Neurotoxicity of PEA and its derivatives

[sufficient_page]

Hello all,

Not meaning to scare everyone!! But I found this paper and some others (and certain comments elsewhere) that did alarm me for a bit, I'd like to ask what more knowledgeable people here think.

This paper suggests PEA contributes to the development of Parkinson's disease, and even implicates the minute amount of PEA in chocolate and wine

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236192409_Contribution_of_b-phenethylamine_a_component_of_chocolate_and_wine_to_dopaminergic_neurodegeneration_Implications_for_the_pathogenesis_of_Parkinson%27s_disease

Typical intake of PEA in supplements on its own is ... a lot more than chocolate or wine, if this is true then it's truly bad.

In other studies, like this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8984208 it shows amphetamines, meth, etc. (PEA derivatives) may also cause Parkinson's disease.

If this stuff is all true, that means a lot of stims we love might be all bad. Hopefully that's not the case. Anyone can explain what this is all about?

 

[sns8778]

I think that this is a good example of what I've commonly said - that in today's times, if you look hard enough you can probably find a study that shows almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it has any practical application in the real world.

One of the first things that stands out to me as disappointing is that the researchers didn't make the very obvious truthful statement that - one of the reasons that Parkinson's is more common now than in the past is that Parkinson's onset is much more common in individuals after age 60 and as the average life expectancy increases, of course the number of cases of it is going to increase bc more people are living longer and therefore being susceptible to getting it.

The researchers were looking to show that Phenethylamine can contribute to it but if you notice in there conclusion, it was not definitively worded at all.

A big issue with studies like this too is that they don't weigh things like - for example, if wine has x nutrient that may contribute to one condition but y nutrient that may have preventative effects against 5 others, what is the net sum of benefits versus detriment?

People have been eating chocolate and drinking wine for ages.

As for the second study that you said shows that amphetamines may also cause Parkinson's, here are a couple of things from that study that are significant:

Animal studies on amphetamines and neurotoxicity studies on abusers of illegal stimulants suggest that stimulants are one of the many neurotoxins that cause PD [56]. However, in most animal studies, stimulants were used at significantly higher doses than those used for the clinical treatment of patients with ADHD.

Many studies have investigated whether the use of stimulants in patients with ADHD causes or worsens abnormal movements. Tic disorders are the most commonly studied type of disease. Contrary to the initial belief, recent studies have reported that stimulants may be a factor that influences emotion rather than causing tic symptoms. Studies on abnormal motor symptoms other than tics are mostly case reports, and further evidence is required. Stimulants have been used to treat ADHD for the last several decades, and it is controversial whether these medications act as neurotoxins which cause PD. As the life expectancy of the human race has increased, the incidence of degenerative diseases, such as PD, has rapidly increased. Studies on whether stimulants can affect the onset of PD have mainly been conducted on animals or on illegal drug abusers using METH. Although many studies have reported that among the stimulants used to treat ADHD, methylphenidate is relatively safe compared to amphetamines, recent epidemiological studies have shown that methylphenidate may also increase the incidence of BG&Crelated diseases such as PD. However, there is still a lack of evidence to support that the use of stimulants in patients with ADHD may be a direct cause of PD, and related studies are in the early stages. As stimulants are one of the most commonly used medications in children and adolescents, close observations and studies are necessary in the future to assess their effects on the development of movement disorders.


I hope that info helps.

 

[sufficient_page]

Thanks Steve - it seems this stuff isn't really yet conclusive. Again I wasn't trying to scare people but wanted to see how valid/useful are these studies that did appear scary when I read them. I personally use PEA-like stims myself and certainly would like to not develop some nasty disease later

I think that this is a good example of what I've commonly said - that in today's times, if you look hard enough you can probably find a study that shows almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it has any practical application in the real world.

One of the first things that stands out to me as disappointing is that the researchers didn't make the very obvious truthful statement that - one of the reasons that Parkinson's is more common now than in the past is that Parkinson's onset is much more common in individuals after age 60 and as the average life expectancy increases, of course the number of cases of it is going to increase bc more people are living longer and therefore being susceptible to getting it.

The researchers were looking to show that Phenethylamine can contribute to it but if you notice in there conclusion, it was not definitively worded at all.

A big issue with studies like this too is that they don't weigh things like - for example, if wine has x nutrient that may contribute to one condition but y nutrient that may have preventative effects against 5 others, what is the net sum of benefits versus detriment?

People have been eating chocolate and drinking wine for ages.

As for the second study that you said shows that amphetamines may also cause Parkinson's, here are a couple of things from that study that are significant:

Animal studies on amphetamines and neurotoxicity studies on abusers of illegal stimulants suggest that stimulants are one of the many neurotoxins that cause PD [56]. However, in most animal studies, stimulants were used at significantly higher doses than those used for the clinical treatment of patients with ADHD.

Many studies have investigated whether the use of stimulants in patients with ADHD causes or worsens abnormal movements. Tic disorders are the most commonly studied type of disease. Contrary to the initial belief, recent studies have reported that stimulants may be a factor that influences emotion rather than causing tic symptoms. Studies on abnormal motor symptoms other than tics are mostly case reports, and further evidence is required. Stimulants have been used to treat ADHD for the last several decades, and it is controversial whether these medications act as neurotoxins which cause PD. As the life expectancy of the human race has increased, the incidence of degenerative diseases, such as PD, has rapidly increased. Studies on whether stimulants can affect the onset of PD have mainly been conducted on animals or on illegal drug abusers using METH. Although many studies have reported that among the stimulants used to treat ADHD, methylphenidate is relatively safe compared to amphetamines, recent epidemiological studies have shown that methylphenidate may also increase the incidence of BG&Crelated diseases such as PD. However, there is still a lack of evidence to support that the use of stimulants in patients with ADHD may be a direct cause of PD, and related studies are in the early stages. As stimulants are one of the most commonly used medications in children and adolescents, close observations and studies are necessary in the future to assess their effects on the development of movement disorders.


I hope that info helps.

 

[Smont]

You gotta remember something, studies don't prove anything, there just a small piece of information that points in a direction. Often times a study can easily be manipulated and guide the outcome in the direction they're looking for. No I'm not saying that's what happened here I'm just using that as an example. You also have to look at who is involved in these studies. As was mentioned above you can often find a study to agree or disagree with anything you want if you look hard enough.

I remember reading a study that says diet soda causes cancer and increase risk of death, so I dug a little deeper, low and behold the majority of the participants in the study for over 50, overweight, half were smokers.

So now let's put this into perspective, you're over 50, overweight and you're a smoker this is going to also mean that you likely don't eat very well and don't exercise and don't take care of your general health.

So does diet soda increase your risk of death, or does being a overweight 50-year-old smoker increase your cause of death....

Again I'm not saying anything other than you got to look beyond the studies most of the time they don't prove much.

But! That dosent mean that you shouldn't dig deeper into the topic and research more.

 

[Smont]

I think that this is a good example of what I've commonly said - that in today's times, if you look hard enough you can probably find a study that shows almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it has any practical application in the real world.

One of the first things that stands out to me as disappointing is that the researchers didn't make the very obvious truthful statement that - one of the reasons that Parkinson's is more common now than in the past is that Parkinson's onset is much more common in individuals after age 60 and as the average life expectancy increases, of course the number of cases of it is going to increase bc more people are living longer and therefore being susceptible to getting it.

The researchers were looking to show that Phenethylamine can contribute to it but if you notice in there conclusion, it was not definitively worded at all.

A big issue with studies like this too is that they don't weigh things like - for example, if wine has x nutrient that may contribute to one condition but y nutrient that may have preventative effects against 5 others, what is the net sum of benefits versus detriment?

People have been eating chocolate and drinking wine for ages.

As for the second study that you said shows that amphetamines may also cause Parkinson's, here are a couple of things from that study that are significant:

Animal studies on amphetamines and neurotoxicity studies on abusers of illegal stimulants suggest that stimulants are one of the many neurotoxins that cause PD [56]. However, in most animal studies, stimulants were used at significantly higher doses than those used for the clinical treatment of patients with ADHD.

Many studies have investigated whether the use of stimulants in patients with ADHD causes or worsens abnormal movements. Tic disorders are the most commonly studied type of disease. Contrary to the initial belief, recent studies have reported that stimulants may be a factor that influences emotion rather than causing tic symptoms. Studies on abnormal motor symptoms other than tics are mostly case reports, and further evidence is required. Stimulants have been used to treat ADHD for the last several decades, and it is controversial whether these medications act as neurotoxins which cause PD. As the life expectancy of the human race has increased, the incidence of degenerative diseases, such as PD, has rapidly increased. Studies on whether stimulants can affect the onset of PD have mainly been conducted on animals or on illegal drug abusers using METH. Although many studies have reported that among the stimulants used to treat ADHD, methylphenidate is relatively safe compared to amphetamines, recent epidemiological studies have shown that methylphenidate may also increase the incidence of BG&Crelated diseases such as PD. However, there is still a lack of evidence to support that the use of stimulants in patients with ADHD may be a direct cause of PD, and related studies are in the early stages. As stimulants are one of the most commonly used medications in children and adolescents, close observations and studies are necessary in the future to assess their effects on the development of movement disorders.


I hope that info helps.

Do you believe that ADD or ADHD is a actual medical condition. I'm not debating whether or not it's a real thing as I do believe it's a real thing but I forgot where I heard this and it made a lot of sense, It was a medical professional that said this, not some random person.

The Medical field calls it a disease and some even say it's hereditary. But in reality it's a coping mechanism that is developed in childhood. As you get older some ppl grow out of it, those are the ones who can see that there's no longer a need for this coping mechanism, but many times these people still have this coping mechanism they no longer have a use for but they can't turn it off. That's when you have adult add or ADHD.

I don't know if I explained that 100% correctly but it was something along those lines. When I have some free time I'm going to go look for it and see if I can get a link up or some better information on the topic.

 

[Jeremyk1]

You gotta remember something, studies don't prove anything, there just a small piece of information that points in a direction. Often times a study can easily be manipulated and guide the outcome in the direction they're looking for. No I'm not saying that's what happened here I'm just using that as an example. You also have to look at who is involved in these studies. As was mentioned above you can often find a study to agree or disagree with anything you want if you look hard enough.

I remember reading a study that says diet soda causes cancer and increase risk of death, so I dug a little deeper, low and behold the majority of the participants in the study for over 50, overweight, half were smokers.

So now let's put this into perspective, you're over 50, overweight and you're a smoker this is going to also mean that you likely don't eat very well and don't exercise and don't take care of your general health.

So does diet soda increase your risk of death, or does being a overweight 50-year-old smoker increase your cause of death....

Again I'm not saying anything other than you got to look beyond the studies most of the time they don't prove much.

But! That dosent mean that you shouldn't dig deeper into the topic and research more.

Well there is a big issue with epidemiological studies like this. Years ago, there was a study showing that multivitamins reduce risk of cancer. But over 90% of vitamins have terrible formulation and stuff. One analysis I read said it’s more likely that taking a multivitamin is just a good indicator of someone with a healthier lifestyle. I suspect the diet soda thing you’re talking about is similar. Sodas probably don’t “cause” cancer. But someone who drinks diet soda is gonna be an overweight person with a poor lifestyle.

 

[Smont]

Well there is a big issue with epidemiological studies like this. Years ago, there was a study showing that multivitamins reduce risk of cancer. But over 90% of vitamins have terrible formulation and stuff. One analysis I read said it’s more likely that taking a multivitamin is just a good indicator of someone with a healthier lifestyle. I suspect the diet soda thing you’re talking about is similar. Sodas probably don’t “cause” cancer. But someone who drinks diet soda is gonna be an overweight person with a poor lifestyle.

Not necessarily the person who drinks diet soda is going to be unhealthy, but for the study they picked unhealthy ppl to drink the soda in the first place.

But, you also could be correct, have you ever walked into a fast food joint and had a person in front of you "in my case many times it was a obese female" just a observation, but they order about 2000 calories worth of fast food and a .....diet coke. Seen it too many times. I even do it myself sometimes. I'll go to McDonald's or somewhere for a cheat meal and still order a diet Coke and I got no clue why lol. Can't have that sugar but I can eat those 280 G of fat

Another thing is how often studies "prove" something and then a few years later another study proves something different, then a few years later a new study proves those other 2 wrong.... Sooooo that means none of the studies were ever really proof. They were wrong the whole time.

I don't want to sound like I'm saying studies are no good, because they are good many times, but people need to take them with a grain of salt and remember they're not proof they're just a piece of evidence that you should use to form your opinion. And you got to look deeper than face value and see where these studies are coming from who they're performed by and what the sample pool was.

 

[Smont]

Genetics of the ppl in the sample pool also is a factor.

Hopefully I'm not jinxing myself, but my family has good genetics for longevity on both sides of the family.

My grandfather on dad's side was born with a heart condition and died at 50, but other than him, every single person on both sides of my family seems to live into their 90s. Completely coherent and able to live and take care of themselves into there 90's regardless of lifestyle. My grandma was 93, completely fine living by herself up until about 2 weeks before she passed away never drank or smoked or anything like that but ate a diet is very heavy in saturated fats from animal products.

Then I had a great aunt who smoked a pack and a half the cigarettes a day drink a big bottle of whiskey every week and lived to also be 94, no health issues.

My other grandma is still alive lives by herself even though we go check up on her and stuff like that, her memory starting to go a little bit but she has no health problems and she's 91, her husband lived to be 90 had no health problems and so on.

Why am I saying all this because if you took a bunch of people like them and use them in a study you might find that drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes or eating poorly doesn't cause health problems, but we know that's not true, it's only reflective to that sample of people.

Sorry if I'm doing a bad job explaining that but I think you can understand where I'm going with it

 

[Resolve10]

I think SNS covered it quite well plus this below.

Well there is a big issue with epidemiological studies like this. Years ago, there was a study showing that multivitamins reduce risk of cancer. But over 90% of vitamins have terrible formulation and stuff. One analysis I read said it’s more likely that taking a multivitamin is just a good indicator of someone with a healthier lifestyle. I suspect the diet soda thing you’re talking about is similar. Sodas probably don’t “cause” cancer. But someone who drinks diet soda is gonna be an overweight person with a poor lifestyle.

Another thing to keep in mind with some of these things (that often seems to happen with supplement ingredients I feel I see) is that sometimes they measure levels of "Y" that is "high" in people with "X" condition. Further research should then be warranted to determine if "Y" is part of the cause for increases in "X" or if it is something else that is causing high levels of "Y" to be seen and therefore the "Y" isn't necessarily a cause, but an indicator of "X" condition.

I am admittedly spacing on the specific terminology for this situation so maybe an example can help. For instance in diabetics there is often a rise in ketones in the blood, but ingesting ketones or using diet to induce a level of higher ketones in the blood wouldn't immediately be cause of concern for causing diabetes.

That isn't to say I am totally dismissing the PEA concerns or similar situations. It could end potentially being a concern, but at this point the research isn't strong enough (IMO) to make a definitive statement that they are detrimental in a direct sense. In the future more direct research may help shed light on an answer.

I do think it is good to ask these questions though as long as it is coming from a place of trying to understand and not a condition of always being fearful or just stressing yourself out endlessly.

 

[sns8778]

Thanks Steve - it seems this stuff isn't really yet conclusive. Again I wasn't trying to scare people but wanted to see how valid/useful are these studies that did appear scary when I read them. I personally use PEA-like stims myself and certainly would like to not develop some nasty disease later

No problem. I'm glad to help in any way that I can.

I like these types of products as well myself.

 

[sns8778]

Do you believe that ADD or ADHD is a actual medical condition. I'm not debating whether or not it's a real thing as I do believe it's a real thing but I forgot where I heard this and it made a lot of sense, It was a medical professional that said this, not some random person.

The Medical field calls it a disease and some even say it's hereditary. But in reality it's a coping mechanism that is developed in childhood. As you get older some ppl grow out of it, those are the ones who can see that there's no longer a need for this coping mechanism, but many times these people still have this coping mechanism they no longer have a use for but they can't turn it off. That's when you have adult add or ADHD.

I don't know if I explained that 100% correctly but it was something along those lines. When I have some free time I'm going to go look for it and see if I can get a link up or some better information on the topic.

ADD/ADHD is definitely a very real medical condition.

Like many medical conditions, there are hereditary factors, but there are also a lot of people that are affected by it that do not have any family history of it.

In regard to what you said about some people thinking that it’s a coping mechanism instead of an actual medical condition, it’s important to note the distinction between ADD/ADHD as a medical condition versus someone exhibiting symptoms of ADD/ADHD type behavior. Think about it like this – you may be bummed out or depressed without suffering from depression or you may exhibit symptoms of OCD in limited circumstances or under stressful situations without having OCD.

I do also think that ADD/ADHD is sometimes over-diagnosed and used as a catchall but some mental health professionals that don’t want (or aren’t allowed to by parents) to by parents look further into things to find out other possible disorders or causes; and also sometimes unfortunately used by parents as an excuse for not properly teaching, working with, or disciplining their children.

For those with legitimate ADD/ADHD, it can range from a mild annoyance to completely debilitating and making one feel that it completely controls their lives.

People do not out grow ADD/ADHD, they learn coping mechanisms to help them cope with or overcome it, but it always has the potential to be there. Some people with mild cases may lead a ‘normal’ life with it rarely if ever causing them problems as adults. Others may struggle with it their entire lives and the intensity of symptoms may be exasperated by things like stress, anxiety, being overwhelmed, etc., to the point where it may be emotionally and mentally crippling to them for large periods of their lives.

Adult ADD/ADHD:
In adult ADD/ADHD, the hyperactivity part is often less than that in children; and sometimes it can be the reverse in that because of the emotional chaos caused by the condition, some adults are actually more fatigued and tired all the time and never hyper at all.

For many adults with ADD/ADHD, they will struggle with feelings very similar to anxiety and may struggle with impulsiveness, restlessness, difficulty paying attention, etc. And for many, as they get older, there is strong indications that it may start to affect their memory – think of it as brain overload and their brain reaching a point where they just can’t process all the thoughts racing through it anymore and it affecting both short term and long-term memory and recall.

Late-Onset ADD/ADHD:
It used to be thought that a person had to have ADD/ADHD as a child to have it as an adult, but that is not true. There are some studies that show something called – late-onset ADHD – and its been found that there is an estimated 2.5% to 10.7% of cases where the symptoms of ADHD did not show up until adolescence or adulthood. These studies also indicate that many adult ADHD cases, as high as 67.5% to 90% of severe cases, do not experience the onset symptoms in childhood.

I think that the prevalence of late-onset ADHD is influenced by several factors:

• That it is true that a lot of cases don’t occur until later in life.
• That in some cases that are milder, the symptoms aren’t diagnosed as children but are there, and the child may intentionally or unintentionally find ways to cope with them, maybe without even realizing it. And then something happens later in life to bring it to the forefront.
• That a big thing now in our lives in general is overstimulation – we just have more things to do and more things to get distracted with and more things to be stressed about – so these triggers bring it out more in adults now.

I hope that all of this makes sense the way I explained it.

 

[Supra40]

Keep reading, i have had investigate on mine brain it works well, when you hit over 50 years of ageyou dont need nothing because all went down. Next level in me will be nuclear fussion.