Hey, Kallie. Why don't we add this twist to your question:

Is bipolar an accurate description for the illness?

The mere title to the definitive text on bipolar - Manic-Depressive Illness - indicates there is a strong dissenting opion. The authors, Goodwin and Jamison, contend that the true nature of the illness (which includes recurrent depressions) is cycling - and the cycling doesn't necessarily have to be from pole to pole.

"Bipolar" implies that we simply flip from one polar extreme to the other. Far from the case. Some of us, for instance, cycling from depression to feeling less depressed. Others cycle very slowly, often remaining in "well" states for a long time. The variations go on and on.

By thinking of the illness as a cycling phenomenon, we can orient our thinking toward treating and managing the cycle, rather than the symptoms at either pole. Often, treating the polar symptoms may worsen the cycle.

All this may sound like an abstract esoteric point, but appreciating the distinction may be the difference in finding a treatment that works for you. Which is why I'm for dumping the term bipolar.