My 8 year old son was diagnosed with ADD over a year ago. He did the Straterra thing to no avail:faint:. And then, we started him an Aderrall. He is now up to 20 mg a day but because he lost some weight, the doctor didn't want to up his dosage. He is getting by in school( he is very smart) but has trouble getting his work done. Luckily, he has great teachers. Today, I went to a presentation about glyconutrients & was very impressed. It is costly but does make lots of sense. Has anyone else used them or heard of results?:confused: I would be willing to try them if it meant taking my son off stimulants. I would really appreciate any advice. :D
Thanks for your time,
Dawn

What's a glyconutrient? Were ant particular brand-names given? Who was presenting the information --a doctor, researcher, or a rep for a company that sells glyconutrients?

You should check out the "Nutrition" forum and/or the "Misc Treatments" forums --they are listed in the "Treatment" section.

ADHD is not a nutrient input disorder. Period.

ADHD is not a nutrient input disorder. Period.
You are what you eat, in a quite literal sense. I find it unsurprising that some ADDers feel more focused, less impulsive, and/or less hyperactive when they change their diets or add supplements.

Take fish oil, for example. Human brains are roughly 60% fat, and the omega-3 fatty acids are essential components of the fatty sheaths that surround nerve cells, so it makes some sense that fish oil could be some help in treating the condition. I also seem to remember on here reading that many ADDers show signs of omega-3 deficiencies.

What about L-tyrosine? It's one of the few nutrional supplements that has clinical studies backing it in the treatment of ADHD. It just so happens that L-tyrosine is a metabolic precursor of everybody's favorite neurotransmitters, dopamine and norepinephrine, as well as the thyroid hormone thyroxine.

Given the evidence, I don't think you can categorically make the assertion that there's no causal link between ADD and nutrition.

"Dear Dr. Barkley,

I am in the UK and, as a psychotherapist, support adults with ADHD. This is mainly, but not solely, outside of our National Health System, as it is so difficult for UK adults to find clinicians who recognise ADHD, let alone get our health service to pay for any care in this field.
My question relates to alternative medications for ADHD.
I have seen a number of adults who are being prescribed stimulant meds by their psychiatrists who, fairly often, admit to being a novice in the area. These adults often feel the information they are being provided with, by their physician, is less than satisfactory and, as a result they are extremely mistrusting of the safety of the meds.

They report to me that they are taking some of the so-called 'herbal' or alternatives available such as the product "L-Tyrosine" etc. This, along with a few others have been recommended by one of the ADHD clinics, I believe that recommends alternatives to stimulant meds.

Some are taking a complete cocktail of drugs alongside their stimulant meds which include the vitamins Bs, Gingko Biloba, Kava Kava etc.
Personally, as a psychotherapist, I am, of course, not able to advise these people on the dangers involved with taking such a cocktail. I would, however, like to be able to furnish them with literature that describes risks or recommends against taking such a cocktail. This is in the absence of somewhere fairly immediate to be able to refer them to in the UK.

I can find nothing in the literature that helps me to point these people in the right direction and would be grateful for any pointers you are able to offer.
Many thanks indeed.

Sue, Psychotherapist in the UK

Dr. Barkley responds:

Sue,

At this time, there is no scientific evidence supporting the use of herbal, alternative, or natural remedies for ADHD, either when used alone, or in combination with other, more established prescription drugs. While the label for such remedies may hold some psychological appeal if not reassurance (natural, herbal, etc.) of harmlessness, that in fact is not the case. Most are useless and some can in fact be harmful if consumed in substantial quantities or used with other medications.

I wish you well in your practice.

Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D.
Professor, College of Health Professions
Medical University of South Carolina"

taken from ->http://www.addconsults.com/articles/full.php3?id=1331

Scuro,
I, personally, am very skeptical of natural medicine, but I found your orginal post offensive due to the absoluteness of your post. What would have been more appropriate IMO, would be for you to have said something like, "As a professional psychotherapist specializing in the treatment of Adult ADD, I know of no scientific evidence that proves nutrition supplements help in the treatment of ADD."

If you want research articles about Eastern medicine, it is not advisable to ask a doctor or other professional who uses/teaches Western medicine. Also, just because we do not have proof that "supplement X" works does not mean that "supplement X" does not work (check my sig for the same concept stated much more eloquently there).

You cannot get a patent on natural remedies, so there is no motivation for drug companies to spend billions of dollars in solid medical research on natural remedies. As soon as a remedy is proven successful, anybody could sell that product ...so the drug companies would not get sufficient pay off for all the time & money they invested.

As I said early, I am very skeptical of natural medicine so unfortunately, I cannot refer you to any particular website or professonal to get more info. However, if you are truly interested in getting info about the pros & cons about various supplements, I suggest you try to contact doctors who specialize in natural medicine/homeopathy.

Ginger,

Look at what I wrote,"ADHD is not a nutrient input disorder. Period". I believe every Scientist in the field would support that opinion and that is why I put it in absolute terms. The statement would be that obvious to them. Choose to be offended if you wish ...but... People with ADHD need to know this and that is why I am taking the time to post and find support from respected scientists to back my statements up.

Do you really think that there wouldn't be a massive stampede to whose ever door if there was any sort of "cure" or remedy for adhd that worked nearly as good as medication? That news would spread like wildfire no matter what the drug companies did. I would even spread that news and spread it far and wide. Currently, medication is the only clinically proven way to significantly reduce symptoms for people with ADHD which is a life impairing disorder.

The way that I interpret your statement "ADHD is not a nutrient input disorder. Period." is that no one should bother worrying about that the nutrients they put into their bodies will have an affect on their ADHD symptoms because nutrients have nothing to do with ADHD. Is this what you intended to say? Also, the black & what nature of your statement topped of with the word "Period." gives the impression that no one should even bother considering the role nutrients have on ADD ecause there is no connection -- period -- end of discussion. Kinda makes a person feel dumb for asking. Kinda squashes a person's desire to investigate and learn about their options.

If you truly believe that there are no other other ways to significantly reduce ADHD symptoms, how do you justify doing therapy with people with ADHD? Or perhaps I'm mis-interpreting your profession ...in the US, a psychotherapist does therapy (counseling, talk-therapy, etc) whereas a psychiatrist prescribes medications.

I absolutely think that there would be a stampede for a "remedy" for ADD, but I think that every Tom, Dick & Harry would be on the street corner selling these generic remedies BECAUSE some other company did the research that proved the remedy worked. Tom, Dick & Harry would make a decent profit, but the company that spent the money to do the research would not make enough money to justify having spent millions researching the homeopathic remedy. The company has no legal claim to the remedy because it is a "natural substance." At least this is how the patent laws in the US work --not sure if it's the same in the UK.

Quite simply what I said was, the lack of certain nutrients does not cause ADHD. The quoted letter by Dr. Barkley goes one step further and states, "no scientific evidence supporting the use of herbal, alternative, or natural remedies for ADHD, either when used alone, or in combination with other, more established prescription drugs". He implies that all alternative remedies can be shown to not be statistically significant within the ADHD population".

If ADHD was caused by a lack of any one nutrient would we see hungry children in the third world;
# running, climbing over furniture, or leaving a seat, in situations where sitting or quiet behavior is expected ?
# blurting out answers before hearing the whole question ?
# having difficulty waiting in line or for a turn ?
I don't think so.

Would we also not see certain populations of the world be free of all adhd because their diet would contain enough of the vital nutrient? Neither situation is the case. You can look into nutrients but not one shred of evidence supports this view while countless studies have shown that ADHD has genetic underpinnings.

Finally, I think you missed the quotation marks and the link on post #5. I am not a Dr. That response was a quoted letter and Dr. Barkley's response to the question, do alternative remedies like L-Tyrosine, help? Dr. Barkley is probably the most important scientist in the world today, in the ADHD field. If the big guy says it, you can take it to the bank.

I would again point out that because we lack evidence, it does not necessarily mean that the evidence does not exist.

I do not believe that ADHD is caused by lacking a particular nutrient, but I think it's possible that the presence or absence of some nutrients may increase or decrease ADHD symptoms.

I do not understand your whole example with starving children.

This discussion has run its course in my mind. Frankly, it really is not that important to me and my ADD brain has lost interest. I just get annoyed when things are said with such absoluteness -- the human body is incredibly complex, and neurology is doubly complex. There is an awful lot that we do not know.

Sorry for misunderstanding with the quotation. I've never heard of Dr. Barkley. Is he a neurologist?

Russell Barkley

Russell Barkley, Ph.D., of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, is one of the foremost researchers and clinicians on ADHD.

Try not to take differences of opinion personally. If someone disagrees with your spin, let it go and make points the same way our best advocates do. Like Barkley we should strive to share our researched and documented sources so we can all learn from a process that's dynamic and not entrenched so deeply change becomes impossible.

I've never heard of Dr. Barkley. Is he a neurologist?

Gingagirl,
Perhaps this will help?
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=176728&postcount=7

I read thru some of the post. That's am interesting idea the Dr. Barkley proposes -- that many inattentive type ADDers are an entirely different disorders ...but he's really, really gotta come up with a better name. I mean, he says people in this SCT subset tend to be introverted and more prone to depression ...telling them they've got "sluggish cognitive tempo" is not nice. Geez, SCT ranks right up there with "minimal brain dysfunction" in terms of being a horrible name for a disorder. Hope he renames it before it gets accepted into the mainstream of psychology.

Barkley doesn't even like the term ADHD! He thinks it doesn't describe the disorder well since it not really an attention deficit...8 year olds are great at playing video games for hours...but the term has been accepted into our culture and into law.

He wasn't too keen on SCT either.

This was about glyconutrients. Since they are about helping cells talk to one another, they would help many processes in out bodies including brain function. Our ADD brains work differently, not wrong, just differently. If glconutrients help them to work differently more quickly, all the better! (grin) And if they help prevent heart disease, stroke, cancer etc. while they are doing that, all the better!
There are natural sources. Check out glconutrients on the search engine, not just on the site of the pill provider. Those weird mushrooms that you can grow in your fridge seem to have them for one...

http://www.glyconutrientsreference.com/whatareglyconutrients/naturalsourcesofglyconutrients.html

Glycon nutrients is a type of sugar ( a good sugar), not the bad kind that our body needs, My sons neurologist uses it alot on his patients some with success and others without.


I tried the glyco nutrients for my son for about 3 months. Believe me, I have tried every natural things out there, all the diets ( no sugar, food colorings, etc)
and unfortunately nothing has worked. HOWEVER, some of these things have worked for others. I believe ADHD, can be caused by several things, example, some maybe allergic to certain foods, colorings in the foods or whatever. No one should fault a caring parent for wanting to try something that is natural to help their child!

ADHD is not a nutrient input disorder. Period.
It could also be said that ADHD is not a deficiency of drugs disorder.

Back to the topic of glyconutrients, Here is an abstract from pubmed stating that in this particular study, glyconutrients decreased the number and severity of adhd symptoms:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=98256711&dopt=Abstract

And this one explains the effect of glyconutrients on brain function generally. They increase the brain waves associated with alertness:

http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/start_frames.wm?FILENAME=C011

lol...excellent comments on the name.

It's a good thing I don't have any input, because I tend to name everything BFD or WTF.

As far as glyconutrients go, I can only comment on the ADHD research I've read or seen presented, which goes thru Nov.'05.

There's no nutritional substance of any kind currently found to work as a clinical treatment of ADHD.

What I mean by that is that there has been no proof of longitudinal validity and reliability.

I do appreciate the links tho.:)

That doesn't mean it won't ever happen,however,it does mean that it hasn't happened yet.

Good Luck & Happy Holidays to everyone

mctavish23
(Robert)

Okay,

I read them.

Once again, I appreciate the links.

I don't know the first company,however, I always cringe when reading a company's research.

That isn't meant as a criticism of this group or these data.

It does mean that in the 17 years I've devoted to making ADHD my primary area of expertise, I've never (personally) read any research that was ever replicated by anyone outside that particular compamy.

There are some definite proponents of EEG treatment, however, they are in the minority.

There needs to be a lot more research for that to gain any widespread acceptance among clinician's.

The important thing(to me) is to read each and everyone of them with an open mind.

tc

mctavish23
(Robert)

I appreciate your open-mindedness :)

I agree, there does need to be more research, and I think it's important to remember that 'natural' treatments, especially those based on nutrition aren't necessarily a 'treatment' for adhd but a way of providing the body with optimal amounts of what it needs to function the way it was designed, and make up for any imbalances/deficiencies that are a result of poor diet or absorption, stress, a higher need due to overactivity, or some drug treatments if they interfere with nutritional biochemistry. Nutrition affects brain function, and some deficiencies can result in deficiencies of certain neurotransmitters for example.

Based on the glyconutrient research I have done, they allow the proper formation of glycoproteins in cells, and supply the needed sugars faster and in greater quantity. Glycoproteins are responsible for cellular recognition and communication. Normal brain function relies on proper communication between cells via receptors (which are made of glyconutrient/protein combinations). It seems that 6 of the 8 glyconutrients are very deficient in todays diet due to modern farming practices such as green harvesting and accelerated/artifical ripening, which doesn't allow these nutrients to develop.

Using natural treatments such as these are an individual decision, but I personally don't want to wait around for conclusive evidence of any particular supplement. I use various 'natural supplements, including glyconutrients, with my son who has autism, and my patients, with great success. (I am a naturopath with a science degree if you're wondering).

Back to the topic of glyconutrients, Here is an abstract from pubmed stating that in this particular study, glyconutrients decreased the number and severity of adhd symptoms:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=98256711&dopt=Abstract


This study has no control group. Frankly, I'm surprised it was published, even in something as obscure as Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science.

A control group is a very basic and vital part of any experiment. I've found that most supplement studies that report significant differences use this horribly-flawed "pretest postest" design. Without a control group, one cannot determine the cause of pretest/postest differences. The simple act of participating in a study can easily produce improvements in symptoms in the short run.

With only one treatment group, the study cannot be blind, so everyone who participates expects an improvement in symptoms. Expectation is a very strong influence.


And this one explains the effect of glyconutrients on brain function generally. They increase the brain waves associated with alertness:

http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/start_frames.wm?FILENAME=C011
This was published in: GlycoScience & Nutrition (Official Publication of GlycoScience.com: The Nutrition Science Site)

This is not a peer-reviewed journal, and this is not a research report. It's not subject to the scrutiny of objective scientists working in the field.

The site and the publication have an agenda. Their sole purpose is to promote the use of these products.

That's enough for me.

Concerning the building of glycoproteins:
I am biochemist working in protein biochemistry. As far as I know, the building of glycoproteins has NOTHING to do with the kind of sugars you eat.
1. The body is able to convert sugars into each other. Fruit sugar, for example, can be converted into glucose. Otherwise it could not be used for energy.
2. Usually, ingested sugars are first converted into glucose, travel then with the bloodstream to the different tissues. There, the individual cells take them up and convert them into the sugars they need.

Actually, you should be careful not to substitute to much "normal food" with other sugars. At least from sports, we know that there is only limited capacity to convert other sugars into glucose. This could result in hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and worsen the symptoms.

What is important about sugars and ADD: Varying blood sugar levels can worsen the symptoms. Apparently, some people already show symptoms of low blood sugar at reletively high levels.
This can make ADD worse. Low bloodsugar feels approximately like a nasty rebound from ritalin :rolleyes:

Besides, all sorts of hypoglycemia should be ruled out at the diagnosis. In rare cases, they could fake ADD.

And, what to my knowledge has never been researched: There are dopamine-receptors involved in the regulation of secretion of insuline. should you have a inherited problem with these receptors, you could have problems with your blood sugar as well.
But thats just a guess :rolleyes:
Maybe my next research field ;)

Cutting sugar levels might result in a more even blood sugar level...
but take care, food has not only a physical, but a psychic component of well-being. I had to learn that the hard way (5 years of eating disorders)
Try to find a balance between food you FEEL you want to eat and food you KNOW you should eat.

Maybe I should add I've worked once in "glycomics". That is the field about glycoproteins. just to add to my credibility ;)

Thank you for the tutorial on sugars!

Sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D002#) can be incorporated directly into glycoconjugates (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D002#),<SUP>61 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2585&NUMBER=61) </SUP><SUP>64 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2611&NUMBER=64) </SUP><SUP>7 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2372&NUMBER=7) </SUP><SUP>77 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2799&NUMBER=77) </SUP><SUP>62 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2657&NUMBER=62) </SUP><SUP>12 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2371&NUMBER=12) </SUP><SUP>13 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2373&NUMBER=13) </SUP><SUP>10 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2579&NUMBER=10) </SUP><SUP>67 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2620&NUMBER=67) </SUP><SUP>78 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2624&NUMBER=78) </SUP>in some cases with little or no metabolism (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D002#) to other sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D002#) (e.g. fucose).<SUP>79 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2677&NUMBER=79) </SUP><SUP>80 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2678&NUMBER=80) </SUP>

Although the sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D002#) can be synthesized from glucose via these glycolytic enzymes (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D002#), it has been clearly demonstrated that exogenous (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D002#) sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D002#) are preferred as substrates and are utilized directly in the formation for glycoconjugates (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D002#) (see Introduction).

The above quotes taken from here: http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/start_frames.wm?FILENAME=D002

It has now been shown that the eight sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) essential for glycoconjugate (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) synthesis (i.e. mannose (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#), galactose, fucose, xylose, glucose, sialic acid, N-acetylglucosamine, N-acetylgalactosamine)<SUP>29 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2573&NUMBER=29) </SUP>can be readily absorbed <SUP>30 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2641&NUMBER=30) </SUP><SUP>31 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2655&NUMBER=31) </SUP><SUP>32 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=81&NUMBER=32) </SUP><SUP>33 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2592&NUMBER=33) </SUP><SUP>34 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2650&NUMBER=34) </SUP><SUP>35 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2372&NUMBER=35) </SUP><SUP>36 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2591&NUMBER=36) </SUP><SUP>37 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2595&NUMBER=37) </SUP><SUP>38 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2579&NUMBER=38) </SUP><SUP>20 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2580&NUMBER=20) </SUP>and directly incorporated into glycoproteins (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) and glycolipids (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#).<SUP>39 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2371&NUMBER=39) </SUP><SUP>35 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2372&NUMBER=35) </SUP>Thus, although metabolic (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) pathways exist for synthesis of non-glucose sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) from glucose, and it has long been thought that glucose is the most important dietary sugar (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#),<SUP>29 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2573&NUMBER=29) </SUP>it has recently been shown that glycosylation (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) reactions actually prefer to utilize non-glucose essential sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) (e.g. mannose) provided in the diet as substrates.<SUP>39 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2371&NUMBER=39) </SUP><SUP>35 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2372&NUMBER=35) </SUP><SUP>40 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2373&NUMBER=40) </SUP>This more direct route also avoids the unnecessary expenditure of energy and allows for more rapid production of needed glycoconjugates (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#). In fact, if only glucose is supplied (e.g. intravenous feeding), the liver (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) severely malfunctions, due to a lack of the other essential glycoconjugate (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#), indicating that the body simply cannot synthesize all the other essential sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D003#) from glucose to the extent that they are needed.<SUP>38 (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/reference.wm?REFID=2579&NUMBER=38) </SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/start_frames.wm?FILENAME=D003


Glyconutritionals (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/start_frames.wm?ID=719) are designed to make the necessary sugars (http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=D001#) available to the cells quicker and in greater quantity.

http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/start_frames.wm?FILENAME=D001

Let me please add these comments to the discussion:

1) As previously stated, there has been no connection found between diet & nutrition and ADHD in the 30+ years of ongoing research.

One study did find that 5% of pre-school children with ADHD also showed food sensitivites (food allergies).

However, treating the food allergies helped with that problem, but did nothing for the ADHD.

2) In September, I had the priviledge of being invited to a presentation on ADHD by a neurodevelopmental pediatrician from the Philadelphia,Pa. area.

During the presentation, she reiterated the above remarks regarding there being no connection between diet and nutrition and ADHD.

She went on to say that occasionally she will hear people say things like "Why can't you just take amino's to treat ADHD since dopamine and norepinephrine are amino acids?"

Her repsonse was to point out how dopamine is "extremely complex" in terms of the different parts of the brain it impacts.

She then made of point of saying how the Mesocortical Pathway "says (determines) where it (dopamine ) goes."

Her next comment was " L-Dopa doesnt work in the Mesocortical Pathway."

( The remarks in qoutations are direct qoutes taken from my notes).

Julmer,

If taking "glyconutrients" is so beneficial, why the lack of research? Why no peer-reviewed publications of randomized, controlled, double-blind studies?

BTW, you noted that one of the studies you cited (that I criticized in another post) concluded that glyconutrients "increase the brain waves associated with alertness".

ADDers certainly don't want to increase alertness! ADDers are already hyper-alert. This is most likely the proximal cause for the symptoms we describe as "easily distracted" and "easily startled" as well as why we make so many "careless" mistakes. Alert people complete easy to moderate tasks much more quickly, but with more mistakes.

I am just seeing through your references. unfortunately, I can't access most full articles
nice quote from 38: Data in man are too sp**** to reach firm conclusions, implying a need for further investigations :)

have to care not to hyperfocus... but I'll try to have a closer look later, when I have more time.
What I do not like yet:

The articles are not really in high-impact journals. A new essential nutrient should make it to higher journals.

The articles are not very much cited. E.g. one article from 1998 is cited only five times up to now. That's really poor.

In the abstracts, the authors themselves state two things: Usually those sugars are non-essential, and that a supplementation is usually only necessary in certain diseases.

So far, there was only one mouse-study, that proved higher intake of mannose is not dangerous. There are no data for human, as well as for other sugars.

The preferential incorporation of ingested sugars does not really allow any conclusion. There are chemical equilibria in each cell. If there is enough of a given substance, e.g. sugars, the cell does not "manufacture" them, as the molarity is shifted. Thus, the enthalpy for the reaction rises, and it does not take place anymore.

More later. Have to take care to work at things I am supposed to do.... ADD....