Do "inattentives" (in outer space) require a different treatment plan that a adhd (hyper/impulsivity)?

if not, why the fuss of making a distinction?

Well If I remember correctly Adderall, Dexedrine, amphetamine salts, and Wellbutrin have been more effective for treating Inattentive ADD. And drugs such as Ritilin or Concerta work better on those with ADHD. But I mean it's not an exact science, since the discovery of 6 seperate subtypes of ADD/ADHD all may require different types of medications used in unison, dietary changes, etc.

There is also mounting support to classify Inattentive ADD as a seperate disorder entirely because it's huge differences compared to ADHD. So that's the reason for the distinction. People with Inattentive ADD and people with ADHD experiance many of the same problems growing up, but also experiance drastically different problems.

I mean if the forum really wanted to be organization freaks they could create sub forums for all 6 types of ADD/ADHD as defined by Dr. Amen but I doubt most of us even know which of the 6 subtypes we have.

I am hyperactive and generally do not post here but I can't stand misinformation, I know this medication generalization is not some Xeon just dreamed up I am very sure he read it here . . .. I know I have read it here {and corrected it here} before. . . .

I take adderall I am hyperactive ADD, I did very poorly on Ritalin and Ritalin type drugs.

I have a daughter that does better on Concerta and she is more inattentive than hyper so no pharmacology speaking there isn't really a cut and dry difference.

There is closer to an individual reaction to medications than a general one -


But I mean it's not an exact science,


Yeah this is the truth - ADD is closer to confusing science but the problem is confusing scientists not the ADD


since the discovery of 6 seperate subtypes of ADD/ADHD all may require different types of medications used in unison, dietary changes, etc.


There is only three subtypes currently recognized by main stream medicine - Dr. Amen does his own thing with the six types

Diagnostic Criteria for ADHD (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=237079&postcount=1)

Based on these criteria, three types of ADHD are identified:

1. ADHD, Combined Type: if both criteria 1A and 1B are met for the past 6 months
2. ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Type: if criterion 1A is met but criterion 1B is not met for the past six months
3. ADHD, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type: if Criterion 1B is met but Criterion 1A is not met for the past six months.

American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000.


Why this sub-forum well that isn't science at all it is called enough people wanted an inattentive ADD sub-forum and asked often enough over a long period of time that administration felt that there was enough interest to warrant a separate section -

if not, why the fuss of making a distinction?

Pretty much what Meadd and Xeon said about the big difference between inattentives and hyperactives.

The treatment may be the same to some degree, but there's general behavioral differences (high energy vs low energy, quick thinking vs difficulty processing things, etc.).

Yeah this is the truth - ADD is closer to confusing science but the problem is confusing scientists not the ADD

To clarify, the problem is not really with scientists. The problem is simply the fact that the real world is almost invariably more complex than the nice, discrete categories that we come up with for diagnostic purposes. This is particularly true when you are talking about anything related to the brain, because the subject matter is so incredibly complex. Real people are so diverse that many disorders grade into each other and grade into "normalcy".

Scientists know this, of course. It's just that, if we are going to even begin to talk about any kind of psychological disorder, we have no choice but to try to categorize the problem as best we can. There is little point in writing a textbook entitled, "The Detailed Neuroanatomical and Neurophysiological Profile for John Wison Anderson of Atlanta Georgia: A Focus on His Strenths and Weaknesses." ;)

So, we just do our best to find groups of people with similar difficulties and we attach a label to it in the hope that therapies can be found that are effective for a reasonable percentage of the population to which the label is given. It's an imperfect solution, but that's not really the fault of scientists -- it's just because of the complexity of the human brain.

To clarify, the problem is not really with scientistsThe problem is simply the fact that the real world is almost invariably more complex than the nice, discrete categories that we come up with for diagnostic purposes. This is particularly true when you are talking about anything related to the brain, because the subject matter is so incredibly complex. Real people are so diverse that many disorders grade into each other and grade into "normalcy".


This is some how different than what I said?

Scientist try to put some thing that can't be neatly categorized into neat categories so they will have an easy way to label people - gee I feel better already

Scientist know what they are doing can't really be done accurately but they are doing it any way because it is the best they can do. To top this off it isn't the science that is confusing it is the human brain - hmm scientist have brains that are believed to be human so it to must be confusing

Hence my point. . . . or so I thought.

I see a twisted irony - ADD a condition where "working" memory is a problem so these scientist who aren't confused keep changing the damn name - Pretty soon if I can remember the name of my condition that means I don't have it. . . . because my freaking memory is working!

To think I am the one on medications.

One thing to really focus on with regards to medications is comorbid disorders, or disorders that often occur alongside ADD/ADHD. From what I've read and seen, anxiety-related disorders often appear more commonly alongside the primarily inattentive form of ADHD. As a result, many inattentive ADHD'ers end up on some type of anti-anxiety medication because of this comorbid. Several learning disabilities and processing disorders (as separate distinct disorders from ADHD themselves, but often seen alongside of it), are also more common with the primarily inattentive form of the disorder. Depressive and OCD-like comorbid disorders are often more common with the inattentive form as well, so we begin to see more anti-depressants pop up. As mentioned above, Wellbutrin can sometimes be useful since, it can perform "double duty" as a medication for both ADHD and depression-related disorders. Finally, as a general rule of thumb, stimulant meds are often needed at noticeably lower amount for the inattentive form vs. the hyperactive/impulsive or combined forms of ADHD.

This is some how different than what I said?

Yes. Here's what you said:

Yeah this is the truth - ADD is closer to confusing science but the problem is confusing scientists not the ADD

You said that the problem was "confusing scientists". Thus, you placed the blame on scientists. That's very different from what I said, which was that the problem is simply the complexity of the subject matter.


Scientist try to put some thing that can't be neatly categorized into neat categories so they will have an easy way to label people - gee I feel better already

What is your proposed solution? Should we do away with diagnostic categories altogether merely because there are ambiguous cases on the edges of the diagnostic category? Simply not diagnose ANYONE with ADHD? Autism? Schizophrenia?


Scientist know what they are doing can't really be done accurately but they are doing it any way because it is the best they can do. To top this off it isn't the science that is confusing it is the human brain - hmm scientist have brains that are believed to be human so it to must be confusing

There is a difference between saying that the human brain is highly complex and saying that the problem is because scientists are somehow dealing with the issue in the wrong way (which is what your sarcasm seems to be saying throughout this post).


I see a twisted irony - ADD a condition where "working" memory is a problem so these scientist who aren't confused keep changing the damn name - Pretty soon if I can remember the name of my condition that means I don't have it. . . . because my freaking memory is working!

To think I am the one on medications.

I never said that scientists are not confused. Rather, my point was to say that there are very good reasons why scientists are confused -- because the subject matter is instrinsically confusing and staggeringly complex. The name changes because our understanding of the disorder changes.

You seem to have completely ignored that in favor of sarcasm. I am very disappointed to see a post like this from a moderator on the board. Why do you feel the need to insult my profession (including, presumably, me) with such a sarcastic and insulting post?

What is your proposed solution? Should we do away with diagnostic categories altogether merely because there are ambiguous cases on the edges of the diagnostic category? Simply not diagnose ANYONE with ADHD? Autism? Schizophrenia?


No but what would be nice is less confusion , THAT would be nice, Lets take ADD as an example how may freaking times have they changed the name??

Diabetes one and two are caused by two separate issues however they are still referred to as diabetes one and two and have been since they originated. They did not keep changing and rearrange the stupid name of the condition - How much more sense does it make to keep the names the same of a condition like ADD that they claim effects memory ???

There is a sick irony to constantly changing the name of a condition scientist themselves claim effects "working memory" frankly THAT is confusing


ADHD? Autism? Schizophrenia?

Schizophrenia develops , as does autism but ADHD is some thing one is born with that stays consistent though out the person's life much like gender.




You said that the problem was "confusing scientists". Thus, you placed the blame on scientists

Because they are they ones who keep changing the damn name - The changes ARE their fault and it has nothing to do with the complexity of the human brain.

In my opinion they need to pick a freaking name and stick with it - Geez you want to get all up in arms because I think changing the name of the same condition six times makes scientist appear confused then far be it for me to get in your way.

You are free to feel how ever you choose.





There is a difference between saying that the human brain is highly complex and saying that the problem is because scientists are somehow dealing with the issue in the wrong way (which is what your sarcasm seems to be saying throughout this post).

You are taking my post a lot more seriously than I intended it to be - I was being flippant and pointing out how I see irony. Personally I thought the fact I was being silly via my extreme associations was obvious.



Science is but one approach to discovery and information gathering It has it's share of problems just as any other approach to discovery and information gathering does. I thought this was common knowledge along with the fact that the human brain is complex so I failed to see the need to mention either in my previous post.


I was messing around not being serious but I do not see the huge difference between what you said and what I did but I can now see how you do - okay thanks for answering my question.


I was not intending to be insulting or cause such an upset in any one I merely have an opinion figured it was no big deal.

I have posted with a few scientist here it has been my experience that after the grueling process of peer reviews and the multiple intellectual challenges scientist go through professionally some sarcasm from an anonymous person on the Internet isn't even a blip on their emotional radar screen.



You seem to have completely ignored that in favor of sarcasm. I am very disappointed to see a post like this from a moderator on the board. Why do you feel the need to insult my profession (including, presumably, me) with such a sarcastic and insulting post?



You want to disagree fine every one has an opinion and the right to express it. I think diversity in perspectives is a good thing. I love some one who can provide a challenging opposing opinion

Dislike my post - that is okay I realize my style is not to every one's liking. I can deal with that.

Communicate you feel I am being sarcastic or insulting - good it I will be glad you told me . . . some times I don't know therefore telling me will gives me a chance to correct misunderstandings or an error in my presentation -

Misunderstanding number one - I was talking about the scientist who keep changing the name of ADD not every scientist on the planet

Misunderstanding number two - not every thing posted about scientist or science is directed at you personally. There is no obvious way of telling what your profession is - well not obvious to me any way

Misunderstanding number three - In my last post I was playing around. I was NOT being serious


Final point - Attacking my title is like trying to hit me below the belt and it diminishes any decent points you may have made in your rebuttal.

I enjoy intellectual debates in a rational manner but I really do not want to participate in emotionally driven insult exchanges

Good day . . . .

science will tell you no, but my personal opinion is that they must be caused by different things, so it makes sense for them to have different treatments

but im no neurologist

mead get this- the fact that I could remember to change over a long period of time for my psychiatrist's knowledge made me not to have true ADD because I coulld try and remember. As if we don't have any memory at all to have ADD? come on, how would we even have a brain if we didn't? Better yet, I've been taking my adderall for a long couple of months now, should I even feel betrayed that he basically inferred I shouldn't of had any progress even on meds because somehow it's a big scam that our meds actually do anything?

and lmao I really wanted the seperate thing for inattentive and now I've lost too much interest to even remember to look at it these days.

and lmao I really wanted the seperate thing for inattentive and now I've lost too much interest to even remember to look at it these days.


LAMO that sounds like some thing I would do - like going to look for some thing and forgetting what it is.

I think we have a problem with selective attention in that it seems like we have no control over what we pay attention to which is why it seems like we have no memory. I can remember if I remember to remember - but I always forget {damn it}


The inattentive section was requested by various members over the last year or so - administration makes subsection decisions based upon weather or not they think that subject has enough interest to generate activity. Inattentive ADD does appear to generate substantial interest. Going from primarily hyperactive to more inattentive as I "mature" I can see where it has it's own unique set of problems. As long as you cool inattentives still post out yonder with the rest of us I will be happy!

LAMO that sounds like some thing I would do - like going to look for some thing and forgetting what it is.

I think we have a problem with selective attention in that it seems like we have no control over what we pay attention to which is why it seems like we have no memory. I can remember if I remember to remember - but I always forget {damn it}
!


o yea, that's what screws me over most of the time. I frequently have problems remembering exactly how to describe my problems and how bad they actually are- to friends, family, and doctor. The worst part is when they come up with crap like "this isn't going to happen to you next time around or no can't have that attitude! "(thinking I really can change my problems and I can actually control my interest) as I can barely defend myself as I forget the point I was going or completely change the subject adding sometihng that doesn't make sense! Other than the problem of remembering what I need to say, this is why I am very "social" on the forums because I can express myself very well in typing and my Dad was shocked I could even express that much or talk that much when I sent him emails.

No but what would be nice is less confusion , THAT would be nice, Lets take ADD as an example how may freaking times have they changed the name??

Diabetes one and two are caused by two separate issues however they are still referred to as diabetes one and two and have been since they originated. They did not keep changing and rearrange the stupid name of the condition - How much more sense does it make to keep the names the same of a condition like ADD that they claim effects memory ???

There is a sick irony to constantly changing the name of a condition scientist themselves claim effects "working memory" frankly THAT is confusing

I guess I don't understand why it is such a big problem that the name has changed. The general public often has some dreadful misconceptions about psychological disorders. Often, the name of a disorder can contribute to these misconceptions. If we learn more about a particular disorder, such that the name becomes misleading to the uninformed, I would prefer to simply have the name changed.

I still don't know if you are serious or joking about the "sick irony" of the name changes about a disorder that involves short term memory. Surely, however, a name change once every 5 or 10 years does not seriously tax anyone's memory capacity.


Schizophrenia develops , as does autism but ADHD is some thing one is born with that stays consistent though out the person's life much like gender.

You think autism develops and ADHD is from birth? At least in a great many cases, autism IS a condition that one is born with. I am aware of those that think that various environmental conditions may trigger it in toddlers but it's not at all easy to tell whether the condition already existed in those cases or not. My son has the mildest form of autism (Asperger syndrome) and, looking back, it was clear that he was different from a VERY young age.

I certainly do not think there are any grounds for saying that ADHD is present from birth and autism is not.


In my opinion they need to pick a freaking name and stick with it - Geez you want to get all up in arms because I think changing the name of the same condition six times makes scientist appear confused then far be it for me to get in your way.

I'm not upset about that. Personally, it doesn't bother me if they never change the name again or if they change it every year. What bothered me was that I had written a post that I thought was extremely civil and you responded to it with a post that sounded (to me) inappropriately angry and sarcastic. Now you are saying that you were only kidding -- well, fine, but your post didn't look to me like it was a joke.

You are taking my post a lot more seriously than I intended it to be - I was being flippant and pointing out how I see irony. Personally I thought the fact I was being silly via my extreme associations was obvious.

Well, one of the oldest truisms of internet message boards is that it's not always easy to tell when someone is being silly-sarcastic or angry-sarcastic. If we were talking face to face I would be able to see your facial expressions and body language. Over the internet, however, I don't have the benefit of that. All I see are words written by a total stranger. I've seen far more extreme things posted by people that were completely serious. So, no, it was not at all obvious to me that you were being silly.


Final point - Attacking my title is like trying to hit me below the belt and it diminishes any decent points you may have made in your rebuttal.

I enjoy intellectual debates in a rational manner but I really do not want to participate in emotionally driven insult exchanges

I never even came close to insulting you and you know it. I said that I was disappointed to see such a "sarcastic and insulting post from a moderator". How you could have interpreted that as "attacking your title" is beyond me.