This week’s three new things include:

• A new supplement that may help brain health and mental illness: l-theanine
• A poor comparison between rapid cycling bipolar disorder and the financial markets
• A new discussion of antipsychiatry

1. New to Me: L-Theanine as an Antidepressant

Maurya, a commenter, asked if I knew anything about l-theanine. Well, I didn’t. Every once in a while even I run across something of which I haven’t heard.

So, for those of you in my boat, here’s a bit about l-theanine:

• L-theanine is derived from green tea although we’re not sure of the best way to extract it.
• L-theanine has been studied on mice and seems to exert antipsychotic- or even antidepressant-like qualities.
• L-theanine is a glutamate derivative and loyal readers will know that I think glutamate will be a big player in mental illness treatment in the next few years. (N-acetylcysteine (NAC) also works with glutamate.)
• There is very little conclusive research on l-theanine, we really just have ideas about what it does; it may possibly be a stress-reducer
• L-theanine may improve cognitive impairment (a human study)

As always, as this is a supplement it is not FDA-controlled and there is no guarantee as to what you will get in the bottle and you should never take any supplement without first checking with your doctor.

More studies on l-theanine can be found here.

2. What I Don’t Like – A Half-Assed Comparison Between Bipolar Disorder and the Financial Markets

I’m a writer so questionable metaphors irk me. And rapid cycling bipolar disorder as a metaphor for the financial marketplace? Really? That’s a whole new level of irk.

If you really want to make that comparison then the bulk of the article should be on the markets and not mental illness, and not the other way around like Lloyd I. Sederer M. D. did in Rapid Cycling Bipolar Disorder: In the Office and On ‘The Street.’

Comments of Mental Illness Stigma

All this poorly-written article did was confuse people and elicit a bunch of anti-bipolar comments like:

“The foundation of the Bi-Polar epidemic is based in suppressed biochemist­ry, outdated understand­ing of genetics and a complete misunderst­anding of our true spiritual nature.”

And,

“So how exactly is this different from saying some people dramatical­ly over-react to external circumstan­ces?

Sorry folks, but this one goes into the notebook for the next philosophi­cal discussion of “medicaliz­ation” as a way of discussing deviance.”

Seems to me he just wanted to use mental illness as an eyeball-grabber, tricking readers onto a topic they would never otherwise read – with the extra bonus of eliciting remarks of stigma.

Gee, thanks.

3. What I Find Interesting – New Discussion of Antipsychiatry

As you might know, I’m not a fan of antipsychiatry folks. I have written a lot on this topic and I’m sure I will write much more in times to come. But I can across this article, Getting It From Both Sides: Foundational and Antifoundational Critiques of Psychiatry which has an interesting discussion of antipsychiatry viewpoints.

Two Sides to Antipsychiatry

It astutely notes there are two sides of antipsychiatry – those who feel that nothing can be defined and thus no mental illness can be defined; and those who feel illness is rigidly defined and mental illness doesn’t meet that definition.

Both sides, as the author says,

“. . . have had the effect of discrediting and marginalizing psychiatry and of delegitimizing psychiatric diagnosis and nosology.”

It’s a very intelligent view of antipsychiatry criticism that is elevated far beyond what we normally see online. Check it out.

Until next week: Smarter and Better.