Blood-Brain Barrier Breach Blamed For Brain-Fog

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Move Over, Leaky Gut. Now It’s A Leaky Brain.

…which is not a headline that promises good news, and indeed, the only good news about this currently is “now we know another thing that’s happening, and thus can work towards a treatment for it”.

Back in February (most popular media outlets did not rush to publish this, as it rather goes against the narrative of “remember when COVID was a thing?” as though the numbers haven’t risen since the state of emergency was declared over), a team of Irish researchers made a discovery:

❝For the first time, we have been able to show that leaky blood vessels in the human brain, in tandem with a hyperactive immune system may be the key drivers of brain fog associated with long covid❞

~ Dr. Matthew Campbell (one of the researchers)

Let’s break that down a little, borrowing some context from the paper itself:

  • the leaky blood vessels are breaching the blood-brain-barrier
    • that’s a big deal, because that barrier is our only filter between our brain and Things That Definitely Should Not Go In The Brain™
  • a hyperactive immune system can also be described as chronic inflammation
    • in this case, that includes chronic neuroinflammation which, yes, is also a major driver of dementia

You may be wondering what COVID has to do with this, and well:

  • these blood-brain-barrier breaches were very significantly associated (in lay terms: correlated, but correlated is only really used as an absolute in write-ups) with either acute COVID infection, or Long Covid.
  • checking this in vitro, exposure of brain endothelial cells to serum from patients with Long Covid induced the same expression of inflammatory markers.

How important is this?

As another researcher (not to mention: professor of neurology and head of the school of medicine at Trinity) put it:

❝The findings will now likely change the landscape of how we understand and treat post-viral neurological conditions.

It also confirms that the neurological symptoms of long covid are measurable with real and demonstrable metabolic and vascular changes in the brain.❞

~ Dr. Colin Doherty (see mini-bio above)

You can read a pop-science article about this here:

Irish researchers discover underlying cause of “brain fog” linked with long covid

…and you can read the paper in full here:

Blood–brain barrier disruption and sustained systemic inflammation in individuals with long COVID-associated cognitive impairment

Want to stay safe?

Beyond the obvious “get protected when offered boosters/updates” (see also: The Truth About Vaccines), other good practices include the same things most people were doing when the pandemic was big news, especially avoiding enclosed densely-populated places, washing hands frequently, and looking after your immune system. For that latter, see also:

Beyond Supplements: The Real Immune-Boosters!

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • From Dr. Oz to Heart Valves: A Tiny Device Charted a Contentious Path Through the FDA
  • Why Do We Have Crooked Teeth When Our Ancestors Didn’t?
    Ancient humans had straight teeth; modern diets changed that. Smaller jaws, big teeth—hello crowding. Yet, dietary shifts could bite back at dental woes!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • How To Regrow Receding Gums

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    One of the problems with the human form is that our teeth evolved to last us for the whole of our life, with plenty of room to spare before our eventual death at the ripe old age of about 35 on average. Dr. Ellie Phillips advises those of us who might be a bit older than that, on how we can avoid becoming “too long in the tooth”—in other words, how to keep our gums, and thus our teeth, in place and healthy.

    Getting to the root of the problem

    The single biggest cause of gum recession is an acidic environment in the mouth, which harms teeth and gums alike. This acidic environment is produced not merely by consuming acid foods or drinks, but also (and much more often, and more problematically) by sugary foods and drinks, which are not necessarily themselves acidic, but they feed bacteria that release acids as a by-product of their metabolism. If we consume an acidic food or drink, it’s there for a moment, but if we then salivate and/or take a drink of water, it’s pretty much gone in a few seconds. But those bacteria when we feed them sugar? They are there to stay unless we do something more about them than just drink some water.

    Other contributing factors to gum recession include teeth grinding, and (ironically) certain oral care products, especially many artificial teeth whiteners.

    In case you were wondering: no, brushing will not* generally cause or even worsen gum recession, but flossing can exacerbate it if it’s already underway.

    *unless, of course, you are using one of the whiteners we mentioned above

    What to do about it: Dr. Phillips recommends:

    • use a moderately firm toothbrush to massage gums and promote blood flow
    • avoid acidic oral products and homemade remedies even if they’re not acidic but can be caustic, such as baking soda
    • rebuild your gums’ and teeth’s protective biofilm (yes, there are “good bacteria” that are supposed to be there) with proper brushing
    • avoid cleanings that are more intensive than brushing—skip flossing until your gums have recovered, too
    • adjust your diet to avoid acids and (especially) sugars

    10almonds note: she also recommends the use of xylitol to promote a healthy oral environment; we don’t recommend that, as while it may be great for the teeth, studies have found it to be bad for the heart.

    For more on all of her advices and a bit more of the science of it, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • PlantYou: Scrappy Cooking – by Carleigh Bodrug

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    This is a book that took “whole foods plant-based diet” and ran with it.

    “Whole foods”, you say? Carleigh Bodrug has you covered in this guide to using pretty much everything.

    One of the greatest strengths of the book is its “Got this? Make that” section, for using up those odds and ends that you’d normally toss.

    You may be thinking: “ok, but if to use this unusual ingredient I have to buy four other ingredients to make this recipe, generating waste from those other ingredients, then this was a bad idea”, but fear not.

    Bodrug covers that too, and in many cases leftover “would get wasted” ingredients can get turned into stuff that can go into longer-term storage one way or another, to use at leisure.

    Which also means that on the day “there’s nothing in the house to eat” and you don’t want to go grocery-shopping, or if some global disaster causes the supply lines to fail and the stores become empty (that could never happen though, right?), you will have the mystical ability to conjure a good meal out of assorted odds and ends that you stored because of this book.

    Bottom line: if you love food and hate food waste, this is a great book for you.

    Click here to check out Scrappy Cooking, and do domestic magic!

    Share This Post

  • A drug that can extend your life by 25%? Don’t hold your breath

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Every few weeks or months, the media reports on a new study that tantalisingly dangles the possibility of a new drug to give us longer, healthier lives.

    The latest study centres around a drug involved in targeting interleukin-11, a protein involved in inflammation. Blocking this protein appeared to help mice stave off disease and extend their life by more than 20%.

    If only defying the ravages of time could be achieved through such a simple and effort-free way – by taking a pill. But as is so often the case, the real-world significance of these findings falls a fair way short of the hype.

    Halfpoint/Shutterstock

    The role of inflammation in disease and ageing

    Chronic inflammation in the body plays a role in causing disease and accelerating ageing. In fact, a relatively new label has been coined to represent this: “inflammaging”.

    While acute inflammation is an important response to infection or injury, if inflammation persists in the body, it can be very damaging.

    A number of lifestyle, environmental and societal drivers contribute to chronic inflammation in the modern world. These are largely the factors we already know are associated with disease and ageing, including poor diet, lack of exercise, obesity, stress, lack of sleep, lack of social connection and pollution.

    While addressing these issues directly is one of the keys to addressing chronic inflammation, disease and ageing, there are a number of research groups also exploring how to treat chronic inflammation with pharmaceuticals. Their goal is to target and modify the molecular and chemical pathways involved in the inflammatory process itself.

    What the latest research shows

    This new interleukin-11 research was conducted in mice and involved a number of separate components.

    In one component of this research, interleukin-11 was genetically knocked out in mice. This means the gene for this chemical mediator was removed from these mice, resulting in the mice no longer being able to produce this mediator at all.

    In this part of the study, the mice’s lives were extended by over 20%, on average.

    Another component of this research involved treating older mice with a drug that blocks interleukin-11.

    Injecting this drug into 75-week old mice (equivalent to 55-year-old humans) was found to extend the life of mice by 22-25%.

    These treated mice were less likely to get cancer and had lower cholesterol levels, lower body weight and improved muscle strength and metabolism.

    From these combined results, the authors concluded, quite reasonably, that blocking interleukin-11 may potentially be a key to mitigating age-related health effects and improving lifespan in both mice and humans.

    Why you shouldn’t be getting excited just yet

    There are several reasons to be cautious of these findings.

    First and most importantly, this was a study in mice. It may be stating the obvious, but mice are very different to humans. As such, this finding in a mouse model is a long way down the evidence hierarchy in terms of its weight.

    Research shows only about 5% of promising findings in animals carry over to humans. Put another way, approximately 95% of promising findings in animals may not be translated to specific therapies for humans.

    Second, this is only one study. Ideally, we would be looking to have these findings confirmed by other researchers before even considering moving on to the next stage in the knowledge discovery process and examining whether these findings may be true for humans.

    We generally require a larger body of evidence before we get too excited about any new research findings and even consider the possibility of human trials.

    Third, even if everything remains positive and follow-up studies support the findings of this current study, it can take decades for a new finding like this to be translated to successful therapies in humans.

    Until then, we can focus on doing the things we already know make a huge difference to health and longevity: eating well, exercising, maintaining a healthy weight, reducing stress and nurturing social relationships.

    Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • From Dr. Oz to Heart Valves: A Tiny Device Charted a Contentious Path Through the FDA
  • How the HHS impacts your community’s health

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for programs that impact every community in the country. But most Americans aren’t aware of the department’s scope.

    “Most of the power in the agency, most of the administrative authority comes from laws that Congress has passed,” former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told NPR. She added that the HHS secretary “could redefine terms that had a huge impact on people. And that could be done all administratively, not by going back to Congress.”

    HHS is comprised of 13 agencies, all of which play an important role in promoting the health of all Americans. These are just some of the ways that HHS affects people’s lives and health.

    Vaccines

    One of HHS’s most salient roles is developing, approving, and monitoring vaccines after they are on the market. The National Institutes of Health funds and conducts research to develop new vaccines and improve existing ones. The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center spearheads research to develop vaccines against deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

    The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing clinical trials that test product safety and effectiveness, approving new vaccines, and monitoring the safety of all vaccines before and after approval. In conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA also manages the national surveillance systems that record and flag potential vaccine side effects. 

    In addition to safety monitoring, the CDC conducts research on vaccine safety and effectiveness and issues vaccination guidance. The agency’s recommended immunization schedule guides school and child care vaccination requirements and health care provider recommendations nationwide. 

    Although the CDC does not have the authority over school and childcare vaccination requirements at the state level, changes to the agency’s recommendations could have wide-ranging impacts. 

    “If this recommendation changes, there’s downstream effects, like insurance companies could stop covering them. And adding cost could easily deter uptake,” epidemiologist and creator of the Your Local Epidemiologist newsletter Katelyn Jetelina told PBS. 

    However, CDC vaccine recommendations are just that: recommendations. The agency cannot dictate, for example, vaccine requirements for school enrollment. Those standards are set at the state level, with the possible exception during a national public health emergency. 

    Drug safety 

    The FDA oversees all clinical trials in the United States. Every prescription drug and many medical products undergo a rigorous, closely regulated, multistep trial to test their safety and effectiveness. At the end of that process, the FDA determines whether a drug meets its standards for approval. Without FDA approval, a drug cannot be sold in the U.S.

    Like with vaccines, the FDA monitors potential safety concerns related to over-the-counter and prescription medications, medical devices, and other products the agency regulates. Health care providers, FDA-regulated companies, and patients can report suspected safety issues to the agency, which evaluates each report for further investigation. 

    The FDA also alerts the public to safety concerns related to medical products by releasing safety notices, adding warning labels, and issuing drug recalls.

    Pandemic and public health emergency response

    Several HHS agencies are tasked with preventing, preparing for, and responding to disease outbreaks. This responsibility includes tracking potentially dangerous infectious diseases in the U.S. and globally, developing pandemic response strategies, and issuing guidance to contain ongoing outbreaks. 

    Both the CDC and FDA inform the public about public health concerns, including pandemics. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response works with communities, medical facilities, local and state governments, and industry partners to enhance responses to disasters and public health emergencies. 

    The CDC also tracks pathogens like the flu, norovirus, and sexually transmitted infections to better understand where diseases are spreading, how they are evolving, and how best to prepare for outbreaks.

    In the event of a public health emergency, the CDC may issue guidance on how to stay safe and minimize health impacts. For example, in January, the agency released tips on how to protect against smoke during the wildfires affecting southern California and how to avoid frostbite and hypothermia, as extreme cold weather affected much of the country. 

    The FDA can issue emergency use authorizations, which allow the use of “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products … to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases … when certain criteria are met” during public health emergencies. These authorizations help ensure that the standard FDA approval process is not a barrier to the public receiving lifesaving medical products, such as authorizing specific vaccines during a pandemic. 

    Food and water safety

    The FDA, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, plays an important role in regulating food safety. The agency approves and monitors the safety of food additives, like sweeteners, dyes, and preservatives. It also regulates how food is prepared, packaged, and stored, including conducting inspections of food facilities and farms. 

    FDA food safety testing detects dangerous foodborne illnesses like salmonella and E. coli. For example, in late December 2024, the FDA began testing raw (unpasteurized) milk products for bird flu contamination. The CDC investigates outbreaks of foodborne illnesses and, along with the FDA and USDA, provides the public with information about food safety. 

    The FDA also regulates most food labels, including nutrition facts, ingredient lists, and health claims on food packaging. In January, the agency proposed new front-of-package nutrition labels that highlight sugar, fat, and sodium content in packaged food products. 

    HHS and the USDA are responsible for updating the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are updated every five years. These guidelines are the basis of all federal food assistance programs for children, older adults, and low-income families.

    HHS sets the guidelines for the maximum fluoride level in drinking water and periodically makes recommendations about fluoride levels. However, the department has no authority to require or ban fluoridation, which is regulated at the state and local level. U.S. cities began adding fluoride to drinking water in the 1940s to improve dental health and reduce cavities by 25 percent

    Health care access

    The HHS secretary regulates the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which provides health insurance to adults 65 and older, people with disabilities, low-income families, and eligible children through the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Together, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP insure over 145 million Americans, or roughly 42 percent of the U.S. population. Changes to either of these programs could impact health care access and quality for millions of Americans.

    This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Homeopathy: Evidence So Tiny That It’s Not there?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Homeopathy: Evidence So Tiny That It’s Not There?

    Yesterday, we asked you your opinions on homeopathy. The sample size of responses was a little lower than we usually get, but of those who did reply, there was a clear trend:

    • A lot of enthusiasm for “Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective”
    • Near equal support for “It may help some people as a complementary therapy”
    • Very few people voted for “Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works”; this is probably because people who considered voting for this, voted for the more flexible “It may help some people as a complementary therapy” instead.
    • Very few people considered it a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience.

    So, what does the science say?

    Well, let us start our investigation by checking out the position of the UK’s National Health Service, an organization with a strong focus on providing the least expensive treatments that are effective.

    Since homeopathy is very inexpensive to arrange, they will surely want to put it atop their list of treatments, right?

    ❝Homeopathy is a “treatment” based on the use of highly diluted substances, which practitioners claim can cause the body to heal itself.

    There’s been extensive investigation of the effectiveness of homeopathy. There’s no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.❞

    The NHS actually has a lot more to say about that, and you can read their full statement here.

    But that’s just one institution. Here’s what Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council had to say:

    ❝There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered: no good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment❞

    You can read their full statement here.

    The American FDA, meanwhile, have a stronger statement:

    ❝Homeopathic drug products are made from a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals and chemicals, including known poisons. These products have the potential to cause significant and even permanent harm if they are poorly manufactured, since that could lead to contaminated products or products that have potentially toxic ingredients at higher levels than are labeled and/or safe, or if they are marketed as substitute treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions, or to vulnerable populations.❞

    You can read their full statement here.

    Homeopathy is a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience: True or False?

    False and True, respectively, mostly.

    That may be a confusing answer, so let’s elaborate:

    • Is it dangerous? Mostly not; it’s mostly just water. However, two possibilities for harm exist:
      • Careless preparation could result in a harmful ingredient still being present in the water—and because of the “like cures like” principle, many of the ingredients used in homeopathy are harmful, ranging from heavy metals to plant-based neurotoxins. However, the process of “ultra-dilution” usually removes these so thoroughly that they are absent or otherwise scientifically undetectable.
      • Placebo treatment has its place, but could result in “real” treatment going undelivered. This can cause harm if the “real” treatment was critically needed, especially if it was needed on a short timescale.
    • Is it a scam? Probably mostly not; to be a scam requires malintent. Most practitioners probably believe in what they are practising.
    • Is it a pseudoscience? With the exception that placebo effect has been highly studied and is a very valid complementary therapy… Yes, aside from that it is a pseudoscience. There is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “like cures like” principle, and there is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “water memory” idea. On the contrary, they go against the commonly understood physics of our world.

    It may help some people as a complementary therapy: True or False?

    True! Not only is placebo effect very well-studied, but best of all, it can still work as a placebo even if you know that you’re taking a placebo… Provided you also believe that!

    Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works: True or False?

    False, simply. At best, it performs as a placebo.

    Placebo is most effective when it’s a remedy against subjective symptoms, like pain.

    However, psychosomatic effect (the effect that our brain has on the rest of our body, to which it is very well-connected) can mean that placebo can also help against objective symptoms, like inflammation.

    After all, our body, directed primarily by the brain, can “decide” what immunological defenses to deploy or hold back, for example. This is why placebo can help with conditions as diverse as arthritis (an inflammatory condition) or diabetes (an autoimmune condition, and/or a metabolic condition, depending on type).

    Here’s how homeopathy measures up, for those conditions:

    (the short answer is “no better than placebo”)

    Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective: True or False?

    False, except insofar as placebo is a valid principle and can be effective.

    The stated principles of homeopathy—”like cures like” and “water memory”—have no scientific basis.

    We’d love to show the science for this, but we cannot prove a negative.

    However, the ideas were conceived in 1796, and are tantamount to alchemy. A good scientific attitude means being open-minded to new ideas and testing them. In homeopathy’s case, this has been done, extensively, and more than 200 years of testing later, homeopathy has consistently performed equal to placebo.

    In summary…

    • If you’re enjoying homeopathic treatment and that’s working for you, great, keep at it.
    • If you’re open-minded to enjoying a placebo treatment that may benefit you, be careful, but don’t let us stop you.
    • If your condition is serious, please do not delay seeking evidence-based medical treatment.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • How Much Weight Gain Do Antidepressants Cause?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    There’s a lot of talk in the news lately about antidepressants and weight gain, so let’s look at some numbers.

    Here’s a study from July 2024 that compared the weight gain of eight popular antidepressants, and pop-science outlets have reported it with such snippets as:

    Bupropion users were approximately 15–20% less likely to gain a clinically significant amount of weight than those taking the most common medication, sertraline.

    The researchers considered weight gain of 5% or more as clinically significant.❞

    Read in full: Study compares weight gain across eight common antidepressants

    At this point, you might (especially if you or a loved one is on sertraline) be grabbing a calculator and seeing what 5% of your weight is, and might be concerned at the implications.

    However, this is a little like if, in our This or That section, we were to report that food A has 17x more potassium than food B, without mentioning that food A has 0.01mg/100g and food A has 0.17mg/100g, and thus that, while technically “17x more”, the difference is trivial.

    As a quick aside: we do, by the way, try to note when things like that might skew the stats and either wipe them out by not mentioning that they contain potassium at all (as they barely do), or if it’s a bit more, describing them as being “approximately equal in potassium” or else draw attention to the “but the amounts are trivial in both cases”.

    Back to the antidepressants: in fact, for those two antidepressants compared in that snippet, the truth is (when we go looking in the actual research paper and the data within):

    • sertraline was associated with an average weight change of +1.5kg (just over 3lb) over the course of 24 months
    • bupropion was associated with an average weight change of +0.5kg (just under 1lb) over the course of 24 months

    Sertraline being the most weight-gain-inducing of the 8 drugs compared, and bupropion being the least, this means (with them both having fairly even curves):

    • sertraline being associated with an average weight change of 0.06kg (about 2oz) per month
    • bupropion being associated with an average weight change of 0.02kg (less than 1oz) per month

    For all eight, see the chart here in the paper itself:

    Medication-Induced Weight Change Across Common Antidepressant Treatments ← we’ve made the link go straight to the chart, for your convenience, but you can also read the whole paper there

    While you’re there, you might also see that for some antidepressants, such as duloxetine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine, there’s an initial weight gain, but then it clearly hits a plateau and weight ceases to change after a certain point, which is worth considering too, since “you’ll gain a little bit of weight and then stay at that weight” is a very different prognosis from “you’ll gain a bit of weight and keep gaining it forever until you die”.

    But then again, consider this:

    Most adults will gain half a kilo this year – and every year. Here’s how to stop “weight creep”

    That’s more weight gain than one gets on sertraline, the most weight-gain-inducing antidepressant tested!

    What about over longer-term use?

    Here’s a more recent study (December 2024) that looked at antidepressant use over 6 years, and found an average 2% weight gain over those 6 years, but it didn’t break it down by antidepressant type, sadly:

    Trajectories of antidepressant use and 6-year change in body weight: a prospective population-based cohort study

    …which seems like quite a wasted opportunity, since some of the medications considered are very different, working on completely different systems (for example, SSRIs vs NDRIs, working on serotonin or norepinephrine+dopamine, respectively—see our Neurotransmitter Cheatsheet for more about those) and having often quite different side effects. Nevertheless, the study (despite collecting this information) didn’t then tabulate the data, and instead considered them all to be the same factor, “antidepressants”.

    What this study did do that was useful was included a control group not on antidepressants so we know that on average:

    • never-users of antidepressants gained an average of 1% of their bodyweight over those 6 years
    • users-and-desisters of antidepressants gained an average of 1.8% of their bodyweight over those 6 years*
    • continuing users of antidepressants gained an average of 2% of their bodyweight over those 6 years

    *for this group, weight gain was a commonly cited reason for stopping taking the antidepressants in question

    Writer’s anecdote: I’ve been on mirtazapine (a presynaptic alpha2-adrenoreceptor antagonist which increases central noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission) for some years and can only say that I wish I’d been on it decades previously. I requested mirtazapine specifically, because I’m me and I know my stuff and considered it would most likely be by far the best fit for me out of the options available. Starting at a low dose, the only meaningful side effect was mild sedation (expected, and associated only with low-dose use); increasing after a couple of weeks to a moderate dose, that side effect disappeared and now the only remaining side effect is a slight dryness of the mouth, which is fine, as it ensures I remember to stay hydrated 🙂 anyway, my weight hasn’t changed (beyond very small temporary fluctuations) in the time I’ve been on mirtazapine. Disclaimer: the plural of anecdote is not data, and I can only speak for my own experience, and am not making any particular recommendation here. Your personal physiology will be different from mine, and may respond well or badly to any given treatment according to your own physiology.

    Further considerations

    This is touched on in the “Discussion” section of the latter paper (so do check that out if you want all the details, more than we can reasonably put here), but there are other factors to consider, for example:

    • whether people were underweight/healthy weight/overweight at baseline (sometimes, a weight gain can be a good thing, recovering from an illness, and in the case of the illness that is depression, weight can swing either way)
    • antidepressants changing eating and exercise habits (generally speaking: more likely to eat more and exercise more)
    • body composition! How did they not cover this (neither paper did)?! Muscle weighs more than fat, and improvements in exercise can result in an increase in muscle and thus an increase in overall weight.

    As researchers like to say, “this highlights the need for more high-quality studies to look into…” (and then the various things that went unexamined).

    Want to know more?

    Check out our previous main feature:

    Antidepressants: Personalization Is Key!

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: