Sixty patients with major depression participated in the study. Their sessions were videotaped and trained raters rated how much the therapists used cognitive versus behavioral methods.

What they found was only two aspects of therapist behavior predicted improvement between sessions. Depression was measured after every session, and these measurements showed that patients felt better when therapists used cognitive techniques, but didn’t improve when the therapists focused on behavioral techniques.

Patients also showed greater improvement when they adhered to suggestions made by the therapist, which is not surprising.

The behavioral methods used were techniques such as having patients schedule their activities to become more active, and tracking how they actually spent their time. This is called behavioral activation, and previous studies have suggested it is an effective approach to treating depression. The behavioral activation model is that depressed patients tend to do very little, and this leads to further depression. Patients are encouraged to schedule activities that are fun, or activities that provide a sense of mastery or success. This leads to a lessening of depressive feelings.

The cognitive methods were techniques such as writing down what your thoughts are, and using cognitive therapy to challenge or modify distorted thinking.

So how to interpret the results of this study?

It’s only one small study and I would be cautious about taking too much from it. It does suggest that at least in the early sessions of therapy, cognitive methods may be superior to behavioral methods. This makes sense to me because early in therapy depressed patients feel a lot of pain and lethargy, and getting them to suddenly increase their activity can be very challenging and perhaps too difficult. This may lead to a sense of failure which increases depression rather than reducing it. On the other hand, using cognitive methods may lead to more immediate sense of control and relief, which would tend to reduce depression levels.

My sense is that later in therapy behavioral activation techniques are very useful. But typically in order to get patients to cooperate with these techniques there needs to be a strong alliance with the therapist. This takes some time to build.

It would have been interesting if they had continued the study beyond the first five sessions, and looked at whether over time the relative importance of the cognitive versus behavioral techniques would have shifted.

The study shows that therapist behavior in sessions does matter. This is one of my pet peeves. Many psychotherapists claim to use cognitive behavioral therapy, yet fail to actually use any cognitive behavioral techniques on a regular basis in sessions. This study shows that therapist adherence to structuring sessions and using cognitive techniques matters.

So from a consumer point of view there are a few take-home lessons.

1. If you are seeking cognitive behavioral therapy, make sure your therapist actually does cognitive behavioral therapy during sessions. This means they should structure the sessions clearly, as opposed to simply letting you talk about whatever is on your mind. It also means they should be asking you to track your self talk in written form, during sessions go over those thoughts, helping you learn to identify and correct distortions in the thoughts. If they don’t do these behaviors, and therapy feels free-form, then you’re probably not getting cognitive behavioral therapy, and you might want to look elsewhere. If you don’t regularly get homework to do between tasks, you aren’t receiving cognitive behavioral therapy.

2. At least in the early part of therapy pure cognitive therapy techniques may be more effective than behavioral techniques. You may want to focus your own homework more on identifying and changing your inner thoughts, rather than trying to increase positive behaviors. This probably will yield more relief of depression.

3. The study also confirmed that when clients cooperate and are more involved using cognitive therapy techniques, they improve faster. So even if you’re feeling skeptical, try to fully participate during sessions and in between sessions, as that provides you the best chance of more rapid relief.

Your off to analyze his thoughts psychologist,

Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

http://holykaw.alltop.com/depressing-effectiveness-of-anti-depressants

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Based on scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the researchers divided the patients into mild to moderately depressed, severely depressed, and very severely depressed. This is a 17 item scale that is filled out by a psychologist or psychiatrist, and measures various aspects of depression. It is used in most studies of depression. They then analyzed the response to antidepressant medication based on how severe the initial depression was.

The two antidepressants studied were imipramine and paroxetine (Paxil). Imipramine is an older, tricyclic antidepressant, and Paxil is a more modern SSRI antidepressant.

What did they find? They were looking at the size of the difference between the medication groups and the placebo groups. Rather than do the typical thing of just looking at statistical significance, which is simply a measure of whether the difference could be explained by chance, they looked at clinical significance. They used the definition used by NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence in England), which was an effect size of 0.50 or a difference of 3 points on the HDRS. This is defined as a medium effect size.

What they found was very disheartening to those who use antidepressant medications in their practices. They divided the patients into three groups based on their initial HDRS scores: mild to moderate depression (HDRS 18 or less), severe depression (HDRS 19 to 22), and very severe depression (HDRS 23 or greater).

For the mild to moderately depressed patients, the effect size was d=0.11, and for severely depressed patients the effect size was d = 0.17. Both of these effect sizes are below the standard description of a small effect which is 0.20. For the patients in the very severe group, the effect size was 0.47 which is just below the accepted value of 0.50 for a medium effect size.

When they did further statistical analysis, they found that in order to meet the NICE criteria of effect size of a 3 points difference, patients had to have an initial HDRS score of 25 or above.  To meet the criteria of an effect size of .50, or medium effect size, they had to have a score of 25 or above, and to have a large effect size, 27 or above.

What does this all mean for patient care? It means that for the vast majority of clinically depressed patients who fall below the very severely depressed range, antidepressant medications most likely won’t help. The sadder news is that even for the very severely depressed, medications have a very modest effect. Looking at the scoring of the HDRS, the normal, undepressed range is 0 to 7. The very severely depressed patients had scores of 25 or above, and a medium effect size was a drop in scores of 3 or more points compared to placebo patients. Looking at the one graph in the paper that show the actual drops in HDRS scores, the medication group had a mean drop of 12 points when their initial score was 25. That means they went from 25 to 13, which is still in the depressed range, although only mildly depressed. Patients who initially were at 38 dropped by roughly 20 points, ending at 18, which is still pretty depressed. And the placebo group had only slightly worse results.

One interesting thing is how strong the placebo effects are in these studies. It seems that for depressions less serious than very severe, placebo pills work as well as antidepressant medication.  Is this because antidepressants don’t work very well, or because placebos work too well? It’s hard to know. Maybe doctors should give their patients sugar pills, and call the new drug Eliftimood!

So in summary, here are the main observations I make from this study.

• If you are very severely depressed, antidepressants may help, and are worth trying.
• If you are mildly, moderately, or even severely depressed, there is little evidence that antidepressants will help better than a placebo. You would be better off with CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), which has a proven track record with less severe depressions, and which has no side effects.
• Interestingly, CBT is less effective for the most severe depressions, so for these kinds of depressions medication treatment makes a lot of sense.
• If you are taking antidepressants and having good results, don’t change what you are doing. You may be wired in such a way that you are a good responder to antidepressants.
• If you have been taking antidepressants for mild to severe (but not very severe) depression, and not getting very good results, this is consistent with the research, and you might want to discuss alternative treatments such as CBT with your doctor. Don’t just stop the medications, as this can produce withdrawal symptoms, work with your doctor to taper off them.
• Even in very severely depressed patients, for whom antidepressants have some effects, they may only get the patient to a state of moderate depression, but not to “cure”. To get to an undepressed, normal state, behavioral therapy may be necessary in addition to medications.
• How do you find out how depressed you are? Unfortunately there is no online version of the HDRS for direct comparison. You may want to see a professional psychologist or psychiatrist if you think you might be depressed, and ask them to administer the HDRS to you.  There are also online depression tests, such as here and here. If you score in the highest ranges you might want to consider trying antidepressant medications, if you score lower you might want to first try CBT.
• The most important thing is not to ignore depression, as it tends to get worse over time. Get some help, talk to a professional.

I’m off to take my Obecalp pills now, as it’s been raining here in Northern California for more than a week, and I need a boost in my mood. (Hint: what does Obecalp spell backwards?)

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

The article documents how most psychologists fail to provide empirically proven treatment approaches and instead use methods which are often ineffective. The truth is there is very little evidence for most of the types of therapy commonly performed in private practices by psychologists and by Masters level therapists. If you are shopping for the most effective types of therapy you need to find a practitioner who is skilled at cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) which is one of the few psychotherapy approaches that has been proven to work on a variety of problems.

Another interesting article in Newsweek about evidence-based treatment discussed bulimia. Here’s the summary:

So the bottom line is this:

1. Most psychologists who don’t practice Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) are just winging it, using treatments that haven’t been shown to work by scientific studies. It’s as if you went to a regular physician and got treatment with leaches!

2. Many psychologists claim to use CBT but haven’t really trained in the use of CBT, or have taken a weekend workshop. Unless they prescribe weekly homework that involves writing down thoughts, and learning skills to analyze and change your thoughts, then they aren’t really doing CBT, and I recommend you find someone else.

3. If you have an anxiety disorder, depression, bulimia, or obsessive compulsive disorder, and haven’t been offered CBT, then you are not receiving state of the art treatment.

Copyright © 2009 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

A terrific new study was recently published in the Lancet medical journal. A team of international researchers, led by Andrea Cipriani at the University of Verona in Italy, reviewed 117 studies of antidepressants which included 25928 patients, two-thirds of whom were women. These studies, done all around the world, compared various antidepressants to either placebo or other antidepressants.

The researcher compared the results of 12 new generation antidepressants in terms of efficacy and acceptabiltiy. They defined efficacy as the proportion of patients who improved at least 50% on a depression rating scale by 8 weeks of treatment. They defined acceptability as the proportion of patients who did not drop out of the study. They made an attempt to adjust for dosages, and did very sophisticated statistical analyses to compare all of the drugs. They used fluoxetine (Prozac) as the common comparison drug, since it has been on the market for the longest time.

What were the results? The winners in terms of short term effectiveness were: (drum roll) mirtazapine (Remeron), escitalopram (Lexapro), venlafaxine (Effexor), and sertraline (Zoloft). The winners in terms of acceptability were: escitalopram (Lexapro), sertraline (Zoloft), citalopram (Celexa), and bupropion (Wellbutrin) were better tolerated than other new-generation antidepressants. Note that the overall winners for effectiveness combined with tolerability were escitalopram (Lexapro) and sertraline (Zoloft). Two of the best drugs in terms of effectiveness (mirtazapine (Remeron) and venlafaxine (Effexor)) were not among the best tolerated medicines.

The losers in terms of both effectiveness and tolerability were reboxetine (Edronax), fluvoxamine (Luvox), paroxetine (Paxil), and duloxetine (Cymbalta). The worst drug of all was reboxetine (Edronax).

So what about cost? I’ve developed a spreadsheet of all of the drugs’ costs based on a 30 day supply, paying full retail price at Costco pharmacy, and using generic equivalents when available. Of the winners in terms of effectiveness and tolerability, the clear cost winner was sertraline (Zoloft), at $12 a month. The other winner, escitalopram (Lexapro), was a loser in terms of cost at $88 a month! The other winners in terms of effectiveness were quite cost effective too, with mirtazapine (Remeron) at $14 a month, and venlafaxine (Effexor) at $28 a month.

So what should doctors and patients do? For patients, the two best drugs appear to be escitalopram (Lexapro) and sertraline (Zoloft), with sertraline the clear winner if you pay much for prescription drugs. Doctors might want to consider costs as well, as this can help with overall health care inflation. If you can tolerate the side effects, consider trying mirtazapine (Remeron), or venlafaxine (Effexor).

Now there are of course a few caveats about this study. It is possible that another meta-analysis could find different results. One criticism was that the study only looked at effectiveness over 8 weeks of treatment. It is possible that some drugs work more slowly, and at 12 or 16 weeks might have different results. But most patients want results in two months or less, so this is not a major criticism.

Another issue is funding bias. Although none of the authors of this study were paid by drug companies, many of the studies they analyzed were funded by drug companies, and may have reflected some bias. But for now, this is the best information we have in terms of effectiveness and toleration of antidepressant medications.

So who’s the winner? Sertraline (Zoloft) was the clear winner by effectiveness, tolerability, and cost!

Should you change medications if you are not on one of the winners? No, of course not. If your medication is working, don’t change it. But if it’s not working, then talk with your doctor about switching.

And no, I don’t receive any funding or sponsorship from any drug companies…

Here’s the table of drug price comparisons.
Comparison of Antidepressant Costs for 30 Day Supply (Costco Pharmacy, Generic Equivalents if possible)
Bolded Drugs were most effective

Drug            Generic Name         Cost          Dose(mg)

Celexa             citalopram                   $3                 40
Prozac             fluoxetine                    $6                  20
Zoloft             sertraline                       $12             100
Remeron     mirtazapine                    $14               30
Luvox              fluvoxamine               $24             100
Effexor         venlafaxine                    $28                75
Welbutrin      bupropion                   $74             200
Lexapro       escitalopram                 $88                10
Paxil                paroxetine                   $91             37.5
Cymbalta       duloxetine                   $128              60

Copyright © 2009 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

This study of 439 teenage children with major depression, done at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas tested anti-depressant medication (fluoxetine or Prozac), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and a combination of both (COMB). They found that only 23% of the patients had their depression cured by 12 weeks of therapy. But 9 months of therapy was much more effective, with 60 percent going into remission.

The bad news though is that this means that almost half of the teenagers (40%) were still depressed after 9 months of therapy.

The good news is in terms of relapse. Of those who responded quickly to treatment, two-thirds retained the benefits of treatment over 9 months. The same was true of those who took longer to respond.

Which treatment was better? That is an interesting picture.

It depends at which time point you are looking at. At 12 weeks, the results for percentage fully remitted (cured) of depression were: combined drug and CBT therapy (37%), drug therapy only (23%), and CBT therapy only (16%). The combined therapy was significantly better than the other therapies. But note that overall, only 23% of the teenagers had recovered at 12 weeks, which means that 77% were still suffering!

But at nine months the outcomes look quite different. The combination therapy is still the best, but by less of a margin. The results for remission at at 9 months were: combination, 60%; drug, 55%; cognitive-behavioral therapy, 64%; and overall, 60%. By 24 weeks all the treatments were working well. But a full 40% of the teenagers were still depressed.

So the right answer to the question of which treatment works better is neither. Both drugs and cognitive behavioral therapy were equally effective, over the long term. But the combination of both was worked more quickly. As the researchers said, “choosing just one therapy might delay many teenagers’ recovery by 2 or 3 months.” As the saying goes, candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker, and we might conclude that drugs or CBT are dandy, but combined therapy is quicker.

So what does this mean to parents of depressed teenagers? Here are my takeaway messages:

1. Don’t expect treatment for depression to work quickly. It may take more than 9 months of weekly treatment before your teenager responds to therapy. This means at least 40 sessions of therapy.
2. Be patient, and set reasonable expectations for both yourself and for your child. Tell them that therapy will help, but it may take a while. Let support networks such as school counselors or trusted teachers know to be patient.
   
3. Although medications and cognitive behavioral therapy were equally effective in the long run, the combination of both tended to work much more quickly. So if you can afford it, and have access to good practitioners who do cognitive behavioral therapy, use both.
   
4. Be aware that in other studies, the relapse rate for medication treatment of depression was significantly higher than for cognitive behavioral therapy, once the medications are discontinued. So choosing medications only may increase the risk that your teenager will relapse into depression.
   
5. Be aware that much teenage depression can be a reaction to social environments. This includes the family, the school, and peers. Be sure that your teen’s therapist is attuned to family, school, and peer issues. They should meet with the whole family at least several times.
   
6. Take teenage depression seriously. It’s not just a phase. Teenage depression, when serious, can greatly increase the risk of suicide. All suspected depression should be evaluated by a professional and treated if present.
   

Copyright © 2009 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

SOURCE: Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, February 2009 . And December 2006 issue too .

But what about the truly profound and serious decisions of life?  What about something as serious as suicide?  Can it be that even such a grave decision is affected by seemingly small external factors?

The New York Times Magazine recently published a fascinating article “The Urge to End It All“, which addressed this very issue.  I highly recommend you read the entire article.

First, some numbers.  (I love numbers).  The current suicide rate is 11 victims per 100,000 people, the same as it was in 1965.  In 2005, about 32,000 Americans committed suicide, which is two times the numbers who were killed by homicide.

For many years the traditional view of suicide was that it reflects mental illness — depression, bipolar illness, psychosis, schizophrenia, or other mental illnesses.  This view assumed that the method of suicide was not important; it was the underlying mental illness that mattered.

But something happened in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s that set this model on its head.  It’s called the “British Coal Gas Story” and it goes like this:

For many years people in Britain heated their homes and stoves with coal gas.  This was very cheap, but the unburned gas had very high levels of carbon monoxide, and a leak or an opened valve could kill people in just a few minutes in a closed space.  This made it a popular method of suicide — “sticking one’s head in the oven” killed 2500 Britons a year by the late 1950s — half of all suicides in Britain!

Then the government phased out the use of coal gas, replacing it with natural gas, so that by the early 1970s almost no coal gas was used.  During this time Britain’s suicide rate dropped by a third, and has remained at that level since.

How can we understand this?  If suicide is the act of an ill mind, why didn’t those who could no longer use coal gas find another means? Why did the suicide rate in Britain drop by a third when the option of coal gas was no longer available?
The answer turns conventional wisdom about suicide on its head. Conventional wisdom is that people plan out suicides carefully, and so convenience of method shouldn’t matter. But actually it appears that often suicide is an impulsive act, and when you make it less convenient, people are less likely to complete the act.

Another example of this is found in the Golden Gate Bridge.  For years this gorgeous bridge has been a popular suicide point, where nearly 2000 people have ended their lives.  There have been many debates about erecting suicide barriers on the bridge, but most opponents say “they will just find another way.”

But Richard Seiden, professor at University of California Berkeley, collected data that addresses this issue.  What he did was to get a list of all potential jumpers who were stopped from committing suicide between 1937 in 1971, 515 people in all.  He then pulled their death certificate records to see how many had gone on to kill themselves later.  What would you guess was the percentage of these people who tried to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge and who later killed themselves?  50%?  75%?  25%?

Actually it was only 6%!  Even allowing that some accidents might have been suicides, the number only went up to 10%.  Although higher than the general population, it still means that for 90% of these would-be jumpers, they got past whatever was bothering them, and went on to live full lives.

Richard Seiden got some great stories out of this study.  One of the things he found was that would-be suicides tend to get very fixated on a particular method.  They tend to only have a Plan A, with no Plan B. As he says, “At the risk of stating the obvious,” Seiden said, “people who attempt suicide aren’t thinking clearly. They might have a Plan A, but there’s no Plan B. They get fixated. They don’t say, ‘Well, I can’t jump, so now I’m going to go shoot myself.”

One example he cites was a man who was grabbed on the east side of the bridge after pedestrians noticed him looking upset.  The problem was that he had picked out a spot on the west side of the bridge that he wanted to jump from, but there were six lanes of traffic between the two sides, and he was afraid of getting hit by a car on his way over!

As Seiden said, “Crazy, huh? But he recognized it.  When he told me the story, we both laughed about it.”

Another great example is from two bridges in Northwest Washington.  The Ellington Bridge and the Taft Bridge both span Rock Creek, and both have about a 125 foot drop into the gorge below.  For some reason the Ellington has always been famous as Washington’s “suicide bridge”.  About four people on average jumped from the Ellington Bridge each year as compared to slightly less than two people from the Taft.

In 1985, after a rash of suicides from the Ellington, a suicide barrier was erected on the Ellington Bridge, but not the Taft Bridge.  Opponents countered with the same argument, that if stopped from jumping from the Ellington, people would simply jump from the Taft.

But they were wrong.  Five years after the Ellington suicide barrier went up a study showed that while all suicides were eliminated from the Ellington, the rate at the Taft barely changed, inching up from 1.7 to 2.0 deaths per year.  What’s even more interesting is that the total number of jumping suicides in Washington dropped by 50%, or the exact percentage the Ellington had previously accounted for. So people stopped from jumping from the Ellington did not jump from other locations.

Coming back to our model that small external factors can have large influences on behavior, you might wonder why the Ellington was the suicide bridge instead of the Taft.  It turns out that the height of the railing was what made the difference. The concrete railing on the Taft was chest high, while the concrete railing on the Ellington (before the barrier) was just above the belt line.  One required a bit more effort and a bit more time to get over and this tended to reduce the impulsive action of jumping.

Which brings us to guns. Although guns account for less than 1% of all American suicide attempts, because they are so lethal, they account for 54% of successful suicides.  In 2005 that meant 17,000 deaths.  It turns out there when you compare states with high rates of gun ownership to states with low rates of gun ownership; you find that there is a direct correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun suicide.  This is not surprising.

What is more surprising is that in the states with low gun ownership, the rates of non-gun suicide are the same as those states with high gun ownership.  So the lack of availability of guns does not encourage people to find other means of harming themselves.  Studies show that the total suicide rate in high gun ownership states is double that of in low gun ownership states.  So the Supreme Court, in their recent ruling regarding Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns, may have missed the more important data when they focused on homicide rates.  From these studies scientists conclude that a 10% reduction in firearm ownership would result in a 2.5% reduction in the overall suicide rate.

I am not anti-gun. I like shooting, and if I were a hunter, would probably own a rifle.  But this is why I don’t own a gun, and this is why I don’t recommend that most people own a gun.  All of us are potentially subject to dark moments of the soul, and the research detailed in this New York Times article suggests that the more barriers and impediments there are to impulsively harming ourselves, the less likely we are to try.  If you do own guns, at least try to create barriers and delays such as keeping the guns locked up in a gun safe, keeping ammunition separate from the guns, or even not keeping ammunition in the home where guns reside.  Not only does this protect you from those dark moments of the soul but it may also protect someone you love, your spouse, or your child.

Again, I highly recommend a careful reading of the original article, as it has much other information that is useful and interesting.

In answering the question of the title, I have to say that reading this article convinced me that we should build a suicide barrier for the Golden Gate Bridge. Yes, it would lower the beauty of this gorgeous bridge, at least for pedestrians, but I have to believe that saving another 2000 lives trumps a pretty walk across the Bay.

Copyright © 2008 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

All Rights reserved (Any web links must credit this site, and must include a link back to this site.)

A fascinating idea is how to protect your brain using simple nutrients. Can we protect our brains from depression, Alzheimer’s, even stroke using simple nutrients or over the counter supplements?

The Wall Street Journal just published an interesting article about using fish oil to treat or prevent a variety of illnesses. They even summarize the findings with recommended doses of fish oil. For instance, to prevent heart disease, they recommend one gram of EPA or more per day. For optimum brain health, take one half gram of DHA or more. Even Rheumatoid arthritis may respond to 2 grams or more of fish oil.

Fish oil contains omega-3 fatty acids, of which there are two main ones; EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). Repeat after me if you want to really impress your physician: “eye-coh-sah-pent-ah-eh-no-ick  acid” and “doh-coh-sah-hex-ah-eh-no-ick acid”. Now you see why articles always say EPA and DHA!

There is a very interesting tie in with DHA and Alzheimer’s disease, as explained by an article on medicinenet.com.  It turns out that people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tend to have low levels of a brain protein called LR11, and about 15% of those with AD have a gene mutation that reduces LR11. LR11 works to clear the brain of amyloid proteins, which are implicated in the production of beta-amyloid plaque that clogs the neurons of those with AD.  Scientists tested DHA in rodents and in cultures of brain cells, and found that DHA causes higher production of LR11.

So should you be taking fish oil capsules, and how many, and which brand? I’d say if you eat oily fish like salmon 3 times a week or more, don’t worry about it. But for the rest of us (all of us?) it may make sense to add fish oil capsules to our vitamin regimen. A 1999 Italian study found that adding 3 capsules a day reduces the incidence of sudden cardiac death by 45%! The subjects in this study mostly also took baby aspirin, which may work to increase the effects of fish oil.

I’d certainly talk to your doctor about it. Be sure to print out the Wall Street Journal article, which demonstrates that there were few if any side effects. Some doctors think taking fish oil will make you bleed more easily, but studies of very high doses haven’t found this. In fact, the main side effect is belching fish smells, but I have found this is dependent on the brand and type of capsules you take.

Here’s a quick rundown on what to look for in fish oil capsules. First of all, they vary as to how much of the essential ingredients they contain. Most capsules contain 1 gram of oil, but much less Omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Some contain as little as 200mg. of the Omega-3’s, which means you have to eat  a LOT of capsules to get much EPA or DHA. Often the bottles will mislead you by citing the amount per serving, and when you look more carefully you will see that one serving is 3 or 4 capsules!

So you want as high a concentration of EPA and DHA as possible. You also want fish oil that has been molecularly distilled to remove any possible contaminants such as pesticides, dioxin, etc.

Although I rarely make product recommendations, I heartily recommend Trader Joe’s Fish Oil capsules. Priced at $7.99 for a bottle of 100 capsules, these capsules are molecularly distilled, and contain 300 mg. of EPA, and 200 mg. of DHA per capsule. That means that 2 capsules make up 1 gram of Omega-3’s.  So it is easy to take 1 or 2 grams of Omega-3’s per day, at an affordable cost. These compare favorably with much more expensive brands of omega-3 capsules.  Another trick is to store these in the refrigerator, so the oil doesn’t turn, and occasionally break open a capsule and smell it. Although it may have a slightly fishy smell, it should smell rancid or strong.

So there you have it, a simple way to reduce heart disease, autoimmune disease and inflammation, and improve brain health. Cost? About $0.16  per day for 2 capsules.

As always, as I am not a physician, and certainly not your physician, talk to your doctor and do your own research before consuming more than a capsule a day of fish oil.

Copyright 2008 The Psychology Lounge/ TPL Productions 

All Rights reserved (Any web links must credit this site, and must include a link back to this site)

Here is some more evidence that we poorly predict happiness and unhappiness.

A recent article in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology again shows how poor we are at predicting our future states of happiness or unhappiness. As I wrote about in previous posts on happiness, we seem to be quite poor at predicting how we will feel in the future.

Eli Finkel and Paul Eastwick at Northwestern University studied young lovers to see if their predictions of unhappiness after a breakup matched their actual suffering when the breakup occurred.

They looked at college students who had been dating for at least two months and had them fill out multiple questionnaires. Twenty six of the students broke up during the first six months of the study and these students predictions of distress were examined. The students at rated how painful a breakup would be on average two weeks before the breakup.

On average people overestimated the pain of a breakup. There was some correlation between how much people were in love and how much pain they suffered after the breakup, but everyone recovered more quickly than they had predicted. Looking at the actual study it appears that people were able to predict somewhat accurately their suffering in the first two weeks after the breakup. The correlation between their prediction and the actual distress was about 0.60 which means that they were able to predict about 36% of their suffering. But between weeks six and 10, the correlations dropped to about 0.30, which means that they were only able to predict about 10% of the variation in their suffering.

This is interesting in terms of the habituation process that I wrote about earlier. We habituate to both good and bad events. And we underestimate our ability to adapt to both types of events.

Now we shouldn’t make too much of this study. Remember this is a study of college students who had been dating for at least two months. This isn’t exactly a study of deep connection and commitment. It would be interesting, but much more difficult, to look at the same data for married couples who later break up.

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge ™  /TPL Productions , All Rights Reserved