# Does Wellbutrin weight loss come back after stopping treatment?



## chiaza (Aug 9, 2012)

I am going to see my doctor about a medication for depression and anxiety and I would like to get Wellbutrin, as I read that it also has a weight loss side effect. Does the weight come back when treatment is stopped though?


----------



## istayhome (Apr 4, 2012)

Weight loss/gain is all about calories taken in vs. calories expended. If you spend more calories than you eat, you'll lose weight. If you eat more calories than you spend, you'll gain weight. The weight loss from wellbutrin has to do with decreased appetite. Wellbutrin may cause decreased appetite, if you maintain your current level of activity, you'll lose weight. If you then quit the drug and start eating more, you'll regain the weight. 

It all depends on how many calories you eat and how many calories you lose via your normal daily metabolism and additional exercise, etc.

So any weight loss from wellbutrin won't be permanent if you start eating more/exercising less after you quit.


----------



## chiaza (Aug 9, 2012)

So as long as I don't start eating a lot of food or stop exercising, I'll keep the weight off, correct?

Also, is it OK to ask the doctor for Wellbutrin? I have never been prescribed medication before, only self-medicated, so I don't know if it's considered acceptable to ask for a specific medication and not take what the doctor suggests, or if they will do it.


----------



## istayhome (Apr 4, 2012)

chiaza said:


> So as long as I don't start eating a lot of food or stop exercising, I'll keep the weight off, correct?
> 
> Also, is it OK to ask the doctor for Wellbutrin? I have never been prescribed medication before, only self-medicated, so I don't know if it's considered acceptable to ask for a specific medication and not take what the doctor suggests, or if they will do it.


correct.

It depends on the doctor and your symptoms. Explain to the doctor your symptoms, if wellbutrin is indicated for your condition you can ask for it and tell them why you want it. The doctor might suggest something else for you to try. You can try it, see if it helps, if not ask for wellbutrin again.

I think it's reasonable to ask for wellbutrin if you have a condition for which it is approved.


----------



## riptide991 (Feb 1, 2012)

These days science shows that energy expenditure is not that simple. A calorie is not a calorie. Different foods trigger different hormonal responses and have different thermogenic effects.

My guess is that Wellbutrin has some other mechanism that causes the weight loss. My guess would be through the increase in DHEA-S that it produces. This could have a cascading effect that creates an environment where your body burns and uses energy more efficiently. It can also raise body temperature by a bit so that automatically increases your resting metabolic rate.

I think antidepressants have the power to make you gain weight or lose even if you maintain your caloric consumption. I know someone who gained so much weight on Effexor and changed nothing and was super active. I was always super skinny no matter how much I ate and after starting zoloft I actually started to gain muscle and changed nothing, ate the same, worked out like always. Now that I added wellbutrin i definitely notice that im getting more toned, this could be as simple as a diuretic effect but I see it. I recall reading a study where a certain antidepressant (can't remember) was causing a slow down in lipid breakdown and caused an accumulation of fat over time. Everyone reacts differently and there are so many processes involved that it would be hard to know the exact cause.



istayhome said:


> Weight loss/gain is all about calories taken in vs. calories expended. If you spend more calories than you eat, you'll lose weight. If you eat more calories than you spend, you'll gain weight. The weight loss from wellbutrin has to do with decreased appetite. Wellbutrin may cause decreased appetite, if you maintain your current level of activity, you'll lose weight. If you then quit the drug and start eating more, you'll regain the weight.
> 
> It all depends on how many calories you eat and how many calories you lose via your normal daily metabolism and additional exercise, etc.
> 
> So any weight loss from wellbutrin won't be permanent if you start eating more/exercising less after you quit.


----------



## chiaza (Aug 9, 2012)

Is there any other drug like Wellbutrin? I just found out that Wellbutrin isn't available in my country.


----------



## Inshallah (May 11, 2011)

kehcorpz said:


> These days science shows that energy expenditure is not that simple. A calorie is not a calorie. Different foods trigger different hormonal responses and have different thermogenic effects.


I have yet to see 1 study that concluded that it's not all about total kcals at the end of the day (week, month). The micro processes are idd there, but they are negligible at the end of the day.

The other things you said, also never seen any proof for direct effects of AD's. Even if there is a direct effect (which I don't believe), it's again going to be negligible.

Antidepressants have a lot of side effects,but creating or destroying energy isn't one of them


----------



## istayhome (Apr 4, 2012)

Indeed, according to the Law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Also the question was, if a person loses weight while taking wellbutrin, will the regain it once they quit. So let's say that wellbutrin had some magical powers of making people lose weight while they ate a lot of calories and burnt none. Then they quit the wellbutrin, the magical powers were gone, as long as that person did not have a net caloric gain then they would not gain weight.

also; a calorie is a calorie! It is a unit of measurement; it is the amount of heat (energy) needed to raise the temperature of 1 cc of water by 1 degree Celsius.

That is as indisputable as it gets. Any source which does not even recognize the fundamental laws of physics and the basic units of measurements should be completely ignored.


----------



## riptide991 (Feb 1, 2012)

Inshallah said:


> I have yet to see 1 study that concluded that it's not all about total kcals at the end of the day (week, month). The micro processes are idd there, but they are negligible at the end of the day.
> 
> The other things you said, also never seen any proof for direct effects of AD's. Even if there is a direct effect (which I don't believe), it's again going to be negligible.
> 
> Antidepressants have a lot of side effects,but creating or destroying energy isn't one of them


Here diets with same calories but different macronutrients show different results:



> *Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance*


http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

It's nothing to do with creating or destroying energy. It has everything to do with manipulating body physiology so that your energy expenditure changes. For example, cortisol is known to inhibit 5-deoiodinase which is responsible for converting inactive T4 to T3. So if an antidepressant lowers cortisol it could increase T3. It's an indirect relationship and the fact that antidepressants can change your hormones in a powerful way means it can affect your weight regardless of calorie intake. I'm stating it's not that simple and you are stating that it is which is ridiculous if you know anything about the human body. Even leptin has been known to regulate body temperature to maintain optimal body weight, yet when you manipulate it your Resting metabolic rate can change. Every human being has different hormones that govern their physiology, there are people who are obese due to a type of bacteria in their guts.

I'm looking through and there's a lot of studies out there that are trying to explain the weight changes in antidepressant patients.


> *Antidepressant phenelzine alters differentiation of cultured human and mouse preadipocytes.*
> 
> Chiche F, Le Guillou M, Chétrite G, Lasnier F, Dugail I, Carpéné C, Moldes M, Fève B.
> *Source*
> ...





istayhome said:


> Indeed, according to the Law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed.


I'm not disputing energy being constant. I'm simply saying that from our perspective based on what we eat our body reacts differently and uses the energy differently. Protein for example is highly thermogenic and your body requires the usage of energy in order to break it down to its components. Also there are hormones like insulin that will store the energy as fat. This can happen even if you aren't crossing your energy needs as based on your body it can decide to use other reserves for needed energy. In fact, the body is known to break down its own muscles as an energy source before even attempting to dive into fat stores depending on your genetics. We evolved in such a manner because there were times when food was scarce during winter and when food was plentiful the body would prep itself for the coming winter months. It would down regulate metabolism and store fat. From the perspective of human weight gain, a calorie is not a calorie as depending on the type of macronutrients you ingest this energy may be used differently.


----------



## istayhome (Apr 4, 2012)

kehcorpz said:


> It would down regulate metabolism and store fat. From the perspective of human weight gain, a calorie is not a calorie as depending on the type of macronutrients you ingest this energy may be used differently.


The first sentence there refers to calories being burnt. Higher metabolism=more calories burnt, lower metabolism=fewer calories burnt.

The second sentence is untrue, actually, you used the word _may_. But I will confidently say that regardless of the macro nutrient when it comes to weight gain or weight loss the only thing that really matters is calories in vs. calories out.

Calories are used by the body in many ways, not just physical activity. So of course all of our physiological workings will play a role in weight loss/gain.

There's really nothing else to say. It is ridiculous to think that one could lose weight when they have a net caloric gain or that they would gain weight when having a net caloric loss.

There is has always been nonsense out there about weight loss and gain, but it has never been anymore than wasted words and scams.


----------



## riptide991 (Feb 1, 2012)

istayhome said:


> The first sentence there refers to calories being burnt. Higher metabolism=more calories burnt, lower metabolism=fewer calories burnt.


Yes and certain foods can create a higher metabolism. Refer to the study i posted on energy expenditure.



istayhome said:


> The second sentence is untrue, actually, you used the word _may_. But I will confidently say that regardless of the macro nutrient when it comes to weight gain or weight loss the only thing that really matters is calories in vs. calories out.


Once again, yes true, and I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that your body adjusts its expenditure based on macronutrients. Refer to study i posted. So the principal there is you take a certain amount of calories of protein and consistently do this your resting energy expenditure will become higher and use more energy than if you were taking a high carb diet. So yah it's still the same amount of energy but your body now had to use more energy it had stored in glycogen or what not just to digest it properly. No one accounts for these differences because of the whole "Calorie is a calorie" notion. And while theoretically it's true it is not true when it comes to how it affects your expenditure.

This does not defy the laws of thermoregulation. It simply proves that because our bodies undergo changes dynamically if people believe that eating protein is the same as carbohydrates they may not get as good results as it's really hard to estimate your true resting energy expenditure without the tools scientists use. And if you want to burn more fat then not only should you cut calories but you should eat macronutrients known to increase energy expenditure.



istayhome said:


> There's really nothing else to say. It is ridiculous to think that one could lose weight when they have a net caloric gain or that they would gain weight when having a net caloric loss.


You're being way too literal. If macronutrients have the power to change your REE, then you may THINK you are getting a net caloric loss but in reality your body has adjusted. Energy will always be energy. But your body will not always be using the same amount of energy. Unless you're walking around with some sophisticated watch that can give you your exact caloric expenditure at any given time.



istayhome said:


> There is has always been nonsense out there about weight loss and gain, but it has never been anymore than wasted words and scams.


Having a bodybuilding background I have done hardcore ketogenic diets where at the time of creating my plan, I had calculated my rough resting energy expenditure using some formulas developed by scientists and then I made a diet plan where I eat more than that expenditure(we are talking really bad foods, tonnes of cheese, steak, eggs, bacon). My goal was fat loss. And I did lose a lot of fat and got pretty ripped. The thing is ketogenic diets where you stay away from all carbs and sugar trigger such a response in your body that your resting energy expenditure increases quite high. This also puts you in ketosis where you literally piss away/sweat/excrete your stored energy. The Ketones typically contain 5 calories per gram. So yes the concept of energy still being energy is there even if the potential energy ends up in the toilet.

My choice for dieting was always the path where I ate more and still got the same results. With carb diets I would have to eat way less to even get to the low body fat levels.


----------



## Inshallah (May 11, 2011)

istayhome said:


> Indeed, according to the Law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed.
> 
> Also the question was, if a person loses weight while taking wellbutrin, will the regain it once they quit. So let's say that wellbutrin had some magical powers of making people lose weight while they ate a lot of calories and burnt none. Then they quit the wellbutrin, the magical powers were gone, as long as that person did not have a net caloric gain then they would not gain weight.
> 
> ...


Idd. But there is, unfortunately, a lot of bro-science rampant in anything nutrition-related. With the consequence that people are focusing on the wrong things and everyone is getting even fatter than they were already. It's a shame because it is all real simple, basic mathematics that even the biggest idiot should be able to grasp. Buy a calculator and count those kcals (if you can't do it by head).


----------



## Inshallah (May 11, 2011)

kehcorpz said:


> Here diets with same calories but different macronutrients show different results:
> 
> http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
> 
> ...


1) The study: I'm not a fan of reading abstracts only so I'm passing on that one. I (and other academics) wonder why they are even still being used, since a lot of misinterpretations can be made if you don't have all of the info.

2) If you add a drug that increases energy expenditure while keeping kcal intake the same, of course you're going to lose more weight. No one said otherwise. Just as boosting T3 with levothyroxine, while keeping kcal intake the same is going to result in more weight lost etc. We weren't disputing this.

3) There are differences between how the body manages macronutrients yes, but this by no means overrules a nature law such as the one stated by istayhome. You can eat a protein only diet while adhering to a 500 kcal surplus, you will stil get fat.

4) Insulin does definitely NOT store fat in the absence of a caloric surplus. It is simply not possible, neither in theory/science, nor in practice. Look at all the bodybuilders using insulin while getting ripped up for bodybuilding contests. Look at all the diabetic fitness enthusiasts who are lean as hell.

5) The survival mechanism: also NO scientific proof whatsoever for this. Metabolism slows down when calories are reduced, of course. It speeds up when they are increased just as well.

If you eat say 800 kcals only for days, it's going to slow down exponentially, but this is not a the bro-scientific starvation response in which you supposedly stop losing fat or even start storing it. Thyroid output is the same as engine output, if you give full throttle but somehow reduce fuel inflow (or calorie inflow), your engine is not going to be running at optimal power (or thyroid speed).


----------



## Inshallah (May 11, 2011)

kehcorpz said:


> Yes and certain foods can create a higher metabolism. Refer to the study i posted on energy expenditure.
> 
> Once again, yes true, and I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that your body adjusts its expenditure based on macronutrients. Refer to study i posted. So the principal there is you take a certain amount of calories of protein and consistently do this your resting energy expenditure will become higher and use more energy than if you were taking a high carb diet. So yah it's still the same amount of energy but your body now had to use more energy it had stored in glycogen or what not just to digest it properly. No one accounts for these differences because of the whole "Calorie is a calorie" notion. And while theoretically it's true it is not true when it comes to how it affects your expenditure.
> 
> ...


You are seriously misinterpreting all of the info you have read kehcorpz. Protein does indeed require more energy to digest than carbs and fats, but this by NO means translates into "a calorie is a calorie" as being untrue. And it also doesn't change the fact that in the end of the day, it's still kcals in/kcals out that decides.


----------



## Inshallah (May 11, 2011)

*Just to be clear kehcorpz*

You are indeed correct in saying that a 2500 kcal diet with 400gr protein is going to require more energy to digest, and thus burn off more energy, than a 2500 kcal with only 100gr protein.

That is all correct. The thing is, this micromanagement is only useful for athletes/bodybuilders/people looking to get to low bodyfat levels.

For most people or the general public at large, it's completely useless. How many people are eating even 100 gr protein per day? Let alone several hundreds?

Another problem is that placing importance on things less important than the overruling principle, total energy intake, is going to lead to massive weight loss failures, as are seen everywhere. Counting kcals and making sure you are in a deficit is the number 1 principle and focus should be on that first and foremost.

I've always walked around lean and with a six pack, I did all of the bodybuilding diets throughout the years. I now eat mostly unclean junk food but still count my kcals and the six pack is still there (of course!).

I'd wish they'd tell children in school already to keep track of how much (as in energy) they are eating. Obesity could easily be avoided if people would know about this and put it into practice.


----------



## ourwater (Jun 2, 2012)

Close, 93.23 gm. I get more around half that.


----------



## Inshallah (May 11, 2011)

ourwater said:


> Close, 93.23 gm. I get more around half that.


That's pretty much the average I think, about 50gr a day


----------



## riptide991 (Feb 1, 2012)

Inshallah said:


> 1) The study: I'm not a fan of reading abstracts only so I'm passing on that one. I (and other academics) wonder why they are even still being used, since a lot of misinterpretations can be made if you don't have all of the info.


Well the abstract summarizes it well, showing that Resting energy expenditure changed based on macronutrients.



Inshallah said:


> 2) If you add a drug that increases energy expenditure while keeping kcal intake the same, of course you're going to lose more weight. No one said otherwise. Just as boosting T3 with levothyroxine, while keeping kcal intake the same is going to result in more weight lost etc. We weren't disputing this.


Hence why I argue that antidepressants have the power to change your weight even if you continue to take the same calories. It's either being burned by increased energy expenditure or stored because of lowered energy expenditure. But it seems people do not believe this.



Inshallah said:


> 3) There are differences between how the body manages macronutrients yes, but this by no means overrules a nature law such as the one stated by istayhome. You can eat a protein only diet while adhering to a 500 kcal surplus, you will stil get fat.


Once again if you read I'm not arguing the literal fact that a calorie is a calorie. I'm simply arguing that based on macronutrients that calorie may be used differently and given the mainstream's lack of knowledge on energy expenditure and hormones it's easier to say "A calorie is not a calorie" so that they can make better food choices to help with metabolism.



> 4) Insulin does definitely NOT store fat in the absence of a caloric surplus. It is simply not possible, neither in theory/science, nor in practice. Look at all the bodybuilders using insulin while getting ripped up for bodybuilding contests. Look at all the diabetic fitness enthusiasts who are lean as hell.


It's really not that simple. While insulin can store fat based on sensitivity of the cell. Most mesomorphs are far from insulin resistant and do not have an accumulation of the hormones and are very exact with their science.

Here's an interesting study where Acylation Stimulating Protein caused triglyceride clearance and storage in cells even in fasting state.

http://www.jlr.org/content/30/11/1727.full.pdf+html

Point is we are constantly discovering new things.



Inshallah said:


> 5) The survival mechanism: also NO scientific proof whatsoever for this. Metabolism slows down when calories are reduced, of course. It speeds up when they are increased just as well.


Well yes the survival mechanism is a theory, but study posted above sheds some light on the fact that in a fasting state fat is still being stored.



Inshallah said:


> You are seriously misinterpreting all of the info you have read kehcorpz. Protein does indeed require more energy to digest than carbs and fats, but this by NO means translates into "a calorie is a calorie" as being untrue. And it also doesn't change the fact that in the end of the day, it's still kcals in/kcals out that decides.


I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. You are being literal I am simply stating that people do not have isotopes to measure their resting energy expenditure and as such should not believe that everything they eat will be the same as long as they keep their calories at a certain point. They could still be in a caloric surplus due to metabolism downregulation.



Inshallah said:


> You are indeed correct in saying that a 2500 kcal diet with 400gr protein is going to require more energy to digest, and thus burn off more energy, than a 2500 kcal with only 100gr protein.
> 
> That is all correct. The thing is, this micromanagement is only useful for athletes/bodybuilders/people looking to get to low bodyfat levels.
> 
> For most people or the general public at large, it's completely useless. How many people are eating even 100 gr protein per day? Let alone several hundreds?


Sure but by telling people to make more intelligent choices without all the hardcore science behind it, it can help them. It's not hard to have chicken breast and cottage cheese every day.



Inshallah said:


> Another problem is that placing importance on things less important than the overruling principle, total energy intake, is going to lead to massive weight loss failures, as are seen everywhere. Counting kcals and making sure you are in a deficit is the number 1 principle and focus should be on that first and foremost.
> 
> I've always walked around lean and with a six pack, I did all of the bodybuilding diets throughout the years. I now eat mostly unclean junk food but still count my kcals and the six pack is still there (of course!).
> 
> I'd wish they'd tell children in school already to keep track of how much (as in energy) they are eating. Obesity could easily be avoided if people would know about this and put it into practice.


While I agree with total Kcals for the general public, my problem with this is that people do not know their energy expenditure. This has been my whole argument as the body can adjust. And this is how diets fail most often because people diet but do not see results. My buddy Szymon was pretty big at one point and he always dieted and failed. And really the way that I helped him lose all the weight was just simple things. I made him eat 3 carb + protein meals in the morning 3 fat + protein meals at night. He didn't even really look at calorie intake at first because he was losing weight. Even something as simple as eating more smaller meals can make a difference as the metabolism will maintain a higher expenditure. It's only once he got down and needed to lose that last few pounds where he had to really start counting calories, but he did it.


----------



## istayhome (Apr 4, 2012)

This discussion has gone way past what was originally asked. I have a diet and nutrition background and have been an endurance athlete. It is relevant to get into what is being discussed if an individual really wants to optimize their diet for their intended goals. But even then a basic knowledge of accepted nutritional fact is enough. 

An example. I was cycling 200 miles a day, I made sure to enough calories in the form of carbohydrates because that is what is needed for endurance. Protein or fat would cause my body to use extra energy in order to convert it into ATP. I didn't need to build muscles, I only needed calories to get me down the road. 

Unless someone is an olympic athlete it is really a huge waste of time and possibly detrimental to get so deep into this topic which will just confuse most people. It is these sort of studies and claims that provide fodder new fad diets, workouts and other scams.

A calorie is a calorie. when it comes to weight loss/gain that's what most people need to pay attention to. To claim that "a calorie is not a calorie" is by definition a false statement and just confuses the hell out of most people who are simply concerned with weight loss/gain.

This discussion has become overkill.

If you want to lose weight, eat fewer calories and exercise more. If you want to gain fat eat more calories and get less exercise. If you want to gain muscle, workout more and eat enough but not too much. The RDA of protein is way more than what people actually need so most people trying to gain muscle are likely already getting enough protein anyways.

The above applies to 90% of the population. Again unless someone is trying to be a high performance top athlete all of this is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

It is really frustrating to see how much most people get confused and manipulated in regards to diet and exercise because the over-abundance of information. 

People have been gaining/losing weight since the dawn of man by eating more or less calories. Anything beyond that basic information is too much information for the general population looking to lose weight and keep it off.

Some people have hormonal problems and other physiological issues that make the picture more blurred but that is a small percentage of people.

For everyone else, a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss/gain. Why insist on blowing some simple dietary and nutritional information way out of proportion?

The majority of what was discussed here belongs in the nutrition, supplements and exercise forum. Even there what has been discussed is overkill and goes way beyond the scope of what is relevant to almost everyone.


----------



## istayhome (Apr 4, 2012)

kehcorpz said:


> My buddy Szymon was pretty big at one point and he always dieted and failed. And really the way that I helped him lose all the weight was just simple things. I made him eat 3 carb + protein meals in the morning 3 fat + protein meals at night. He didn't even really look at calorie intake at first because he was losing weight. Even something as simple as eating more smaller meals can make a difference as the metabolism will maintain a higher expenditure. It's only once he got down and needed to lose that last few pounds where he had to really start counting calories, but he did it.


I helped my brother lose 100 lbs. Got him to eat fewer calories by serving him fruits, veggies, whole grains, beans etc. which are more filling and with fewer calories than the highly processed fat based diet he was eating. Also had him exercise more. Weight loss.

Eating a high fat, high protein diet is a recipe for an early death.


----------



## riptide991 (Feb 1, 2012)

istayhome said:


> T
> The above applies to 90% of the population. Again unless someone is trying to be a high performance top athlete all of this is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.


Way to ruin the thread with logic.


----------



## istayhome (Apr 4, 2012)

I'd call it common sense. but common sense is becoming less common now, so logic works. Thanks.


----------



## Inshallah (May 11, 2011)

istayhome said:


> This discussion has gone way past what was originally asked. I have a diet and nutrition background and have been an endurance athlete. It is relevant to get into what is being discussed if an individual really wants to optimize their diet for their intended goals. But even then a basic knowledge of accepted nutritional fact is enough.
> 
> An example. I was cycling 200 miles a day, I made sure to enough calories in the form of carbohydrates because that is what is needed for endurance. Protein or fat would cause my body to use extra energy in order to convert it into ATP. I didn't need to build muscles, I only needed calories to get me down the road.
> 
> ...


Yep, what I was saying as well.

It's not even true for top-athletes, bodybuilders, etc. They are way looser on their diets than you'd think. Check out say, Michael Phelp's diet, there is no clean food, not much protein (% wise), no 6 meals a day, no glycemic index concerns, etc. Why? Because these micro-things are unimportant in the grand scheme of things, total kcal intake.

A good source of sports nutrition info would be any one of Dan Bernardot's books. He's both a nutrition scholar who works with (Olympic) athletes in all kinds of sports. Even works with bodybuilders. He's in the position to combine science with hands on, practical experience.

Never get your info from Fitness or Bodybuilding-sources, almost none of them is actually educated and they constantly make false deduction after false deduction.

Names like Dave Palumbo, Charles Poliquin, Gary Taubes, ... come to mind as quacks to avoid. (in practice, just avoid ANYONE not university educated in nutrition)

Kehcorpz: I'll read your last post later when I have more time!


----------



## YogaMomOf4 (Jan 31, 2013)

I realize this is an old thread, but for what it's worth, the mechanism by which Wellbutrin causes weight loss is increased rate of thermogenesis. So, in that way, it's not just a matter of calories consumed/calories expended. There is another variable at work: increased rate of thermogenesis. 

Also: the tendency referenced above for antidepressants to cause weight gain applies to SSRIs. Wellbutrin is not an SSRI. It differs from other antidepressants in this way: it works not on Serotonin, but on Dopamine. Comparing it to SSRIs and their weight-gaining tendencies is comparing apples and oranges.


----------

