View Full Version : NY Times - A natural fix for ADHD


RedsHawk
11-03-14, 12:06 PM
So,

read this article in the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/opinion/sunday/a-natural-fix-for-adhd.html?_r=0


Quite a lofty title in my opinion.

I was hopeful as I started reading it as the author seems to have a good grasp on the affects and challenges of ADHD and then points out that there are several choices one can make to go with the strengths that we have as a result of being ADHD. yup. definitely is a highly commendable approach to it if it works for you however the suggestions will not FIX adhd nor will it solve all the problems in all domains of life. Getting a job as a travelling salesman may be great for your career but will do SFA* for your home/family life unless you also get a highly independent significant other that doesn't mind being alone. A lot.

So, glad it is being written about and actually quite well but I think the conclusions are a massive simplification of a very complex issue.

what are your thoughts? Am I too critical?

*Sweet F&$k all

Stevuke79
11-03-14, 12:43 PM
This article is pretty much restating the obvious.
(In a few places it's dead wrong, .. for instance "can traits so prevalent really be a disease". ADHD is defined by the existence of these traits to the extent they are an impairment - and the rate of diagnosis is still well below the rate at which these traits would be an impairment in the general population. Silly claims like that tick me off.)

But we know that ADHD, like other neurological disorders or impairments, is a pathology and not a specific impairment. And to manage it you have to manage your lifestyle more so than just take medication. This is basic stuff with a more exciting title. And even once you've done all that this article suggests, if you truly have the disorder, most people will still be left dealing with an impairment for which they can get help.

RedsHawk
11-03-14, 12:51 PM
Thanks, pretty much my feeling from it but stated much better than I could.

Flory
11-03-14, 02:48 PM
The trouble when people talk about traits is that they rarely if ever follow up with information about impairment being excitable or daydreamy etc are very different to an actual disorder :/

Tmoney
11-03-14, 03:43 PM
This article is pretty much restating the obvious.
(In a few places it's dead wrong, .. for instance "can traits so prevalent really be a disease". ADHD is defined by the existence of these traits to the extent they are an impairment - and the rate of diagnosis is still well below the rate at which these traits would be an impairment in the general population. Silly claims like that tick me off.)

But we know that ADHD, like other neurological disorders or impairments, is a pathology and not a specific impairment. And to manage it you have to manage your lifestyle more so than just take medication. This is basic stuff with a more exciting title. And even once you've done all that this article suggests, if you truly have the disorder, most people will still be left dealing with an impairment for which they can get help.

Well said Steve!
All treatment must be at the point of performance!
(restructure of environment)

stef
11-03-14, 03:43 PM
It's too general for the personality types but it's an interesting theory, and he doesn't deny ADHD and supports medication.
Which is great since this is in the NY Times!

Mantaray14
11-03-14, 10:16 PM
While it almost pains me to defend the Times, most likely the title wasn't the authors fault. I'd wager that was an editorial decision designed to increase "click through" rates on the aggregate sites such as Google News. They're all pretty much forced to use overly-sensational titles these days....

If this theory becomes proven with research and goes mainstream, clinicians and educators will get on board which would be huge leap for treatment, as providing all this for a child is very expensive and difficult to do on ones own. For example, my child's class has 23-24 students usually, to get a smaller class, you would either have to qualify for "gifted" (something research shows ADD kids rarely get even if they ARE gifted, as the cards are stacked against them), or be doing so bad they go with the really educationally challenged, which (according to Barkley) is usually a really bad idea for ADHD kids. So if you want smaller class size, you have to go the private school route, which is still a dicey proposition for a child with ADHD, as it depends on the schools values (they may still get kicked out). This can really can be a real quagmire for a middle class parent, and a trap for lower-middle, and children of the poor who don't have the means to finds ways to cultivate ADHD kids in a system not designed for them. Rich kids (as usual), have the cards stacked in their favor.

The other notable thing about the article was the author is a practicing clinician at a well respected NYC institution, not some opinion piece by some random journalist that I'm used to seeing lately in Times, and he used Neuroscience to back up his story, including brainscans of adults who found adaptive environments vs those who didn't. He doesn't say this is his foregone conclusion, just maybe this neuroscience points in a direction, and whether they grew out of their ADHD symptoms first or did so after their altered their environments (and decreasing their environmental stress) is an open question (chicken or the egg). There was nothing in most of the article I hadn't seen before, but this part is intriguing, and could have big implications if science backs this horse.

I don't think to point is to argue whether you "grow out of", and certainly not "cure" ADHD (that's just silly), but whether it's is possible to adapt your environment enough and develop enough coping mechanisms, which may eventually result is physiological changes to the brain, that was possibly demonstrated these brain scans. That could possibly explain why a few people with childhood ADHD report full remittance according to the DSM-IV criteria (around 22% or so according Thomas Brown in "A New Understanding of ADHD").

anonymouslyadd
11-03-14, 10:47 PM
Do you think this guy is more concerned about big pharma's influence or about helping people with ADD?

sarahsweets
11-03-14, 11:17 PM
I got excited reading this until I realized it's a glossed over propaganda sh+ t that the media loves to overstate with very little to back it up.

mildadhd
11-04-14, 04:32 AM
In my opinion it is unnatural for the author not to consider development of the basic emotional feeling systems occurring before the age of 4*.

While I agree with the author that ADHD is not a disease.

Someone should tell the author the positive motivation SEEKING/expectancy system is 1 of 7 primary unconditioned emotional response systems all people (and other mammals) are known to be born with.

See poll thread, Where you born at age 4?
(http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1694630#post1694630)



P

RedsHawk
11-05-14, 11:44 AM
I got excited reading this until I realized it's a glossed over propaganda sh+ t that the media loves to overstate with very little to back it up.

This is sort of where I was coming from by posting it here. The title is obviously overstating the content for reasons as stated above but the first part of the article was well done so I was hoping for a good payoff while on my first read through....wasn't to be though.

thanks all, great discussion,,

Mantaray14
11-05-14, 12:53 PM
This is sort of where I was coming from by posting it here. The title is obviously overstating the content for reasons as stated above but the first part of the article was well done so I was hoping for a good payoff while on my first read through....wasn't to be though.

thanks all, great discussion,,

I disagree on the propaganda angle. The author is Director of Psychopharmacology at the Cornell-Weill medical center. Don't see an angle there. The Times doesn't
like to **** off anyone with $$ either... And Pharma's where are the $$ at, and been at for while now.

This is not against medication, medication is well established as the most effective treatment for add. But once you've done that, you've only dealt with half the equation. Moving forward must involve new ideas....