Renaldoedmondson

While psychiatric medications can be essential for improving mental health and well-being, they often come with unwanted side effects. One particular side effect of many psychiatric medications is weight gain. In this post we will explore how these medications cause weight gain, and what you can do to lessen the impact of this unwanted effect of many psychiatric medications.

What are the different types of psychiatric medications?

There are five main types of psychiatric prescription medications: antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics (also known as anti-anxiety medications, which can include medications for sleep), mood stabilizers, and stimulants. Stimulants are not likely to cause weight gain. In fact, many of them reduce appetite and can cause weight loss as a side effect. These medications will not be discussed in this post.

Antidepressants can be divided into separate classes:

• SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, increase serotonin levels in the brain.
• SNRIs, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, increase both serotonin and norepinephrine in the brain.
• TCAs, or tricyclic antidepressants, increase serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine in the brain.
• MAOIs, or monoamine oxidase inhibitors, increase serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in the brain.

Why do antidepressants cause weight changes?

All of these medications increase serotonin levels in the brain. Serotonin regulates mood and affects appetite, yet this can have varying results depending on length of treatment. Short-term use reduces impulsivity and increases satiety, which can reduce food intake and cause weight loss. However, long-term use (longer than a year) can cause downregulation of serotonin receptors, which subsequently causes cravings for carbohydrate-rich foods such as bread, pasta, and sweets that ultimately may lead to weight gain. The antidepressants with the highest risk of causing weight gain are amitriptyline, citalopram, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, trimipramine, paroxetine, and phenelzine.

Why do antipsychotic medications worsen obesity-related diseases?

Antipsychotics can also be categorized into two classes: typical and atypical antipsychotics. Both classes can cause weight gain, but they differ in that atypical antipsychotics cause fewer movement disorder side effects. Like antidepressants, antipsychotics affect the chemical messengers in the brain associated with appetite control and energy metabolism, namely serotonin, dopamine, histamine, and muscarinic receptors. In addition to causing weight gain, antipsychotics can also impair glucose metabolism, increase cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and cause hypertension, all of which can lead to metabolic syndrome and worsen obesity-related diseases. The antipsychotics most likely to cause weight gain are olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine.

What about anti-anxiety medications and weight changes?

There is no clear link between traditional anti-anxiety medications such as benzodiazepines and weight gain. However, many antidepressants are also used for the treatment of anxiety, and may cause weight gain as discussed above.

Similarly, not all medications for sleep cause weight gain; one that has been associated with weight gain is diphenhydramine (the active ingredient in Benadryl that is also used in many over-the-counter sleep aids). Diphenhydramine can contribute to weight gain by causing increased hunger and tiredness, which can make a person less active. Other sleep aids such as zolpidem (Ambien) or eszopiclone (Lunesta) have not been linked to weight gain.

Trazodone, a medication used for depression as well as insomnia, reduces excess serotonin at some sites, while increasing serotonin levels at other sites, thus affecting appetite as previously discussed.

Mood stabilizers are often used to treat bipolar disease, and can increase appetite or cause changes in metabolism. Although some antidepressants and antipsychotics are also used to treat bipolar disease, mood stabilizers such as lithium, valproic acid, divalproex sodium, carbamazepine, and lamotrigine are the mood stabilizers often used for treatment of bipolar disorder, and with the exception of lamotrigine, they are all known to increase the risk of weight gain.

There are effective strategies to minimize weight gain

For people taking psychiatric medications for mental health, there are strategies to minimize weight gain. Optimizing lifestyle and daily habits is important. This includes eating a healthy diet with whole foods and limiting processed foods and added sugars; staying physically active; minimizing stress; and ensuring adequate restful sleep. Physical activity, in particular, can have a double effect of both improving mental health and minimizing weight gain that might otherwise occur. Cognitive and behavioral strategies under the guidance of a psychologist may be useful for avoiding giving in to any increased cravings for sweets and carbohydrates.

Another strategy to minimize weight gain is to work with your healthcare provider to determine if there might be an appropriate alternate medication option with a lower risk of weight gain. In addition, the anti-diabetes medication metformin has been shown to be effective in treating and preventing psychotropic-induced weight gain. Other medications prescribed for weight loss may also be appropriate to help counteract the weight gain experienced by psychotropic medications.

Be aware that almost all medications have a risk of causing side effects, and it is important to ensure that the benefits of taking any medications will outweigh the risks. Speaking to your primary care provider, psychiatrist, or obesity medicine specialist can be useful in determining which options may work best for you.

About the Author

Chika Anekwe, MD, MPH, Contributor

Chika V. Anekwe, MD, MPH is an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Weight Center and Instructor in Medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS). Her professional interests are in the areas of clinical nutrition, … See Full Bio View all posts by Chika Anekwe, MD, MPH

When trying intermittent fasting, both the quantity and quality of what you eat during your eating window matter.

Intermittent fasting is a trendy topic that arises repeatedly in my clinic these days. I get it: restrict the time period when you eat, but within that time window eat as you normally would. No calorie counting. No food restrictions. Simple and flexible. In an on-the-go world, intermittent fasting has come into vogue as a potential pathway toward sustainable weight loss.

What is Intermittent fasting?

Intermittent fasting (IF) has become a catch-all term for one of the key levers in our dietary pattern: timing. More accurately, intermittent fasting refers to an eating schedule that is designed to expand the amount of time your body experiences a fasted state. You achieve this by reducing the so-called eating window. The most popular time-restricted eating protocols (typically based on study designs) are explained in these previously published articles:

• Time to try intermittent fasting?
• Intermittent fasting: The positive news continues
• Not so fast: Pros and cons of the newest diet trend

How might time-restricted eating help with weight loss?

To start, consider a fed state that promotes cellular growth versus a fasted state that stimulates cellular breakdown and repair. Both can be beneficial or harmful, depending on the context (consider how cellular growth builds lean muscle mass and also spawns cancer). Many of our genes, particularly those that regulate our metabolism (how we digest and utilize the energy from food), are turned on and off each day in accordance with our innate circadian rhythms (our sleep/wake cycle).

We transition from a fed to an early fasted state several hours — five to six, on average — after our last meal. This often aligns with the time when the sun has set, our metabolism slows, and we sleep. However, in our modern environment with artificial lights, 24-hour convenience stores, and DoorDash, we are persistently primed to eat. Rather than obeying our circadian cues, we are eating at all times of day.

Plenty of research, mainly in animal models but also some human trials, indicates that your body experiences numerous benefits from being in a fasted state, given its impact on cellular processes and function. In a fully fasted state, your metabolism switches its primary source of fuel from glucose to ketones, which triggers a host of cellular signaling to dampen cellular growth pathways and increase cellular repair and recycling mechanisms. Repeated exposure to a fasted state induces cellular adaptations that include increased insulin sensitivity, antioxidant defenses, and mitochondrial function.

Given how much of chronic disease is driven by underlying insulin resistance and inflammation, it’s plausible that fasting may help reduce diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, and obesity. And multiple short-term clinical studies provide evidence that intermittent fasting — specifically, time-restricted feeding — can improve markers of cardiometabolic health.

Is intermittent fasting a reliable strategy to achieve weight loss?

To date, the answer has remained murky due to the quality of the evidence, which often involves very small sample sizes, short intervention periods, varied study designs (often lacking control groups), different fasting protocols, and participants of varying shapes and sizes. The data on intermittent fasting and its impact on weight loss largely involves studies that employ the time-restricted eating methodology of intermittent fasting. A recent compilation of the evidence suggests that limiting your eating window might indeed help you shed a few pounds.

New research on IF as a tool for weight loss

To tease out the independent impact of time restriction on weight loss, we need to evaluate a calorie-restricted diet combined with time-restricted eating, compared to time-restricted eating alone. The recent results of a yearlong study assessed this exact question: does time-restricted eating with calorie restriction produce greater effects on weight loss and metabolic risk factors in obese patients, as compared with daily calorie restriction alone?

To answer this question, the trial involved people ages 18 to 75 with BMIs between 28 and 45, notably excluding those who were actively participating in a weight-loss program or using medications that affect weight or calorie intake. Participants were instructed to follow a 25% calorie-reduced diet (1,500 to 1,800 calories per day for men and 1,200 to 1,500 calories per day for women) with a set ratio of calories from protein, carbs, and fats. In order to confirm adherence to the diet (a notorious challenge in diet studies), participants were encouraged to weigh foods and were required to keep a daily dietary log, photograph the food they ate, and note the times at which they ate with the use of a custom mobile app.

Half of the participants (those in the time-restricted eating group) were instructed to consume the prescribed calories within an eight-hour period, whereas the other half in the daily-calorie-restriction group consumed the prescribed calories without time restriction. All participants were also instructed to maintain their usual daily physical activity throughout the trial, to remove this variable and to isolate the timing of food intake as the only difference between the two groups.

After a full year, 118 patients successfully completed the study, with similar rates of adherence to the diet and composition of the diet between the two groups. Both groups lost a significant amount of weight: an average of about 18 pounds for the time-restricted eating group and 14 pounds for the daily-calorie-restriction group. The difference in weight loss between the two groups was not statistically significant, nor was there a significant difference in weight loss among subgroups when sorted by sex, BMI at baseline, or insulin sensitivity. The resulting improvements in blood pressure, lipids, glucose, and cardiometabolic risk factors were also similar between the two groups. This trial provides strong evidence that, all else being equal, restricting the eating window alone does not have a substantive impact on weight loss.

What does the new research on IF mean for you?

For most people (with notable exclusions of those who have diabetes, eating disorders, are pregnant or breastfeeding, or require food with their meds), a time-restricted eating approach appears to be a safe strategy that is likely to produce some weight loss, assuming you are not changing your current dietary pattern (eating more calories).

The weight loss effects of time-restricted eating derive primarily from achieving a negative energy balance. If you maintain your regular diet and then limit the time window during which you eat, it is likely that you will eat a few hundred fewer calories per day. If this is sustainable as a lifestyle, it could add up to modest weight loss (3% to 8% on average, based on current data) that can produce beneficial improvements in cardiometabolic markers such as blood pressure, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and average blood sugar.

But — and this is a big but — if you are overcompensating for the time restriction by gorging yourself during your eating window, it will not work as a weight loss strategy. And it may indeed backfire. The other two levers in your dietary pattern — the quantity and quality of what you eat during your eating window — still matter immensely!

One downside of IF: Loss of lean muscle mass

While weight loss for cardiometabolic health is a sensible goal, weight loss from any intervention (including intermittent fasting) often entails a concurrent loss of lean muscle mass. This has been a notable finding — what I might even call an adverse side effect — of intermittent fasting protocols. Given the importance of lean muscle mass for revving your metabolic rate, regulating your blood sugar, and keeping you physically able overall, pairing resistance training with an intermittent fasting protocol is strongly advised.

Finally, the weight loss achieved through time-restricted eating (which we often refer to interchangeably with intermittent fasting) is likely different than the cellular adaptations that happen with more prolonged fully fasted states. At this time, it is hard to determine the degree to which the cardiometabolic benefits of fasting derive from weight loss or from underlying cellular adaptations; it is likely an interrelated combination of both.

Nevertheless, it seems clear that in a 24/7 world of around-the-clock eating opportunities, all of us could benefit from aligning with our circadian biology, and spend a bit less time in a fed state and more time in a fasted state each day.

About the Author

Richard Joseph, MD, Contributor

Dr. Richard Joseph is the founder of VIM Medicine, cofounder of Vital CxNs, a practicing clinician in the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, MA, and a faculty member at Harvard … See Full Bio View all posts by Richard Joseph, MD

For the longest time, your milk choices were whole, 2%, 1%, and fat-free (or skim). Today, refrigerator shelves at grocery stores are crowded with plant-based milks made from nuts, beans, or grains, and include favorites like almond, soy, coconut, cashew, oat, and rice. Yet the fertile ground of the plant-milk business continues to sprout new options, such as pistachio, pea, and even potato milk. It seems if you can grow it, you can make milk out of it.

So, are these new alternatives better nutritionally than the other plant milks — or just more of the same?

A few facts about plant-based milks

Plant-based milks are all made the same way: nuts, beans, or grains are ground into pulp, strained, and combined with water. You end up with only a small percentage of the actual plant — less than 10% for most brands. Nutrients like vitamin D, calcium, potassium, and protein are added in varying amounts. "Still, many alternative milks have similar amounts of these nutrients compared with cow’s milk," says Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Plant-based milks are considered "greener" than dairy and emit fewer greenhouse gases during production. However, growing some of these plants and making them into milk requires great quantities of water. Most plant-based milks are low-calorie. On average, though, these milk products cost more than dairy.

Nutrition, calories, and other benefits of newer plant-based milks

Here’s a closer look at three new members of the alternative-milk family.

• Pistachio milk is not green like the nut, but rather an off-brown color. Because it contains little actual pistachio, you miss out on the nuts' essential vitamins and minerals, like thiamin, manganese, and vitamin B6. Yet pistachio milk contains less than 100 calories per cup, which is similar to skim cow’s milk and other plant-based milks. One extra benefit of pistachio milk is that it's a bit higher in protein than other plant milks (which can be light in the protein department compared with cow’s milk).
• Pea milk is created from yellow field peas, but has no "pea-like" flavor. Its color, taste, and creamy consistency are close to dairy, so people may find it more appealing than the sometimes-watery texture of other plant milks. Pea milk has a decent protein punch — at least 7 grams per serving — and each serving adds up to about 100 calories. It also requires less water in production than other plant milks, and has a smaller carbon footprint than dairy.
• Potato milk looks more like regular dairy milk than other plant milks because of the potato's starchy nature. It’s arguably the most eco-conscious plant milk, because growing potatoes requires less land and water than dairy and other plants. Potato milk also is low-calorie: 80 to 100 per serving.

What’s the best plant-based milk for you?

There doesn’t appear to be a huge difference between most plant milks. Ultimately, three issues drive your choice: digestion issues, environmental impact, and personal taste.

Digestion issues. Plant-based milks are a quality alternative for people with lactose intolerance or lactose sensitivity whose bodies can't break down and digest lactose, the sugar in milk. This causes digestive problems like diarrhea, gas, and bloating. (However, lactose-free and ultra-filtered dairy milk are available for those who prefer dairy.)

Environmental impact. One study in Science found that dairy milk production creates almost three times more greenhouse gas than plant-based milk. However, some plant milks, predominantly almond, demand much water to produce. (Some research suggests the water demands of almond milk are about equal to cow’s milk, according to Dr. Willet.)

Still, if you want to do your part to fight climate change, buying plant-based instead of dairy is the greener choice.

Personal taste. Plant-based milks can be an acquired taste, but with multiple choices, there is a good chance you can find one that satisfies your taste buds. Manufacturers try to overcome the taste dilemma by pouring in extra sugar, sweeteners like vanilla and chocolate, and other additives. So always check the total and added sugar amounts and keep the amount per serving below 10%. Of course, the lower the amount, the better.

About the Author

Matthew Solan, Executive Editor, Harvard Men's Health Watch

Matthew Solan is the executive editor of Harvard Men’s Health Watch. He previously served as executive editor for UCLA Health’s Healthy Years and as a contributor to Duke Medicine’s Health News and Weill Cornell Medical College’s … See Full Bio View all posts by Matthew Solan

A study asks whether people who eat a lot of fish have a higher risk for the skin cancer melanoma.

If you’re trying to stick to a healthy diet, fish is a good choice, right? After all, fish is high in protein, low in saturated fat, and a good source of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, and many other nutrients. Eating more fish can mean eating less of foods with harmful fats and higher calorie counts. Indeed, nutritionists commonly recommend more seafood (and fewer cheeseburgers) to improve your diet, and nutrition guidelines promote fish as part of a healthy diet.

So, it seems surprising that a new study in Cancer Causes and Control suggests a link between eating fish and skin cancer, particularly since the biggest known risk factor for melanoma is not dietary ­–– it’s sun exposure. Having five or more sunburns in your life doubles your risk of developing melanoma.

A study links eating fish often with higher risk of melanoma

Melanoma, the most serious type of skin cancer, is responsible for more than 7,500 deaths in the US each year. And cases are on the rise.

In the new study, researchers found a higher risk of melanoma among people who ate the most fish. This study is among the largest and most well-designed to examine this link. Nearly 500,000 people in six US states completed a dietary questionnaire in 1995 or 1996. The average age of participants was 61 and 60% were male. More than 90% were white, 4% were Black, and 2% were Hispanic.

Over the following 15 years, the researchers tallied how many people developed melanoma, and found that:

• The rate of melanoma was 22% higher among people reporting eating the most fish (about 2.6 servings per week) compared with those who ate the least (0.2 servings a week, or about one serving every five weeks). Similar trends were noted for intake of tuna.
• The risk of precancerous skin changes (called melanoma in situ) rose similarly among those in the group that ate the most fish.
• Interestingly, researchers found no increased risk of melanoma among those eating the most fried fish. This is surprising because, if eating fish increases the risk of melanoma as the study suggests, it’s not clear why frying the fish would eliminate the risk.

Does this mean eating fish causes melanoma?

No, it doesn’t. It’s too soon to make definitive conclusions about the relationship between fish in our diets and melanoma. The study had important limitations, including

• Type of study. Observational studies like this one can detect a possible link between diet and cancer but cannot prove it.
• Reliance on self-reported survey data. People self-reported how many servings of fish they ate each week, which may not be accurate. Also, researchers assumed that fish consumption reported on the initial survey persisted for 15 years, which may not have been the case.
• Accounting for other factors. Many factors affect risk for melanoma, such as varied sun exposure depending on where participants lived. The analysis did account for some key factors, yet the study didn’t collect information about sun exposure, past sunburns, or use of sunscreen — all important in melanoma risk. Nor did researchers ask about skin type or number of moles; fair skin or higher numbers of moles raise risk for melanoma.
• Contaminants. Mercury or arsenic in fish may be to blame for its link to melanoma. This study did not record contaminants, but previous studies link mercury exposure with the risk of skin cancers, including melanoma.
• Lack of diversity. It’s not clear if the findings apply broadly to people in different racial and ethnic groups, because nine in 10 study participants were white.

Are some fish safer to eat than others?

The study did not explore this question. However, if contaminants like mercury in fish are responsible for increasing the risk of melanoma, the FDA offers advice on which fish are safer to eat, particularly for children and those who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Yet even if fish is confirmed as a contributor to the risk of melanoma, other positive effects of fish consumption (such as cardiovascular benefit) may far outweigh this risk.

The bottom line

The researchers responsible for this study are not recommending a change in how much fish people eat. More study is required to confirm the findings, investigate which types of fish affect melanoma risk, and determine whether certain contaminants in fish are responsible for any added risk.

In the meantime, fish with lower mercury levels (such as salmon and clams) remain better dietary choices than the high-fat, highly processed foods typical of many Western diets.

If you’re planning to spend a lot of time outside this summer, limiting sun exposure and using sunscreen will likely have a bigger impact on skin health and your overall health than avoiding seafood.

About the Author

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD