[rubicon33]

Here's what people who don't have depression, constantly think about depression:

I just need X and then I won't be depressed!

That's a NORMAL psychological process (not having something important, feeling negative about it). If obtaining X (career, significant relationship, etc.) does cure your "depression" then you didn't have clinical depression to begin with. You're a human being who was unhappy that their situation in life was crappy.

The litmus test for depression is when, even after obtaining X, your baseline resets to a depressed state as you were before you had X. So while obtaining X might bring some relief, you always return to a baseline happiness that is significantly lower than the average person.

[psyc]

"Clinical depression" means you've been diagnosed by a qualified medical doctor. The litmus test is whether you're experiencing symptoms that meet the criteria. Patients receive comparable treatment, whether the underlying causes are presumed to be situational or organic. The many psychiatrists I've seen acknowledge biological, psychological, and social causes. Everything I've read on the subject indicates that most psychiatrists do.

[rubicon33]

Perhaps then, my use of "clinical" is in error. I should say something more like, "treatment resistant".

For god sakes, if you smoke a pack a day, don't have a job, and haven't left the house for 2 weeks... I'd sure bet you qualify as being "depressed" in the literal sense. I'm more interested in the individual who fixes those things, and yet, still wants to die.

[ZenoArrow]

> "If obtaining X (career, significant relationship, etc.) does cure your "depression" then you didn't have clinical depression to begin with."

Depends. There's a decent amount of evidence that exercise can help reduce episodes of depression, even clinical depression. If obtaining X is obtaining a healthier body, then there's a decent chance you can help to lift yourself out of a funk by getting it. However, there's comfort in believing that something can't be helped, so I won't blame you if you don't believe me.

[rubicon33]

To clarify my point... Exercise, good sleep, healthy diet, a social life, and a career, are some pre-requisites before you get to start talking about being CLINICALLY depressed. Situationally depressed, sure. But I'm making a distinction between someone who is depressed because they aren't meeting some basic needs (of which exercise is one), and the type of depression that persists DESPITE meeting these basic needs.

By no means am I saying that a clinically depressed individual "cant be helped". There's nothing comforting about that thought at all. Quite the contrary, those types of people DO exist and have found relief visa vi standard modes of care (CBT, and medication).

[ZenoArrow]

> "Quite the contrary, those types of people DO exist and have found relief visa vi standard modes of care (CBT, and medication)."

If a clinically depressed person tries both medication and exercise, and finds exercise helps them more, does that bother you? Are you suggesting that they can't have been clinically depressed?

[rubicon33]

Of course that wouldn't bother me. In fact, that's what I would expect.

If you're "depressed" but you don't workout, adding a solid workout plan to your life can be a bigger positive effect in your mood than therapy or medication.

But... if you're managing your life well, including exercising, and still feel depressed then that's what I am qualifying as "clinically depressed".

Of course we all get "depressed" when we eat like shit, don't have meaningful relationships, don't have a meaningful career, and never workout. That's to be expected.

[ZenoArrow]

> "if you're managing your life well, including exercising, and still feel depressed then that's what I am qualifying as "clinically depressed"."

This is the point I still can't understand. So in other words you're only clinically depressed if the only thing that helps you is external help (medication, CBT, etc...)? Why do you use that definition? It doesn't seem to be a definition shared by the psychiatry community or the psychology community.

[trgv]

I imagine there are "people diagnosed with clinically depression" who could cure their depression by exercising and/or changing their life in some way.

However, I know a couple people who do not fall into that bucket. Both of these people suffer bouts of totally debilitating depression. They are both respected within their communities, smart, successful, and have full lives. Both of them get a lot of exercise, both are extremely fit and have been their whole lives.

In my opinion, the way to look at this kind of depression is as a chemical imbalance. Theorizing that there's some missing piece in their lives seems ridiculous to me. And yes, antidepressants work.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> In my opinion, the way to look at this kind of depression is as a chemical imbalance.

Having lived my entire life dealing with depression, I believe you are wrong. Any "chemical imbalance" is a symptom, the physical expression of a mind suffering.

[psyc]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-illness-metaphor...

[splintercell]

I firmly believe that there are different kinds of depression. The kind of depression Christina Ricci has in 'Prozac Nation', or the author of 'Noonday Demon' has, is not the same thing, which a lot of people face on episodic level.

The kind of depression you're talking about (which you incorrectly term as 'clinical depression') is exactly how you describe it. There is no cause X, in the world which would fix it.

However, a lot of people feel depressed and their cause is different, than the cause for the first kind of depression.

The article GP linked, is talking about a theory that it's caused by body shutting down to prevent you from overinvesting in failed strategy is quite true for people feeling second kind of depression, and this may be the evolutionary reason for depression.

For the first kind of depression, I believe it's a disease caused by the depression (which has evolutionary reasons) working erratically.