Science Depression is probably not caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain – new study


For three decades, people have been deluged with information suggesting that depression is caused by a “chemical imbalance” in the brain – namely an imbalance of a brain chemical called serotonin. However, our latest research review shows that the evidence does not support it.

Although first proposed in the 1960s, the serotonin theory of depression started to be widely promoted by the pharmaceutical industry in the 1990s in association with its efforts to market a new range of antidepressants, known as selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs. The idea was also endorsed by official institutions such as the American Psychiatric Association, which still tells the public that “differences in certain chemicals in the brain may contribute to symptoms of depression”.

Countless doctors have repeated the message all over the world, in their private surgeries and in the media. People accepted what they were told. And many started taking antidepressants because they believed they had something wrong with their brain that required an antidepressant to put right. In the period of this marketing push, antidepressant use climbed dramatically, and they are now prescribed to one in six of the adult population in England, for example.

For a long time, certain academics, including some leading psychiatrists, have suggested that there is no satisfactory evidence to support the idea that depression is a result of abnormally low or inactive serotonin. Others continue to endorse the theory. Until now, however, there has been no comprehensive review of the research on serotonin and depression that could enable firm conclusions either way.

At first sight, the fact that SSRI-type antidepressants act on the serotonin system appears to support the serotonin theory of depression. SSRIs temporarily increase the availability of serotonin in the brain, but this does not necessarily imply that depression is caused by the opposite of this effect.

There are other explanations for antidepressants’ effects. In fact, drug trials show that antidepressants are barely distinguishable from a placebo (dummy pill) when it comes to treating depression. Also, antidepressants appear to have a generalised emotion-numbing effect which may influence people’s moods, although we do not know how this effect is produced or much about it.

Doctor writing a prescription
Around one in six people in England are prescribed antidepressants. fizkes/Shutterstock
First comprehensive review
There has been extensive research on the serotonin system since the 1990s, but it has not been collected systematically before. We conducted an “umbrella” review that involved systematically identifying and collating existing overviews of the evidence from each of the main areas of research into serotonin and depression. Although there have been systematic reviews of individual areas in the past, none have combined the evidence from all the different areas taking this approach.

One area of research we included was research comparing levels of serotonin and its breakdown products in the blood or brain fluid. Overall, this research did not show a difference between people with depression and those without depression.

Another area of research has focused on serotonin receptors, which are proteins on the ends of the nerves that serotonin links up with and which can transmit or inhibit serotonin’s effects. Research on the most commonly investigated serotonin receptor suggested either no difference between people with depression and people without depression, or that serotonin activity was actually increased in people with depression – the opposite of the serotonin theory’s prediction.

Research on the serotonin “transporter”, that is the protein which helps to terminate the effect of serotonin (this is the protein that SSRIs act on), also suggested that, if anything, there was increased serotonin activity in people with depression. However, these findings may be explained by the fact that many participants in these studies had used or were currently using antidepressants.

We also looked at research that explored whether depression can be induced in volunteers by artificially lowering levels of serotonin. Two systematic reviews from 2006 and 2007 and a sample of the ten most recent studies (at the time the current research was conducted) found that lowering serotonin did not produce depression in hundreds of healthy volunteers. One of the reviews showed very weak evidence of an effect in a small subgroup of people with a family history of depression, but this only involved 75 participants.

Very large studies involving tens of thousands of patients looked at gene variation, including the gene that has the instructions for making the serotonin transporter. They found no difference in the frequency of varieties of this gene between people with depression and healthy controls.

Although a famous early study found a relationship between the serotonin transporter gene and stressful life events, larger, more comprehensive studies suggest no such relationship exists. Stressful life events in themselves, however, exerted a strong effect on people’s subsequent risk of developing depression.

Some of the studies in our overview that included people who were taking or had previously taken antidepressants showed evidence that antidepressants may actually lower the concentration or activity of serotonin.

Not supported by the evidence
The serotonin theory of depression has been one of the most influential and extensively researched biological theories of the origins of depression. Our study shows that this view is not supported by scientific evidence. It also calls into question the basis for the use of antidepressants.

Most antidepressants now in use are presumed to act via their effects on serotonin. Some also affect the brain chemical noradrenaline. But experts agree that the evidence for the involvement of noradrenaline in depression is weaker than that for serotonin.

There is no other accepted pharmacological mechanism for how antidepressants might affect depression. If antidepressants exert their effects as placebos, or by numbing emotions, then it is not clear that they do more good than harm.

Although viewing depression as a biological disorder may seem like it would reduce stigma, in fact, research has shown the opposite, and also that people who believe their own depression is due to a chemical imbalance are more pessimistic about their chances of recovery.

It is important that people know that the idea that depression results from a “chemical imbalance” is hypothetical. And we do not understand what temporarily elevating serotonin or other biochemical changes produced by antidepressants do to the brain. We conclude that it is impossible to say that taking SSRI antidepressants is worthwhile, or even completely safe.

If you’re taking antidepressants, it’s very important you don’t stop doing so without speaking to your doctor first. But people need all this information to make informed decisions about whether or not to take these drugs.
 
People in the west have such shitty diets of processed carbs with little to no actual nutritional content and they hardly get enough sun. Not to mention most ag land has been depleted of micronutrients. Most people are malnourished nutritionally.
This also causes depleted and poorly balanced gut microflora, which in turn causes all sorts of inflammatory and other conditions. It'll probably turn out that depression is the result of an imbalanced microbiome.
 
It'll probably turn out that depression is the result of an imbalanced microbiome.
I personally feel like "the microbiome" has reached a sort of scientific fad status. It's kinda like how the study of epigenetics snowballed like 15 years ago and for the next 10 years or so researchers were linking everything to the epigenome because it was what all the cool kids were researching at the time. Real progress was made and it remains an interesting field of study with a lot of potential. But the bull rush on the topic has since died down as we learned more about how limited the scope some epigenetic changes are and how others are so effectively immutable as to rival conventional genetics in what would need to be done to alter them.

The microbiome, I feel, is on the tail end of its bull rush. We know it has profound effects on a lot of things, but there is the legitimate question as far as which is the cause of the other. The link between autism and a non-diverse microbiome is more likely because autists tend to reject diverse diets than it is that fucked up microbiomes causing autism, for example. If such a correlation were found with depression (which of course there's a study demonstrating this correlation) is well established, I'd just as soon assume it's because the anhedonia associated with depression draws the afflicted individuals to bland, monotonous diets. The prospect of positive feedback playing a role is certainly not out of the question though. There's plenty of things depressed people tend to do which only heightens their depression and a shitty diet is very likely one of them.
 
I feel they are barking up the wrong tree. You can indeed have a chemical "imbalance" but that doesn't mean the regulation of those chemicals isn't working as intended, why not consider the idea that maybe a lot of people just really do have shit lives, and their chemical state is justified?
The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the actual problem trying to be treated.
Clinical treatment for depression is not really about making the person feel less sad. The primary symptom they are attempting to address is anhedonia. Depression causes a reduction in the capacity to enjoy things once found pleasurable as well as a reduced drive to do things they typically enjoy.
The goal is to get that drive back so that people can do the things which will improve their lives. The drugs are intended to make it easier to form positive habits and pull themselves out of the hole. The drug is not supposed to be the solution. It's a crutch.
 
I mean, life is often stressful and sucks for a lot of people. Of course they’re going to be depressed.

For what it’s worth though, I don’t think most people in history have been happy. Chasing happy all the time is like chasing a manic high, unsustainable for most. This whole be happy with everything all the time shit feels painfully modern and western.

Or maybe I’m just a miserable bitch.
 
Teddy K said:
Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.
 
There has never been any hard evidence of the chemical imbalance theory. On top of that the more recent non-pharma funded studies have called the efficacy of SSRIs and other drugs used to treat mental illness into question. They seem to work very poorly, on a small subsection of the populace if they work at all. In some cases they lead to worse outcomes like suicide and mass shooters. Add to that most cultures don't have the rates of mental illness that we do and what we consider lifelong afflictions like schizophrenia are temporary everywhere else. It starts to seem like psychology doesn't actually understand human psychology very well and that what we believe to be a biological illness is one of socially and individually created issues.
Thomas Harris was right:
“Simplistic is the word you want. In fact, most psychology is puerile, Officer Starling, and that practiced in Behavioral Science is on a level with phrenology. Psychology doesn’t get very good material to start with. Go to any college psychology department and look at the students and faculty: ham radio enthusiasts and other personality-deficient buffs. Hardly the best brains on campus. Organized and disorganized–a real bottom feeder thought of that.”

I really do not understand why anyone would trust the science that brought us lobotomies, electroshock therapy, The Satanic Panic, and Troons.
 
My theory is that lack of environmental pressure is causing depression. Our ancestors had to do enormous amounts of physical labor just to survive. It is likely that the human body needs to be stressed a bit in order to feel normal.
The fact so many people who regularly work out feel less depressed gives this idea credence, no?
 
Back