesn't appear to be the case. They can be reasonable and normal, sometimes even funny. I don't understand why this particular subject seems to set them off and get irrational.
But yeah, looking at their comments just on this post, they seem like a troll. Like, I'm really trying to not be that guy, but it really does seem like their reading comprehension here is wildly inadequate. And I can also tell that Dunning-Krueger is running wild since they're very confident for pretty obviously having a sophomoric understanding of the subject. I just don't understand how people can have such strong opinions on something with such a poor understanding of the subject.
I really don't understand; I write words, I link studies, and I carefully word my arguments, then when you reply it's like you're replying to someone else completely. I mean, great job fighting that scarecrow and all, but I'm over here. No one is making the arguments you're attacking. Like, do you legitimately believe that it's my personal belief that people with ADHD have perfect resistance to addiction to stimulant medication? It really seems like you think I believe that and I have no idea how you could read what I've written above, where I'm even directly contradicting that position at times, and think I believe that. Like, what the fuck is your deal? Legitimately, I'm bewildered as to how we got here.
Also, why are you being such an abrasive asshole? You've been a dick to just about everyone in this thread. Like, seriously, what's going on? I post links to studies on the topic and your reply starts with accusational condescension? Who does that?
Oh my god, you didn't actually read my comment, did you? You obviously don't understand the difference between dependence and addiction, which is fine, you don't have to be an "expert" in everything, but if you don't know enough to have an informed opinion, shut the fuck up. It's okay to say "I don't know".
It's fucking NOT okay to characterize prescribed medication as a "managed addiction". That's some pseudoscientific nonsense. Especially considering stimulant medication prescribed for people with ADHD has META-STUDIES demonstrating a decreased overall risk of developing a substance abuse disorder. Especially considering the mountain of evidence showing the low risk of addiction to stimulant medication for people with ADHD who are prescribed said medication. There's enough ignorant stigma from grifter celebrities, news media, the fucking government, and even psychiatrists themselves when it comes to stimulant medication for people with ADHD. Definitely don't need you to throw your uninformed opinion into the void.
I don't know what to tell you, what I'm saying is coming from actual relevant research on this very topic.
Stimulant medication does indeed reduce substance abuse risk: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9097465/
Stimulant medication use from childhood shows reduction in substance abuse risk: https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.12164
ADHD leaves you with a deficit of dopamine in some form or fashion, usually associated with structural inadequacy in parts of the brain. The dopaminergic affect is usually going to be one of the bigger factors in addictive behavior, and the dopaminergic affect works differently in people with ADHD versus a Neurotypical. For the NT, they will usually have a euphoric experience as a result of the dopaminergic release, whereas someone with ADHD is much less likely to experience this euphoric affect. Hence, the lower risk of addiction.
Sure, the risk isn't zero. And boy are them college kids abusing the shit out of stimulant medication right now regardless of ADHD diagnosis. But the consensus is that prescribed stimulant medication is low risk versus the consensus of high addiction risk for the general population.
Well, the studies out there disagree. While it varies from person to person, it is indeed true that people with ADHD are much less likely to experience euphoric affect when taking stimulant medication than Neurotypical people. If you take something like Adderall or Desoxyn, then the potential for euphoric affect is higher due to the faster dopaminergic release. So some people with ADHD can and do sometimes have that euphoric affect, but it's definitely less common than for Neurotypicals.
While it's true that stimulant medication still has addiction risk for people with ADHD, the addiction risk is dramatically lower than the NT population(for ADHD stimulant medication specifically, NOT addictive substances in general). Recommendations for people with SUD/ADHD suggest concurrent treatment of both, including stimulant medication due to the big reduction of relapse risk when medicated versus unmedicated. Obviously there's caution on a case-by-case basis when using stimulant medication with concurrent treatment of SUD, but the sheer effectiveness of stimulant medication on the reduction of ADHD symptoms can be worth the risk.
What? There are plenty of studies showing the dramatic reduction of addictive behavior in people with ADHD when taking medication. In fact, a recent meta-study came to the conclusion that for those suffering an addiction disorder and ADHD have better outcomes of recovery when treating both the addiction and ADHD concurrently, including stimulant medication. They even specifically pointed out the reduction of addictive behavior when people with ADHD are medicated.
I mean, obviously the recommendations included caution with stimulant medication on a case-by-case basis. Stimulants probably shouldn't be your first or even second line of treatment if someone's addiction history includes meth or really any other drugs. Lower risk still necessitates the existence of risk for an addictive substance.
Either way, the literature still definitely flies in the face of much of the stigma out there about ADHD stimulants and the perceived "danger" being at a higher level for people with ADHD than someone who doesn't. They're even finding that if you were diagnosed and medicated as a kid, you're at much lower risk of substance abuse when you get older versus someone who goes undiagnosed/unmedicated.
You are absolutely talking out of your ass. Look at the quoted text you have there. See how I'm typing out the words "lower risk" and "very low risk"? This does not "insinuate" an "immunity"(still assuming it's the popular usage) to stimulant adiction and, in fact, would have a built-in premise that there is some risk. Otherwise it would say "no risk". I really don't understand why you're strawmanning my position by directly contradicting specifically quoted from me. That's pretty fucking weird.
On top of that, let's talk the rhetoric then. Could you clarify on what you mean by attacks? I'm not convinced that I've been attacking you(as opposed to your arguments). Also, pedantry? Really? I chose my words carefully and you still immediately misinterpreted me. I'm trying to communicate clearly, why is your interpretation/reaction to that an implied accusation of arrogance? And like, you're ending your comment with an implication that I would plausibly disagree with caution and medical supervision for someone on medication? What the hell? Seriously, what's happening here?
No one made that argument. The original question was asking if it's a reliable confirmation of a correct diagnosis of ADHD if stimulant medication doesn't seem to be addictive for the individual. The further implication was research done to demonstrate the low addiction risk of people with ADHD with stimulant medication. There was no attempt at specified language that would necessitate an implication that they believed people with ADHD are "immune"(in the popular use) to stimulant addiction. Maybe their use of language was inexact, but communication is a two-way street and it's important to not assume necessity where it isn't explicitly specified. A response of "No." to the intent of the original question is irresponsibly incorrect.
Even if their intent was indeed to specifically say people with ADHD are immune to stimulant addiction, while the correct first part of a response would be to say that definitely isn't the case, it still implies some interaction with the studies showing the direct benefits of stimulant medication for people with ADHD struggling with addiction. Leaving the response at a negative would be factually correct, but still irresponsible to leave out the referred studies because the implication would be that it's just some random made-up bullshit, increasing stigma, seeding skepticism of the actual studies, and just generally being unhelpful. It's a topical discussion, so the appropriate thing is to actually address the topic at hand.
Also, starting off your comment with "chill the fuck out" and ending it with "feel free to block me." is hilarious. I'm sorry, I'm not sure how to phrase that without it seeming like I'm mocking you, I just genuinely find it funny.
Anecdotes are insufficient to support something like this, sure. However, their experience does indeed match what the studies show. People with ADHD statistically have a lower risk of addiction when treated with stimulant medication. People with ADHD have very low risk of addiction to stimulant medication. This is what the studies show.
To understand drug response as varied levels of resistance is indeed the generally accepted characterization, however, I must once again contend with the addition of "regardless of amount and duration". Drug response is actually highly dependent on both "amount and duration". Adherence is a big problem for prescribing doctors, especially concerning things like antibiotics. There are plenty of people who discontinue an antibiotic schedule whenever they "feel better", greatly increasing the risk of drug-resistant disease. The patient could then have no response upon a repeat infection, now being "fully immune" to the drug. It's possible to take low enough doses of a drug/medication that the body metabolizes it before there could be any effect. It's possible that someone's genetic makeup means a common medication can have no effect. Especially with things like addiction, "amount and duration" can easily be the deciding factor. To disregard dosage and duration of usage for someone with increased risk for addiction is wildly irresponsible. To emphasize that increased addiction risk can make it to where the risk of abuse is elevated even for lower "normal" doses regardless of effect highlights a strong justification for abstinence altogether.
In any case, you're very irresponsibly talking out of your ass.
Bro, you are straight-up talking out of your ass, and ,arguably, dangerously so. There are plenty of studies that show people with ADHD and substance use disorder are less prone to relapse when their ADHD is treated, the most effective treatment being stimulant medication. In fact, there are even studies showing that people with ADHD who were treated with stimulant medication as a kid are at significantly lower risk to develop substance use disorder later in life. While stimulant medication is definitely highly addictive for people without ADHD, studies consistently show that addiction risk is lowered when people with ADHD take stimulant medication. So while 'technically' true that it's possible for people with ADHD to be addicted to stimulants, it's flatly irresponsible to dismiss the mountain of research showing to benefits of stimulant medication in reducing addiction risk in people with ADHD.
I'm also going to make it a point to contend with your use of "physically addicted" in this context. There's a huge difference between dependence and addiction and it's very frequently obfuscated by the phrase "physically addicted" in the context of medication. Physiological dependence on stimulant medication for people with ADHD is common over longer periods of time, often requiring increased doses to maintain levels of effectiveness. It's basically a cliche at this point for many neurotypical people to characterize this normal physiological response as "physical addiction", regardless of frequently missed doses(who tf forgets to feed their addiction???), absence of euphoric effect at any point, association of the drug with symptomatic relief by the user, and a fucking prescription for an official diagnosis. Considering, once again, the mountain of evidence showing lowered risk of addiction in people with ADHD taking medication, the implied conflation of dependence and addiction with the phrase "physically addicted" is wildly irresponsible and ignorant.
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut the fuck up. You could be fucking with people's lives considering the stigma and misinformation already out there. For a good amount of people, stimulant medication is what will be the thing that helps them finally beat addiction.
Hoooo boy, yeah, from my experience, 800 calories is definitely too drastic. And the amount of protein you're taking in is plenty good. IIRC, the minimum recommended is like .61 g/lb, so .7 is great. But yeah, I get it, I'm right there with you on getting things to where you want them to be like yesterday. When I'm trying to get back into the gym, I'm fighting myself the whole way to not get impatient, reminding myself before, during, and after, and still I find myself every time getting pissed immediately. I know I expect too much of myself at a pace that just isn't physically possible, so, hard relate to constantly having to readjust by telling yourself to chill. It feels like I'm dragging myself, kicking and screaming, back to reality over and over. I know you already see it a year in, but don't forget to remind yourself that the hard, sustainable work is worth it all along the way, not just in the end.
But yeah, I'd keep the calorie deficit at a maximum of 500 when cutting if you want to maintain muscle mass/strength. Biology is fucky, though, so you may want to keep an eye on things anyway as the rules for even your own body can just change. Anyway, I think you're doing great already, so keep up the good work. Always happy to help in whatever capacity I can.
It's my understanding from reading a major (meta?)study recently that maintaining muscle should be as simple as working the muscles enough to activate a mechano-sensor protein like once a week should be enough. Basically weight lifting and maintaining that "pump" for the rest period between sets. I know that if you're not making gains, it's likely you're not getting enough protein. At least, protein is usually the first thing to double-check is more what I'm getting at. Followed by making sure you're working those muscle groups often enough, you're increasing weight/frequency enough, adequate sleep, adequate amount of calories, etc.
Im not a doctor, but I have a good few years experience in the gym, and my suspicion is that it may be diet related. You'd be surprised how often you need to adjust your macros and caloric intake, especially when doing the bulking/cutting method. If you're already at like 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight(while cutting? Doubt it), then I would see about adjusting the amount of calories. I know, super difficult to fit those macros, but you gotta adjust the diet to get the results you want at the speed you want. In any case, it sounds to me like you're not quite producing enough energy (as has already been suggested). Your body may not like the amount of calories cut per day and/or the amount of protein isn't adequate to maintain.
And one other thing is to keep in mind that you've been at it for a year, so it's common for people to keep plateau-ing in various metrics at your point. Even the usual adjustments can be much less effective at this point. The body is great at adaptation, and sometimes that can be counterproductive to the goals we're trying to attain.
In any case, it can be any number of things. I've had buddies in the gym plateau then suddenly start getting gains again by adding a little cardio, or fixing their sleeping schedule, or noticing they haven't been hydrating like they know they should. Hell, I've even heard of stretching as a "workout" on rest days working for some. If you get a good bit of the "obvious" stuff squared away (sleep, water, etc), along with double-checking your macros/calories and you're still losing strength, I would go see a doctor and/or nutritionist.
I should probably also mention that cutting and maintaining muscle is very difficult when doing the cutting/bulking method. It usually comes down to protein intake being inadequate because of the difficulty of keeping within caloric restraints. So most people kinda just accept that strength loss will happen when cutting, which is perfectly valid. Just depends on your goals and priorities.
Sorry, tl;dr: 1. Ensure adequate protein intake to maintain 2.Make sure the calorie reduction while cutting isn't too dramatic 3. Ensure adequate sleep/hydration for recovery 4.If you're sure you're hitting the above points adequately and still losing strength, probably talk to a doctor... which I am not.
Ah yes, fake leftist for... treating prisoners as humans. Gotcha.
God, tankies are insufferable.
Butbut, they can't do that, the banner said "mission accomplished"! The US did a war win, trump said so! Besides, it's not like trump left an of the US goals with the recent attacks unaccomplished... there were actual strategic military goals, right?
Reason: I don't remember and at this point I'm afraid to ask.
Provider | API keys
My Mom | my Dad(deprecated)