Scientists are suggesting that depression is a result of inflammation

Because we tend to think of people with "depression" as being "depressed", we are apt to ask questions, like, "What do you have depression about?"

This question makes no more sense than "What do you have cancer about?" (thanks to Stephen Fry for the comparison) but because it does make sense to ask, "What are you depressed about?" it can be difficult to explain this to people.

Physiologically, it isn't at all clear that "depression" and "being depressed" are species of the same genus. The latter is a transient, perfectly healthy, emotional state. The former is a persistent, unhealthy neuro-physical state.

So having less similar words for things of a different kind that are often confused would be a good thing.

Because stories like yours, in context, tend to say (in subtext or not) "I was sad once but then I did X and I was fine, so what are you whining about? Just go do X!" This often includes an implication that the depressed person should not receive empathy, comfort, or even respect because their failure to make themselves 'snap out of it' indicates a moral weakness that ought to be punished. The statement may or may not include something along the lines of "she just likes drama" or "she just wants attention."

From the perspective of someone with a more or less normal emotional range, this kind of makes internal sense. You've been sad before, you equate that with the depressed person's mental state, and then you think, "Wait, when I was sad, at least I didn't Y or mope around in front of my friends or ask for disability accomodiations, etc. That person is weak and needy and whining." If your experiences were, in fact, equivalent, that might be valid.

But they are not. Not close. Not by several orders of magnitude. It's like seeing someone throw up and chiding them for not knowing their limits, when in fact they are in chemotherapy.

"Oh, that is so sad. When I had depression, I found that picking up a new hobby, like gardening, did wonders for me! I have some gardening books you can borrow."

"Depression? Well, the trick is to just put whatever it is that caused it behind you."

"How can you be depressed? You look great, you have a wonderful family, and you are in good health! Stop focusing on the negative and open your eyes to the great things you have!"

"Where do you attend church?" ... "Oh, you don't? What you need to do is let Jesus Christ into your life. God has a wonderful plan for you and I'm sure you'll be better once you open your ears and listen to His message. Once you realize that Jesus walks with you every step and loves you unconditionally, it will absolutely lift your spirits up!"

"I was depressed too, but then I found this wonderful energy worker. He completely reshaped my life energy field and I've never felt better. What is your email? You need to call him today!"

You can proclaim whatever you want, that don't make it true.

- Even if this were true, that doesn't preclude depression from causing biochemical changes (e.g. inflammation).

- Saying this is the only cause of depression doesn't make a lot of sense because it doesn't account for, say, post-surgical or post-viral depression.

As I went to bed last night, I found myself thinking about this comment.

A couple of years ago, I was working at a well-known tech company and doing very well. My boss was a legitimate, clinical psychopath, but I made the most of it, working hard, coming in on weekends and snow days, etc. For my effort and talent, I received a raise and super-secret "restricted stock units we only give to the people we want to keep" after only a few months. My final performance review was glowing.

Having had enough of my boss and feeling that I'd built up enough runway to make a jump, I asked my boss's boss for a transfer to a different manager. The request was received positively and as it was in process, my immediate boss found out (probably from another manager asking about me) and summarily fired me. The act of cleaning out my desk and saying an awkward goodbye to people in the office is as clear to me as if it happened yesterday.

Because he had neglected to consult with his management chain about it, he was also out the door as soon as the threat of a lawsuit from me had passed a few months later. (If you're wondering, I did make some empty legal threats after the fact, which is why I couldn't go back. In retrospect, I probably could have returned if I'd kept my cool. I regret this mistake more than anything I did beforehand, without a doubt.)

Since then, I've suffered from PTSD, extreme anxiety and secondary depression, have been almost completely unemployed and largely withdrew from normal society. I don't have many friends anymore, don't date, don't go out... I basically just keep to myself, code, and play video games. Interacting with people didn't work out so well, so I guess, subconsciously and maybe a little consciously, I just decided not to deal with them anymore.

Getting back to your comment, @coldtea, I've often wondered which is true: Do I (a) have a "chemical imbalance" caused by unmet life expectations that causes me to be anxious and depressed or am I (b) depressed because the veil that had theretofore kept me from seeing/understanding the true shitty nature of the world was lifted?

I find my mind frequently drifting into "wow, everything is fucked up" territory. And there's plenty of fuel to keep the engine running. Everything from terrorism to wealth inequality to labor destruction to race issues to dictatorships to privacy loss to partisan gridlock in Washington... the world is absolutely and in a thousand different ways, flagrantly unfair. Then I get even further depressed about feeling depressed when I compare my relatively cushy life to that of, say, a Palestinian or Ugandan.

Wealth (and as a corollary, race) inequality is the one that gets me the most. Technology is advancing to post-scarcity -- the point where there are enough resources on this globe that everyone should be able to make it by with minimal (or even zero) effort.

But that's not what's happening. Keynes was wrong about the 15-hour work week of the future. Instead, we've gotten a bi-modal distribution of the disgustingly wealthy and growing numbers (in the US) of the destitute who have to work more hours at degrading jobs just to get by. Most people still have to work at things they do not enjoy, an artificial construct held in place by the powers that be. In this 21st century, there is enough to go around, it's just not distributed properly.

To be clear, I don't mind working and have a long history of hopefully-interesting side-projects (which I'd hoped would break me out of the must-work 99% group). What I do mind is working for "them" because I need to make X dollars to live in the world "they" have constructed. Even when I did work for "them" I didn't hate it. But now... it's harder to accept.

What pill is going to make me forget these harsh realities of the world? What pill is going to make me say "Oh sure, I'll get a wife and have some kids, even though they'll be relegated to psuedo-slavery just like I am." None.

So I think what you said (which I quoted above) is dead-right. Because of an event in my life, my eyes were opened to the real unfairness of the world.

And that's the real reason I struggle with depression -- my understanding of the world improved.

Explain to me how that works.

Weather or not the basis of Paleo is sound is not relevant to his point. Not only does he claim benefits for himself, but notes that others seem to agree in similar ways.

I'm really getting pissed at the commercial medial establishment for denying anything that doesn't have clinical trial can be good. Plants or minerals that have helped people for thousands of years are called "homeopathic" or "alternative" by real doctors. Now we're seeing studies that claim various things have no benefit "for people on an already healthy diet" as a footnote. Yet good old aspirin is a plant derivative, as are some other things. But I digress. His point is independent of the basis for the diet and hence should not be downvoted for that.

Somewhere there is a flame war about what the Paleolithic humans ate, and whether that was what we are nicknaming "paleo" now. We shouldn't take the names too seriously, though, or we'll be confused about what the South Beach diet is (big macs?), the Beyonce diet (...?), etc. Low-fat and low-cholesterol diets have accurately descriptive names. Not catchy. Also once seemingly backed by science, which was incomplete enough to be wrong or influenced heavily by agricultural lobbyists.

An discussion about whether "reducing inflammation" as discussed on the internet is scientific would be interesting. The article mentions curcumin and omega-3s: what do we really know?

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/30/jane-says-if-you-...

When I go through my depression episodes I am unable to eat for days. Food tastes like cardboard and is repulsive. If i eat more than a couple bites I vomit. Yet not eating doesn't make me less depressed.

So the idea of just eliminating the current fad "inflammatory food" just doesn't seem plausible to me. Especially since the food seems to change with time.

Many people resent being told they "just need to cut out grains/meat/sugar/fruit/cooked food." Food fads come and food fads go.

What about native Inuit populations whose diets were nearly 100% meat?