![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 3 of 3. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by clipper40 on January 2, 2008, at 3:28:57
I've been reading a lot of posts lately about dopaminergic herbs and making a list of the ones I want to try. However, in the back of my mind I kept wondering if they're really any safer. If they're dopamine agonists, then wouldn't they have the same type of problems and risks that other dopamine agonists have?
Also, why do some of you consider Mucuna Pruriens risky?
Lastly, if dopamine converts to norepinephrine, then why aren't all dopaminergic meds and herbs, stimulating? Why don' they all cause the racing heart and increased nervousness etc.? Does the conversion happen in the brain? I thought not but now I'm wondering.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can clarify any of this for me.
Posted by bleauberry on January 2, 2008, at 19:15:16
In reply to Are dopaminergic herbs really any safer than meds?, posted by clipper40 on January 2, 2008, at 3:28:57
The whole dopamine thing is so complicated it is way beyond the understanding of humans on earth. Best guess is that if receptors are either hyposensitive or hypersensitive then there will be problems, and that a drug will cause opposite effects in people depending on the condition of those receptors. For example, ritalin will send some people through the roof with energy and euphoria and maybe psychosis, and yet will totally calm someone else down and maybe even put them to sleep. Dopamine aint simple.
As for conversion from L-Dopa to dopamine to norepinephrine, that too is way complicated. There are all sorts of roadblocks along the way. There are enzymes that control those conversions. There are feedback loops. There is the interplay of hormones like cortisol an thyroid. There are instructions from genetics, pituitary and hypothalamus. One person for example could get increasing dopamine effects with each 1000mg dose of tyrosine they take, while someone else will max out at 1000mg no matter how much more they take.
I am like you and many others here in that I try to analyze in detail how something works so I will know if maybe that is what I need. It just aint that easy. Some things that made perfect sense were horrible. Other things that made no sense at all were a surprise.
Dopamine drugs, and most psych drugs, are tested for what, maybe 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks. And in rare cases they have 52 week trials. As most of us need to be on something for years or forever, they just haven't studied what the drugs do to the brain or body in that timeframe. I think we all know from personal experience and anecdotal evidence that dramatic changes do occur, and some of them are either longlasting or permanent, even months or years after withdrawing from the substance.
I used to think herbs were safer than drugs. I now see them as being equal in safety, or danger, but that the drugs are more concentrated, more single actioned, and more powerful. Personally I do give any herb the same respect I give a prescription med.
Basically I think messing with dopamine is absolutely crucial for recovery, and yet very risky at the same time. Whether it be pharmaceutical or herbal. I think the safest place to look is with things that not only help dopamine function, but that also offer neuroprotection at the same time.
Posted by clipper40 on January 5, 2008, at 3:16:01
In reply to Re: Are dopaminergic herbs really any safer than meds?, posted by bleauberry on January 2, 2008, at 19:15:16
Yes, it is very complicated and I agree with everything else you say here. I am now giving herbs as much respect as meds too. I just wish we could know more of their (potential) interactions the way we do with meds.
How do you feel about the safety of Mucuna Pruriens?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.