Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
For years, I've been playing musical chairs with sleep medications, and dabbled in herbal/natural remedies.
The problem with so many of the sleeping meds commonly prescribed (and that I've tried) from Trazadone to Seroquel, or I guess that should be from Seroquel to Trazadone–well, actually that's really dumb, because “T” follows “S” so I'm leaving out a lot of medications. Also, honestly, I have been on so many I kinda lose track. I should also add “Rozerem,” a newer, rather unique sleep medicine. So now that's R, S, T. Congratulations to me for leaving out the other 23 letters of the alphabet.
Neurontin was one recent (or rather recent…again) prescribed several months back when I was having a particularly bad bout. Despite my doctor's reassurance that I would not have that “next day grogginess/crappy” feeling, and despite the medical fact that it clears out of your system in, I think, 4 hours, I still got the same next day suckage.
Just about everything I tried falls into one of two categories: next day being almost worse off than having not slept, or….having not slept because the medicine or herbal remedy didn't really do anything.
There are two, and only two, medicines I have found that work and that don't leave me feeling groggy most of the entire next day: Ambien and Valium.
Of course, even as commonly prescribed as they may be, most doctors are reluctant to prescribe either one because of the fact people abuse them. I have done my fair share of abusing drugs and alcohol over the years, but I have always had a very strict rule of NOT abusing any medicine I am prescribed, the simple logic being that if I abuse it (and abuse can mean both “getting high” and “upping your dose when your tolerance kicks in”) then it won't work need it.
Currently, I'm on Ambien PRN. It is the generic one, which the talk of the interweb is that it, unlike a lot of generic medications, supposedly, people have been saying generic Ambien does not work as well. (Not due to the Ambien-CR extended release, just in general.)
I find it quite helpful, it actually works, and there is no feeling awful the next day.
However, that said, taking it as prescribed my psychiatrist, I very quickly (like, VERY quickly) built up a tolerance to the point where taking it was simply a waste of Brita water. So, basically, I use it as infrequently as possible, but during particularly bad bouts, my doctor has told me to take it more often, short-term. But again, even doing that, the tolerance kicked in rather fast.
That said, when I started I fell asleep fast, but now, even in my limited use, it takes more like 30-1 hr before I fall asleep.
As for Valium, that was pretty much the same story. No next-day “hangover,” get a full night's sleep, worked great until…it didn't.
Also, since I am now taking Valium's sibling, Klonopin for both anxiety and mood-stabilizing properties, I obviously can't take Valium any more for sleep as they are both benzodiazapenes, and that's just not that smart.
Question of the Day: Why is it so hard for people like us with serious insomnia to get something like Ambien or Valium, but all the pill poppers somehow manage to get it in bulk???
'Kik' wrote on '09:Shutter Island comes out this Friday in the UK and I'm quite looking forward to that. Also just got around to seeing 500 days of Summer this week. That was a lot better then I was expecting. I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt's work. Anyone see The Lookout? He was great in that.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of our most underrated young actors, IMO. He was also beyond brilliant in…rats, the name is escaping me…right “Mysterious Skin,” I wanna say??? I've been a fan of his even in “10 Things I Hate About You” days. Fun fact, “10 Things I Hate About You” helped launch not just Julia Stiles, but Heath Ledger and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
Re: The book vs. movie debate. I agree, as do most people, the book is usually better than the movie. But to me, I think to an extent talking about book vs. movie is like “dancing about archeticture.” They are two completely different mediums, operating under different limitations, and different advantages and disadvantages. It makes sense that often much gets lost in translation.
Related: is anyone else deathly afraid to see “The Lovely Bones???” I am, but I will watch it. I'm talking not just about, how can you make a movie out of that brilliant Alice Sebold novel, but also, the decision (which having not seen is just a conjectured opinion as of now) to leave out one little MINOR detail that was part of what made the book so darned poignant. but i understand after “Hounddog” with Dakota Fanning, why everyone would be afraid of bringing that up or showing it.
Well, being that I'm a cinemaphile, I could go on for days…esp. if I can't sleep.
I've been catching up on a lot of the Oscar nominees along with my usual obscure foreign and indie films that people give me a puzzled look at when I go on and on about them.
“Revanche?”
“What the heck is a 'Revanche?'”
Well, Revanche was just released via Criterion recently on DVD and Blu-Ray. It's an amazing minimalist Austrian film. I believe it was nominated for best foreign film in 2008, but of course, did not win the Oscar, because we like to give to Oscars to feel-good foreign movies, not utterly bleak and minimalist ones. (With notable exceptions, of course.) On the surface, it's a traditionalist character study. But it does something rather bold with the narrative structure. It's basically told in two parts, one continuous linear story, but two totally different tones–almost two different movies in one–separated by a major incident that occurs about halfway through the movie. And unique to the main actor's understated, cold, quiet performance–as dictated by his character…is the fact that when he does show his emotion it's all the more powerful because of how we're used to seeing him.
I also have been repeatedly watching “The Hurt Locker” and “Inglorious Basterds.”
I really admired that really than the tradtional action-drama approach to the war movie, it's basically an action-thriller-drama. It's honestly one of the tensest, intense movies I've seen that's not made by that “Hitchcock” guy. I also really admired that though there is inherently some political nature to it, like any war film, that for the most part it focused soley on the experince of these soldiers instead of being preachy. Regardless of whether I agree, I tend to not like preachy films, esp. if they are heavy-handed. Lol. I don't usually like war movies at all, but I watch them if they have critical acclaim. Also, one interesting thing about “The Hurt Locker” is it is the first film (I think) that has really conveyed the “pride” and “honor,” that is felt by so many in the armed forces. Although, this is not everyone, most people, like my Dad and my sister's husband, have a pride and honor in serving their country, and this is the first time I've really “felt” it in a war movie.
My feelings about “Inglorious Basterds” can be summed up in two quotes. 1) Roger Ebert (paraphrased) “This is either the best film of the year or the worst. After repeat viewings, (I've come to the conclusion) that it is the best.” 2) Diablo Cody (Oscar winning writer of “Juno”) “Maybe the best movie of the decade. Tarantino is 'dead guy brilliant,' if that makes any sense.” I really wasn't quite sure what I thought of it when I first saw it, but now having seen it maybe, five times, I have to say every time I watch I notice some subtltey, some nuance, or some blink-and-you-miss-it foreshadowing or coincidence.
