Stahl's is putting me to sleep!

[Dharma]

Reading Essentials and I am struggling getting through it. Let me rephrase that: I'm struggling getting through the first few chapters. I've heard folks rave about Stahl's but I honestly do not share the sentiment and I'm about ready to pull the ripcord and bail on this venture.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks folks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MedMan80]

Reading Essentials and I am struggling getting through it. Let me rephrase that: I'm struggling getting through the first few chapters. I've heard folks rave about Stahl's but I honestly do not share the sentiment and I'm about ready to pull the ripcord and bail on this venture.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks folks.

Read harder, maybe you can get some of that pharma money to percolate into your bank account.

It put me to sleep too, I just focused on a few HY chapters and left it at that...

 

[wolfvgang22]

I just like the drawerings.

 

[pyknotic]

Depending on what level of psychopharmacology knowledge you are going for, this book might be a good option: Memorable Psychopharmacology. There are also some YouTube videos online for you to get a sense of what you would be learning.

It's not going to be as dense as Stahl and doesn't feature a single chart of receptor binding affinities, with more of a focus on clinical pearls and current practice guidelines.

 

[rlx009]

For the subject matter, Stahl does a pretty decent job of making it fairly breezy. Try to go read it quickly a few times, maybe that'll help. There may be Stahl lecture notes online that sum up the chapters.

 

[NickNaylor]

You mean the cartoon pictures don’t keep you engaged?

I think as far as reference texts go Stahl’s actually isn’t too bad... it’s pretty straightforward and not too dry. Compare it to, say, Kaplan and Saddock - even the synopsis version - which is a total snooze fest.

 

[Dharma]

You mean the cartoon pictures don’t keep you engaged?

I think as far as reference texts go Stahl’s actually isn’t too bad... it’s pretty straightforward and not too dry. Compare it to, say, Kaplan and Saddock - even the synopsis version - which is a total snooze fest.

I've been reading a PDF which may explain my intermittent lapse in attention and apparent anhedonia.

 

[NickNaylor]

I've been reading a PDF which may explain my intermittent lapse in attention and apparent anhedonia.

I’m old-fashioned - I totally can’t focus when reading long texts digitally. I’m one of those people that buys all of my books in hard copy.

Maybe that’s the problem...?

 

[AD04]

Read the prescriber's guide first. Know the medications. Then essential pharmacology will make more sense.

The illustrations do a good job summarizing. First few chapters are a bore and not very high yield. Afterwards, it gets better.

Set a routine to read every day and you'll be ok. Once you develop a habit, maybe you'll even get through Kaplan and Sadock (super, super boring).

(I don't read paper books.)

 

[AnnoyedByFreud]

Reading Essentials and I am struggling getting through it. Let me rephrase that: I'm struggling getting through the first few chapters. I've heard folks rave about Stahl's but I honestly do not share the sentiment and I'm about ready to pull the ripcord and bail on this venture.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks folks.

I found it useful for understanding psychopharmacology conceptually, but in terms of practice recommendations the Maudsley Guidelines are where it's at.

 

[shahseh22]

Read the prescriber's guide first. Know the medications. Then essential pharmacology will make more sense.

The illustrations do a good job summarizing. First few chapters are a bore and not very high yield. Afterwards, it gets better.

Set a routine to read every day and you'll be ok. Once you develop a habit, maybe you'll even get through Kaplan and Sadock (super, super boring).

(I don't read paper books.)

I've only been using the prescribers guide. I never used the big text for Stahl's, is it required?

I'm not the type that likes to read big fat books.

 

[AD04]

I've only been using the prescribers guide. I never used the big text for Stahl's, is it required?

I'm not the type that likes to read big fat books.

It depends what your goal is. For clinical work, knowing the prescriber's guide is sufficient. It is my main pharmacology resource and I received a lot of praise regarding my knowledge.

Essential pharmacology is for understanding the concepts and theories as to how the drugs work. For example, you'll get a better understanding as to why SGAs reduce negative side effects and why targeting NE and dopamine works for ADHD. Is there a practical value to it? It is somewhat helpful for the PRITE and board exams. And it helps you sound smart as you teach medical students and answer patients' questions. It gives you adequate knowledge to interact with the better-read psychopharmacologists. But overall, it is a lot less practical than the prescriber's guide.

I know of psychiatrists who never progressed beyond what they learned eons ago in their training, sticking to only prescribing amitriptyline, stelazine / prolixin / haldol / thorazine, and xanax / librium / restoril and still have ample work in a psychiatrist-saturated area. It absolutely boggles my mind, but the amount of knowledge you need to practice psychiatry is very minimal. However, the amount of knowledge to practice psychiatry without harming the patient ... that's a different story.

 

[hamstergang]

Is there a practical value to it? It is somewhat helpful for the PRITE and board exams. And it helps you sound smart as you teach medical students and answer patients' questions.

Haha. Stahl certainly makes everything sound so precise and scientific, as though we can pick the right medication based on understanding the specific neurological basis for the symptoms patients present with, but real meds in real people with real brains don't actually work that way.