Which is going to be worse?
I ask because I stumbled across a very interesting study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321276/
It seems a tolerance is developed to the sedative and hypnotic effects to benzos, which makes users think they are no longer working (subsequently upping their dose). However, there is no evidence that a tolerance ever develops to the anxiolytic effects and a therapeutic dose can be maintained.
Benzos also decrease circulating levels of cortisol, the stress hormone which is linked to many long term health problems. Yet again long term users (median 26 months) showed no tolerance to this effect: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20520289
Then we have withdrawal, which is always of concern. But at a therapeutic dose you haven't exactly dug yourself into a deep hole, and straight from Dr. Ashton herself: https://benzo.org.uk/manual/bzcha02.htm withdraw when done correctly (ie, not a viciously rapid detox) can be next to asymptomatic.
Yet the stigma around benzos continues to claim they are ineffective long term. There is even speculation that benzos were so effective in the treatment of anxiety that they proved damaging to the business model of upcoming SSRI's, thus ensued the propagation of a smear campaign to push a "benzo-crisis":
Now lets compare this to Alcohol, where mechanism of action is similar as well as withdrawal. Yet is also neurotoxic and nukes your entire body with negative risks.
www.niaaa.nih.gov
Surely I am missing something here. They both act similarly on the brain in terms of GABA, so how can chronic alcohol use have a "low-risk" range, but benzos (being much cleaner across the board in terms of damage to the body) be so bad long term, even at therapeutic doses?
I ask because I stumbled across a very interesting study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321276/
...studies have shown that tolerance to the sedative and hypnotic effects occurs rather rapidly, followed by tolerance to the anticonvulsant effects, whereas tolerance to the anxiolytic effects of benzodiazepines are absent or partially develop after long-term treatment.
Furthermore, additional studies all show a continuing anxiolytic effect, at least for panic disorder [69–72], generalized anxiety disorder [73], and social phobia [74–76]. In conclusion, there is no solid evidence from the existing literature that anxiolytic efficacy declines following chronic benzodiazepine use in humans.
Importantly, there is no convincing evidence that tolerance occurs with (a) subunit subtype-selective compounds acting at the benzodiazepine site.
It seems a tolerance is developed to the sedative and hypnotic effects to benzos, which makes users think they are no longer working (subsequently upping their dose). However, there is no evidence that a tolerance ever develops to the anxiolytic effects and a therapeutic dose can be maintained.
Benzos also decrease circulating levels of cortisol, the stress hormone which is linked to many long term health problems. Yet again long term users (median 26 months) showed no tolerance to this effect: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20520289
"long-term BZD use is not convincingly associated with HPA(cortisol) axis alterations"
Then we have withdrawal, which is always of concern. But at a therapeutic dose you haven't exactly dug yourself into a deep hole, and straight from Dr. Ashton herself: https://benzo.org.uk/manual/bzcha02.htm withdraw when done correctly (ie, not a viciously rapid detox) can be next to asymptomatic.
Many people are frightened of withdrawal, but reports of having to "go through hell" can be greatly exaggerated. With a sufficiently gradual and individualised tapering schedule, as outlined below, withdrawal can be quite tolerable, even easy, especially when the user understands the cause and nature of any symptoms that do arise and is therefore not afraid. Many "withdrawal symptoms" are simply due to fear of withdrawal (or even fear of that fear). People who have had bad experiences have usually been withdrawn too quickly (often by doctors!) and without any explanation of the symptoms. At the other extreme, some people can stop their benzodiazepines with no symptoms at all: according to some authorities, this figure may be as high as 50% even after a year of chronic usage.
Yet the stigma around benzos continues to claim they are ineffective long term. There is even speculation that benzos were so effective in the treatment of anxiety that they proved damaging to the business model of upcoming SSRI's, thus ensued the propagation of a smear campaign to push a "benzo-crisis":
Now lets compare this to Alcohol, where mechanism of action is similar as well as withdrawal. Yet is also neurotoxic and nukes your entire body with negative risks.
Understanding Alcohol Drinking Patterns | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
You may have seen different terms that describe different patterns of alcohol consumption. These terms are useful in research and in helping people evaluate and make informed decisions about their own drinking patterns.
For men, it is defined as no more than 4 drinks on any single day and no more than 14 drinks per week. For women, low-risk drinking is defined as no more than 3 drinks on any single day and no more than 7 drinks per week.
Surely I am missing something here. They both act similarly on the brain in terms of GABA, so how can chronic alcohol use have a "low-risk" range, but benzos (being much cleaner across the board in terms of damage to the body) be so bad long term, even at therapeutic doses?