I'm getting the impression that some of what I've figured out over the years either isn't as widespread knowledge as I thought, or maybe it's just not something most therapists/doctors explain to user-satisfaction. This ties into the issue of medication for ADD/ADHD, because one of the biggest issues about medication for that specific cognitive issue is that it's, well, pretty freaking illogical. I mean, honestly, my reaction the very first time a doctor suggested a specific medication was, and I quote: "Wait, my brain fires off in every direction at top speed, so you want to give me a stimulant? Are you people on drugs?"
So here's a really really simplified, only barely marginally scientific, explanation of one of the major theories about why stimulants work for ADD/ADHD. Keep in mind that when I say "marginally scientific," I mean that this is an extremely generalized version of something that seems to be how it (generally) works, but the brain is a damn complex organism. The how's and why's of ADD/ADHD (and related cognitive disorders) remain murky and new things are being discovered all the time, as our technology gets better and better at tracking brain processes.
In general, though, I'm told this is the basic gist of how doctors/researchers are somewhat sure (as sure as anyone can be, which is "kind of" and "maybe on days it's not raining" and "ask again tomorrow" styles of 'sure').
First, let's look at a brain that doesn't have a chemical imbalance.
The term "chemical imbalance" is actually pretty literal, if you think of your brain (and your body overall, for the most part) as containing a whole lot of checks and balances. The little receptor points and controllers and whatever else in the brain, the nerves, the cells, so on and so on, don't work in a straight line. Instead, a lot of them work by affecting something else, and making sure that "something else" is balanced properly.
( Yes, more pictures! With the caveat that I beg forgiveness from any biochemistry majors who get cranky when the proper terminology isn't observed, or anyone who gets discomfited by attempts at a generalized, non-scientific, crude explanations of what's admittedly an incredibly complex process. )
So here's a really really simplified, only barely marginally scientific, explanation of one of the major theories about why stimulants work for ADD/ADHD. Keep in mind that when I say "marginally scientific," I mean that this is an extremely generalized version of something that seems to be how it (generally) works, but the brain is a damn complex organism. The how's and why's of ADD/ADHD (and related cognitive disorders) remain murky and new things are being discovered all the time, as our technology gets better and better at tracking brain processes.
In general, though, I'm told this is the basic gist of how doctors/researchers are somewhat sure (as sure as anyone can be, which is "kind of" and "maybe on days it's not raining" and "ask again tomorrow" styles of 'sure').
First, let's look at a brain that doesn't have a chemical imbalance.
The term "chemical imbalance" is actually pretty literal, if you think of your brain (and your body overall, for the most part) as containing a whole lot of checks and balances. The little receptor points and controllers and whatever else in the brain, the nerves, the cells, so on and so on, don't work in a straight line. Instead, a lot of them work by affecting something else, and making sure that "something else" is balanced properly.
( Yes, more pictures! With the caveat that I beg forgiveness from any biochemistry majors who get cranky when the proper terminology isn't observed, or anyone who gets discomfited by attempts at a generalized, non-scientific, crude explanations of what's admittedly an incredibly complex process. )