Posts by Harold Anderson3

I feel completely numb lately. It isn’t quite depression, mania, or psychosis—it’s more like my emotions have just flatlined to zero. I basically just move through life acting depressed.
While these pills are doing a great job of keeping the illness under control, they seem to strip away any sense of happiness or genuine pleasure from my life. There are moments when I actually find myself wishing the illness would resurface just so I could feel alive again. I know I can always bump up the dosage of my antidepressants, but I can't help wondering if that's really the right way to go about it. 🤷

Nicole Barrett76 said:Oh, actually, what I intended to say was that I would not separate paranoid schizophrenia from the overarching entity of schizophrenia.

But honestly, they don't even separate paranoid types anymore. Let me see if I can find a better way to explain this... think about apples. You have all these different varieties—Golden Delicious, Red Delicious, Granny Smith, Honeycrisp, Jonagold, and so on.
If we just ignored those specific varieties and decided to call everything simply "apples," it would be much simpler.
It’s kind of similar to how things work here; we still distinguish between different kinds of schizophrenia, but in the US, people generally just refer to it all as schizophrenia. We could take that simplification even further and just stop distinguishing between bipolar disorder, acute psychosis, schizophrenia, or psychotic depression, and just lump them all under the single umbrella of "psychosis."

Jamie Lewis said:Honestly, I have this idea that I’d actually love being in a relationship with a girl struggling with her mental health. I picture myself driving her to her therapy sessions, looking out for her, and just being that steady support system she needs. To me, that kind of devotion wouldn't feel like a burden at all—it would be incredibly fulfilling. I truly believe that if you pour enough genuine love into someone, you can actually help them overcome their struggles. 🍿

Trust me, that would end up draining you dry, especially if she isn't actively working on herself.
People dealing with mental health struggles aren't pets or small children who just need unconditional love to thrive.

silvergull41 said:Actually, if you ask me, people dealing with mental health issues might actually be wired to feel things way more intensely than your average, totally "stable" person.

I’m curious where you’re getting that from? If we’re talking about a constant state of mania, then sure, maybe there's a point to it. But if we're looking at bipolar disorder specifically, I don't think that holds up.
Depression, paired with anxiety, is easily one of the most common struggles out there, and I really can't imagine that romance is usually the first thing on a depressed person's mind. 🤷

Jason Kim6 said:pinalove, pinalove... first off—I have no idea why they banned them. Second—what makes you think my love life is suddenly flourishing because of this? Also—I don't think there’s much of a link here between mental health and dating success. Someone can be struggling mentally and still have a girlfriend, just as someone could be perfectly fine and totally alone. I guess I haven't studied the data—but that's how I see it. It probably doesn't even tie into physical health that much—since people with hereditary issues or genetic conditions still marry and have kids and all that. Sociobiology or evolutionary psychology tries to explain these patterns, but I doubt those theories are the whole truth either. I once saw a guy who was incredibly scrawny—skinny arms and legs—yet he was walking around with a beautiful woman. What does she see in him? These things are complicated. Just accept yourself as a fundamentally valuable human being. And wait—why shouldn't men at the bottom of the social hierarchy have a right to love? If you feel "lesser" or "subservient," that sounds more like your own issue.

I'm not sure, maybe it's just a clone of a user who got permanently banned 🤷
I actually started a similar thread over on an American forum once, and it ended up dragging on for almost 1,300 posts.
The conclusion is basically... it depends. It all comes down to the specific condition, your other personality traits, your environment, and even what you personally want out of a relationship. I've been in several relationships myself, despite having what is probably the toughest diagnosis out there, schizophrenia. It's certainly not always sunshine and rainbows when you're in a partnership. Sometimes I'm actually glad to be flying solo right now because I value my freedom so much. Other times, though, I really miss having someone there—whether it's someone real or just someone I've imagined. It could be anyone, really. It just depends! 😉

Richard White8 said:They don't separate hebephrenia and catatonia from schizophrenia. Rather, what used to be classified as paranoid schizophrenia—whether hebephrenic or catatonic—is now all just categorized under schizophrenia according to the DSM. There are no longer specific subtypes. It is still all schizophrenia; we just don't differentiate the types anymore.

Even here in the States, where schizophrenia is categorized with several different codes in the manual, you can't look at a diagnosis and know exactly what someone is dealing with. It’s so unique to every individual that each case is essentially its own thing. Still, I feel like having some kind of classification is better than having none at all, because throwing every single instance of schizophrenia into one giant bucket doesn't seem particularly helpful to me.🤷 I get that they were probably trying to make the diagnostic process more streamlined, but...🤔
In any case, the paranoid type remains by far the most common presentation of the disorder.

Jason Kim6 said:A terrible tragedy occurred. Amon took his own life—he jumped from the sixth floor. I'm deeply saddened; he was a good friend to me.

Jesus Christ, I just saw this news.
We were actually talking about him in another thread; we were even staying in the same ward late last year.
He struggled with being incredibly paranoid, dealt with severe addiction issues in the past, and was battling psychosis, all while being only 19 years old. His family situation was also quite tragic.
Even so, he was clearly a bright guy, despite how much he was suffering mentally.
I feel so bad about this; it really shouldn't have ended this way.😢

I’m honestly not quite sure why people are calling the discus throw trolling when they don't seem to have any issue with the hammer and shot put 🤷. If you think about it, the men's hammer and shot are nearly twice as heavy as the women's versions, which naturally leads to those longer distances in the men's records. If the weights were actually doubled for everyone, maybe we'd see the same kind of comparison as we do with the discus, though I suppose there's always a chance it wouldn't make much difference anyway.

cosmicraven27 said:whenever Mexicans jump in the long jump, a magnetic field forms between the sand and their numbers

🤣🤣 Well, technically we’re talking about electrostatic attraction between the number and the sand, since magnetism usually needs metal involved, but honestly, you get the gist of what they mean🙂

dustypanther6 said:That's actually a pretty solid answer; do you happen to have any other interesting physics-meets-sports trivia up your sleeve?

Hmm... I wonder why the women's world record in discus throw is actually better than the men's?😛

Look, I get where you're coming from, but the physics just don't lie—a shot put only gets about half a meter of acceleration before release, whereas a hammer thrower is spinning that thing around for maybe 5 or 6 meters. Sure, we might be able to hurl a shot put further than the current world record, but only if we tied it to a wire 🙂

Quick little brain teaser for you all: which is actually tougher to handle, the shot put or the hammer throw?
I'll go ahead and give my own take: they both feel equally heavy to me. So, how is it that the hammer flies about four times further, and the shot putters somehow look even more powerful than the hammer throwers? I suppose there’s a perfectly logical explanation for a physicist or an engineer, but for the rest of us...🍿

bluebison47 said:Counting down the days until the World Athletics Championships, Doha 2019 👋

Who knows what the future holds, I suppose 😛

Hey there.
The real issue for Rebecca Rivera3 is that she hasn't received a definitive diagnosis yet; one doctor tells her one thing, while another says something completely different... and honestly, that uncertainty is the absolute worst part.
She’s been posting here, but it isn't even certain if she's actually dealing with schizophrenia.
If you ask me, living in that state of limbo is actually more taxing than the condition itself. I truly believe that poorly managed depression or anxiety can end up being much harder to handle than schizophrenia that is being treated correctly. And if you're taking antipsychotics when you don't actually have the condition, you'll likely feel much worse than if you weren't on any medication at all. There's a good rule to live by: don't try to fix what isn't broken.

I have to say, this whole championship feels a bit underwhelming to me. Looking at the results, I can't help but wonder if it's all due to those stricter anti-doping protocols 😁. Most of the heavy hitters ended up underperforming, and since we didn't see a single world record broken, it just felt somewhat lackluster overall 👎
. While it was always expected that the USA would dominate the medal count, I wasn't exactly hoping to see them crush everyone quite this convincingly.

Anthony Baker84 said:By the way, how do they actually determine the point values for results in the decathlon? Like, what’s the logic behind deciding a specific height earns someone 1000 points, and how does the scoring scale up or down from there? I'm also curious about how they manage to balance all those different disciplines against one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decathlon#Points_system
There are actually two separate formulas used to calculate points based on performance—one specifically for the running events and another for the technical field events.
Generally speaking, hitting that 1000-point mark is roughly equivalent to hitting a world record in that specific discipline, though in most instances, a true world record will actually push well beyond 1000 points.
At the end of the day, trying to create a fair scoring system for the decathlon is an incredibly tricky task; the current setup isn't perfect by any means, but it’s probably the best version we've come up with so far.

coastalhound53 said:not really 🤔

I seem to recall Johnson mentioning back then that it was pretty obvious Wayde had a massive amount of energy left compared to the rest of the field, which is why that gap at the finish line looked so incredibly dramatic.

Yeah, I see what you mean. It looks like Johnson missed the mark there, since he actually mentioned how hard it is to believe someone could run the final 200 meters significantly faster than their opening 200. But let me add my two cents 😁
E: I’d also point out that Wayde van Niekerk clearly possesses an immense amount of mental toughness to push himself to those limits, especially considering he’s been hospitalized a few times after races due to sheer exhaustion. It’s honestly quite a mystery how his muscles can withstand that kind of strain without sustaining serious injuries.

Samuel Lopez9 said:2. From what I've gathered watching track over the years, my impression is that a positive split on the 800m is pretty much the universal standard. I haven't sat down to crunch the hard numbers lately, but I honestly can't recall a single race where the second lap was actually faster, which is why I always seem to fall a little short. I did a bit of digging just now, and there are some explanations regarding how aerobic and anaerobic systems mix during that specific distance, which sounds quite similar to the reasoning you provided.
If you want to dive deeper: https://www.runnersworld.com/newswir...he-oddest-race

I'm not entirely sure, but I remember watching a documentary by Usain Bolt on YouTube where he mentioned that his best results came when he took the lead right from the start, rather than sitting back in third or fourth place and trying to overtake people later on. He did break the world record three times, after all. In an 800m race, you're looking at roughly a 30-70% split between aerobic and anaerobic activity, whereas in the 1500m, it's more like 50-50%, so there's clearly a physiological connection there.
It’s a similar story with the 400m, too; the first 200m is almost always faster than the second 200m. The big exception was Wayde van Niekerk's world record last year in Rio.🙂

Samuel Lopez9 said:1. So, why is it that every single race uses lanes 2 through 9?
2. I also can't quite wrap my head around why, in the 800m, that second lap always seems to be just a few seconds slower than the first one.

1. Well, if you're in lane one, those curves are just much sharper, which makes things harder.
2. As for the pacing, it really comes down to the individual runner. It used to be the standard approach to run a slower first lap to save up some energy for the finish, but more recent observations—especially looking at someone like Usain Bolt—suggest you might actually get a better result if you go out hard on that first lap, settle into a rhythm, and then essentially crawl across the line completely spent. For the longer distances, runners still tend to stick to a steadier pace before making that big kick toward the end.

jadewolf16 said:I feel like pretty much anyone could finish a marathon, which is honestly why I decided against getting those track spikes; once I realized I couldn't actually stand out in a crowd, I just lost interest.

Personally, I definitely couldn't pull that off, 😁though I can't really speak for everyone else.

silverhound38 said:Right next to Usain Bolt on Wikipedia, it mentions he set the best record for anyone over 35, and the entire table is actually pretty interesting to look through.

I’m not sure what your times are for the 100m sprint, but that particular discipline was never really my forte. On my absolute best days, I think I was hovering around the level of the fastest 85-year-old out there, though nowadays I’d probably be more in line with someone in their mid-90s. It is honestly fascinating to see that 70-year-olds can clock in at around 13 seconds.

It seems like many other results, like the 1500m for instance, put most people in the top global rankings for the 70 to 95 age groups.

There is an Unknown who is a total legend in masters athletics because they ran a marathon in under 2:04:00 after turning 35. If I recall correctly, that was also a world record for about three years. And then you have Edward Whitlock (R.I.P.). He was the oldest person to ever run a sub-3-hour marathon, back when he was around 72 or 73, and that’s not even mentioning how the average person struggles to finish a marathon at 6.2 miles any pace at all.