Dietary roots of diseases and disorders.

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by qinkin

We don't know that the mechanism is consistent with ADHD patients. We don't know how long the mechanism persists. We aren't pretty sure that these changes maximize survival potential in times of little food availability, nor the extent to which it would do this.

Can you describe what we do know instead of what we don't know RE: adhd ?

If you can list the points out - so that I can see whether I can understand what you mean by 'know'.

Try to be clear - but only because if you're not clear, I will not be able to understand the point you're making.

Use simple language to aid communication.

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by Abi

ADHD people forget to eat and burn down the house etc.

It will still be a problem.

Forgetting to eat isn't a problem, as long as there's food available when ADDer comes to eat.

Burning down the house will be harder if people have kicked cigarettes, no longer use deep fat friers (health reasons), have an intelligent heating system (geothermal ??) which doesn't require a naked flame, have electric cookers (we phase out gas - as a fuel of the past) ?

All soluble.

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by qinkin

And you assume that in patients, ADHD will show a cessation or continuation, when those 2 variables are controlled for.

Here's a classic example - I don't understand what that sentence means.

I'm stating that ADHD has 2 components - an 'advantage' and a 'disadvantage' - where the 'disadvantage' (disorder) can be eradicated with social/environmental/contextual change
- and where the social/environmental/contextual change required (globally) is described by Line 3 of my signature.

Your words aren't sufficiently clear for me to understand.

"ADHD will" cease - is or is not correct dependent on which component of ADHD (described above) you're referencing.
"2 variables" - why call them variables ?
"controlled for" - why use the term control ?

-*-

The disorder component of ADHD will be overcome by global social/environmental change (as described in Line 3 of my signature).
The disorder arises from our own minds rejecting immorality (causing us pain when we {see, engage in, are the victims of} immoral practices).
That all people do not have the little they need to survive, whilst some have far more than they'll ever need, is the ultimate in immorality.

Much simpler language - language designed to communicate.

[pechemignonne]

Originally Posted by qinkin

Pechemigonne, I have to say, for the most part you are a clear thinker. I am not going to say that ADD can't be treated with diet, though. I can't throw that out entirely. For instance, not eating regularly or enough will have an effect on your cognition. Just stop eating for a week and see how well your medications work, and how attentive you are, how well you sleep, etc.

I never said that ADHD wasn't affected by diet. It just can't be caused or treated with dietery changes.

ADHD is effected by pretty much everything, and affects pretty much everything, because pretty much everything we do is affected by, and affects, executive functioning.

Sleep, diet, exercise, other illnesses, emotional difficulties, stress, you name it.

But none of the above can cause ADHD or treat it. They can only make it somewhat better or worse.

Originally Posted by SB_UK

I'm sorry - I really, really, really can't understand the point you're making.

[1] I'm suggesting that there's a selection pressure (throughout the evolution of life - where food has been (and continues to be) difficult to acquire) which will select for metabolic efficiency in the interests of ensuring survival.
[2] We know that the mechanism exists (Sapolsky, Dutch Hunger Winter).
[3] We know that the mechanism persists (Pembrey, SGP paper).
[4] We're pretty sure that the consequences of these changes (Sapolsky, 'stingy' with blood sugar and fat) that these changes will maximize survival potential in times of little food availability.
[5] We know that lower levels of blood sugar and fat result in increased longevity/lower incidence of disease (paper referenced by Qinkin on a previous thread (?? Mercola/Japanese centenarians ??)).
[6] My personal experience of ADHD is that it's caused by
metabolic efficiency
&
a massively increased stress-sensitivity (which occurs as a direct consequence of metabolic efficiency).
[7] My personal observation is that metabolic efficiency - can be read as the switch from facultative to obligate aerobic respiration.

I'm pretty sure - since I'm only using your references in the argument above (from TZM III, Sapolsky and the Mercola site) - that you know all of this ??????

Do I have to keep repeating it ?

There's every chance that I'm missing something - but I can't work out what that is, unless you point it out using simple language.

I haven't been able to understand any of your last 5 or so posts.

The problem is that only points 1-5 are based on any kind of replicable science, and even then as far as I understand you are talking about maybe a few studies.

Points 6-7 are the only ones that relate to ADHD, and these are based solely on one individual's personal experience, and contradict the personal experiences of many, many other people with ADHD.

There is therefore very, very little likelihood that they are in any way applicable to anyone else other than the OP, and are therefore not true for ADHD in general, and cannot and should not change how ADHD is viewed by the scientific community.

Which is: ADHD is disorder caused by genetic inheritance, and it is treatable mostly through medication and lifestyle changes.

Originally Posted by Abi

ADHD people forget to eat and burn down the house etc.

It will still be a problem.

lolz too true...

Originally Posted by Amtram

Individuals do not evolve. Species evolve, especially in geographically restricted areas with the same environmental factors that influence reproductive selection and survival to reproductive age. This takes many generations, and the length of objective time it takes depends on the time between generations of the species in question. What we do to ourselves may have no impact whatsoever on even our offspring, much less our species as a whole. If it does, we will not be around long enough to see it.

As for diet and disease, well, in order to claim that diet offers resistance, one must first reject the germ theory. We have examples all over of people who adhere to overall "healthy lifestyles" that include avoidance of vaccination for communicable diseases. Despite depending on a mostly vegetarian, mostly organic diet, supplements promoted as immune system strengtheners, and regular outdoor activity, these folks are the primary source of the resurgence in Measles and Pertussis. I'm sure that if you exposed anyone to a highly communicable disease, even if they assiduously followed any of these lifestyles that supposedly confer higher resistance to disease, he/she would become ill.

If you get bitten by a diseased tick, you are highly likely to get the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever or Lyme disease it carries. If you get bitten by a diseased mosquito and haven't been vaccinated, you won't be able to avoid malaria. If you are bitten by a rabid animal, the rabies virus will make you sick.

None of the bacteria or viruses that cause disease are blockaded by what you eat or how much you exercise. Genetics and medical treatment may affect how severe your case is, and if you start off in good health you might have an easier recovery. Causation has been established with these diseases, and the only preventives are vaccination and/or contact avoidance.

There are plenty of good reasons to eat healthy and exercise - and even to examine the effect of certain foods on your personal quality of life - but none of them have anything to do with evolution, and few with disease resistance. I would focus on the ones with the stronger supportable claims.

I concur.

Originally Posted by qinkin

I think Amtram and Abi have been making really good points, so if you can't address it, then it's time to go back to the drawing board.. I'm already there working on it. I can respect that you desire to work on this until it is checked and verified by the scientific community. Am I wrong to assume that? You think this is all your effort? Everyone is trying to better understand this. There are flaws and bias in your reasoning, and people are taking the time and effort to revise it.



Because why? This?::
That's precisely what I meant what I said you were biased, so now you know. I apologize for forgetting to make that clear from before. And you are kind of avoiding my questions concerning your state, (weight/height).. Stabile, someone who is not a scientist, nor one that I know of, is the person you are basing all this logic upon. It is precisely word games that you are playing here. You have had no correspondence with that couple, so for all I know, they have abandoned the notions they put forth years ago.

And you assume that in patients, ADHD will show a cessation or continuation, when those 2 variables are controlled for.

We don't know that the mechanism is consistent with ADHD patients. We don't know how long the mechanism persists. We aren't pretty sure that these changes maximize survival potential in times of little food availability, nor the extent to which it would do this.

I understand exactly what you are saying, it's not that I don't understand, it's that I can't believe it is true concerning the majority of people diagnosed with ADHD. The fact is, nobody is requesting that you to repeat these things over and over, but that you are doing it yourself.

And... cue the threats to put you on ignore for being "hostile"...

Originally Posted by SB_UK

Why are you playing games ?
All of that information was in the link.

This whole exercise is becoming tiresome.

If you understand the various points I've just made
- I'm not asking you to accept them

- then that's all I'm after.

If that were the case, there would be no need to continue, as everyone understands what you're saying.

Disagreeing with what you say despite understanding it is not "word games". It's just having a different viewpoint.

Yeah, I seem to have missed this post before:

Originally Posted by qinkin

I'm pretty sure you are misunderstanding my perspective, or you just failed to make any sense. Either way, I don't really understand what point you are making.

Or, you're misunderstanding me.

What is unclear to you?

You said food security was a problem. I noted that food security is only a problem because of food/land distribution, not an actual lack of food or lack of ability to produce food.

In other words, there is no geographical or agricultural or environmental reason for anyone on the planet to be starving. We have plenty of food. The planet is incredibly fertile.

We just don't provide access to land for most people to be able to grow their own food, and/or we grow inedible foods (coffee, or corn for refinement or other grain for use to feed livestock, for example), and/or we hoard food.

There is no global food security problem. There is a global economic inequality problem.

Originally Posted by qinkin

I never said it was either/or.

You didn't, but SB did.

Originally Posted by qinkin

You don't have to import Stevia from other countries. You can likley set aside a portion of your sugar cane crop and replace it with stevia.. Introducing stevia as a crop, has nothing to do with driving anybody off their land or slave wages. It would probably be the opposite of monoculture, as it could probably be grown alongside whatever else, in the same climates. It would likely lessen the monoculture, as you see it..

Sugar cane cannot be grown in my country. Like I said, we get our sugar from beets.

Stevia couldn't be grown in our climate, and would have to be imported.

Originally Posted by qinkin

Are you completely against cultivation of stevia? I have no clue why you think sugar from beets is more ecological than cane sugar, if they aren't organically cultivated. Please qualify/quantify what you mean. Afterall this is a scientific discussion, not assertion.

I have no problem with other people cultivating and eating stevia.

I do have a problem with someone suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to eat sugar, and that my sugar must be completely replaced with stevia.

Beet sugar is more ecological and more politically equitable than cane sugar because it does not need to be imported across-continent, and therefore saves enormous amounts of fuel. Also, since it is grown here, the workers are working under the laws of my country, and not those of an economically depressed nation that has to offer low wages and terrible working conditions.

So, beet sugar is more ecological and egalitarian for me and people who live in my area to consume than stevia would be.

Also, it tastes better.

Originally Posted by qinkin

I never said stop eating sugar, but I understand what you mean. However you tell me that stevia doesn't have good taste, and yet based on my experience, that would be nonsense. And actually it tends not to have an aftertaste.

Not sure if you even have any experience with stevia, or even use sugar.

I've tried stevia drops, agave nectar, turbinado sugar, brown sugar, maple sugar.

I find stevia has an aftertaste. If you don't mind the taste, that's great for you. But you can't tell me that my personal experience of the flavor of something is "nonsense" because a website says so.

Originally Posted by qinkin

You'd really have to read my post and the links, because I covered all that. How are sugar beets more convenient, better tasting, and less expensive? Do you know if that's ever been demonstrated? I don't, and so how can I be convinced of what you are asserting? I know stevia cannot be used to replace sugar entirely, I am talking about the subject of sweetening where the properties of sugar are not required.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just giving my opinion on the subject.

I don't need to demonstrate that sugar tastes better to me, because it's a matter of personal taste. You can't prove or disprove personal taste.

I already explained why beet sugar is less expensive and more ecological than stevia for people who live in my part of the world.

If it is less expensive and more ecological for people who live in your part of the world, then feel free to encourage stevia production for your area.

But it is always dangerous to presume that what is best for oneself is best for everyone.

In any case, I have no problem with the use of stevia, especially in products that currently use high-fructose corn syrup.

But again, if you are talking about getting rid of corn fields in Ohio and replacing them with more land degradation in Ecuador, then there is another problem to deal with.

Food politics are very complex, and there are a lot of things at stake that (IMO) are more important than how bad for people in rich nations' health it is to eat too many ding-dongs.

[SB_UK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenti...ivity_disorder

Russell Barkley and Xavier Castellanos, then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), defended the viability of the disorder. In the interview with Castellanos, he stated that little is scientifically understood.

Isn't it about time that somebody tried ?

If science can't handle it - then leave it to the ADDer; we have unique insight into the condition - and I'd like to think that by now, it's clear that we're not mentally disabled (however that term is taken) in any way.

We take longer to (potentially) learn better (though will mostly appear to be worse because of the developmental delay ('take longer'))
- there's no way that science will ever be able to demonstrate this.

I don't believe that science will be able to handle ADHD - because it requires a model for mind, which science will not be able to prove.

Science can't even prove the existence of mind
- so how's it going to handle evolutionary variations on a theme ?

Tie the observations into an explanatory framework - don't expect too much from experimental science.

Originally Posted by Russell Barkley

stated that little [of ADHD] is scientifically understood.

[pechemignonne]

Originally Posted by SB_UK

If science can't handle it - then leave it to the ADDer; we have unique insight into the condition - and I'd like to think that by now, it's clear that we're not mentally disabled (however that term is taken) in any way.

Based on what?

There are parts of our brains that do not function properly in terms of our executive functioning, which cause a disorder that we call ADHD.

What about that can be described as anything but a disability?

[Amtram]

Understanding the mind is not necessary for understanding the brain, as the mind is a self-made construct of the brain, and not something that physically exists. Science can't understand something that is not part of the natural world, but in this case, it's unnecessary, because ADD is a condition of the brain.

Science has found plenty of evolutionary variations on a theme, and has made incredible progress in understanding genetics, epigenetics, brain structure and function, all of which comes into play in discovering the potential causes of ADD, so I don't understand the skepticism.

[qinkin]

Originally Posted by SB

Why are you playing games ?
All of that information was in the link.

Uhmm.. SB I asked you whatt your height and weight were.. If it was in a link, then I can't find it, can't you just state it in public, so I can better ascertain your perspective. There is no simpler nor more straightforward way of saying it. Numbers, is what I'm asking for, your numbers.

Can you describe what we do know instead of what we don't know RE: adhd ?

If you can list the points out - so that I can see whether I can understand what you mean by 'know'.

Try to be clear - but only because if you're not clear, I will not be able to understand the point you're making.

Use simple language to aid communication.

That's for another thread, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, nor do I have time to fit that into this rather confusing conversation.

I have a feeling this conversation is on its way to neverland.

Originally Posted by SB

"ADHD will" cease - is or is not correct dependent on which component of ADHD (described above) you're referencing.
"2 variables" - why call them variables ?
"controlled for" - why use the term control ?

It doesn't require your definition, should it? By variables, I mean free access to a home, and free access to food. By control, I mean demonstrating that those variables have any effect on ADHD. What do you mean, by "why"? it is self explanatory .

I have a feeling that all you are concerned about is perception of behavior, and that if nobody saw ADHD as disorder, then it would cease to be a problem. Meaning, you don't know if any aspect of ADHD, (don't confuse the topic by turning this into dualisms), is affected by these things, nor to what extent, other than perhaps yourself. If you have any evidence that ADD has correlation to metabolic anything, please let me know, I wish to know more about it. And by dualism, I mean this:

I'm stating that ADHD has 2 components - an 'advantage' and a 'disadvantage' - where the 'disadvantage' (disorder) can be eradicated with social/environmental/contextual change
- and where the social/environmental/contextual change required (globally) is described by Line 3 of my signature.

I have much experience with your train of thought SB. You have degraded much of what I have said, into confusion. Maybe you should take a breather, and address what I'm saying in the context I'm saying it instead of projecting into it what isn't there. You're taking it on a completely different trajectory than was intended. It really doesn't require to be re-translated into anything else. It's all quite simple and straightforward.

You are making drastic replies mere minutes after me, I would expect much more thoughtfulness and care. You give the impression of somebody who has nothing more to say.

[qinkin]

Originally Posted by Pechemigonne

I never said that ADHD wasn't affected by diet. It just can't be caused or treated with dietery changes.

Eh.. that's just too confusing for me to address at this point.

And pech, you make some good points, but I don't see the point addressing any further loose ends about it. I know neither one of us has researched the stevia topic enough, and it's not really relevant, ultimately, I think we both basically get the point for now.

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by qinkin

You give the impression of somebody who has nothing more to say.

I've repeated this over and over again - the big picture perspective on ADHD is there.
[Much repeated point]

Small details can follow later, after the big picture view is taken in.
[Much repeated point]

The mind is not brain - even the textbook 'Mind' states that there's general recognition that the hardware/software model reflects brain/mind
- no chip analysis can define the program we're running
- however, simply looking at the computer screen should do it.
[Much repeated point]

There's a reason for the divides between physics/chemistry/biology/psychology.
[Much repeated point]

And that reason is emergence; the sum of the parts being less than the whole - that the whole cannot be gotten to, from the sum of the parts - to understand the whole, we need look at the whole
- in the case of mind - that'd be philosophy/psychology/sociology and not neuroscience.
[Much repeated point]

The Systems subjects are the useful ones in studying mind and not the Molecular subjects (see above).
[Much repeated point]

The link followed your post on Wolfram.

I'm now generating posts which all involve heavy repetition.
Because there is no more.

Stabile didn't abandon the idea for any reason other than they'd finished it.

Everything that I've described can be wound back to Stabile's 1000 posts.

Any slight other inclusions which I may have added, are not major leaps from Stabile's reasoning.

[pechemignonne]

Originally Posted by qinkin

It doesn't require your definition, should it? By variables, I mean free access to a home, and free access to food. By control, I mean demonstrating that those variables have any effect on ADHD. What do you mean, by "why"? it is self explanatory .

You are using scientific terminology, which not everyone is familiar with.

Maybe you could try to explain "variables" and "controls" in lay terms? Or avoid using them at all.

Originally Posted by qinkin

Eh.. that's just too confusing for me to address at this point.

I don't see how it is confusing you. There is a difference between something which causes an exacerbation in symptoms because of an unrelated condition and something which actually causes the disorder. Or an improvement in symptoms because it relieves an unrelated condition and something which actually treats the disorder.

It's fairly simple. If someone has arthritis pain, *and* they have reactions to glucose that cause inflammation, then obviously removing the glucose-heavy foods from their diet will make their arthritis feel better.

But the glucose didn't cause the arthritis, and removing the glucose foods doesn't make it go away.

It just no longer makes it worse.

Originally Posted by qinkin

And pech, you make some good points, but I don't see the point addressing any further loose ends about it. I know neither one of us has researched the stevia topic enough, and it's not really relevant, ultimately, I think we both basically get the point for now.

Um, sure. I don;t see why I would need to research stevia any further, though. It's not really of interest to me.

Originally Posted by SB_UK

I've repeated this over and over again - the big picture perspective on ADHD is there.
[Much repeated point]

Small details can follow later, after the big picture view is taken in.
[Much repeated point]

The mind is not brain - even the textbook 'Mind' states that there's general recognition that the hardware/software model reflects brain/mind
- no chip analysis can define the program we're running
- however, simply looking at the computer screen should do it.
[Much repeated point]

But what you fail to understand is that ADHD is not a quality of mind, it is a condition of the brain.

[Abi]

It's absolutely a hardware problem.

We came out of the proverbial factory this way.

Some of our electronic circuits are broken

Simple enough?

[SB_UK]

There's nothing innately broken about us.

We're victims of an environmental disorder.

People cause it.

The stress of the developmental lag (we take longer to learn better) when we're younger
and
the immoral actions of people chasing their next fix (consumerism, materialism, workoholism, fame, power, money) ... ... .... when we're older.

It's ALL about mind not brain.

The 2 minutes of film here is all you need to understand.

The ADDer's conscience is binding.

We break.

[Abi]

Originally Posted by SB

There's nothing innately broken about us.

We're victims of an environmental disorder.

People cause it.

The immoral actions of people chasing their next fix (consumerism, materialism, workoholism, fame, power, money) ... ... ....

Under the current DSM, anyone dx'd with ADHD must have been symptomatic before age 7. Many of the real moderate to severe ADHDers were symptomatic at age 4 or earlier.

Tell me how, exactly, materialism, consumerism, fame, workaholism did this?

[qinkin]

Originally Posted by Pechemigonne

Um, sure. I don;t see why I would need to research stevia any further, though. It's not really of interest to me.

That's cool, I'm probably going to at some point though, because I think there is something to be gained.. You say it can't be grown in Canada, but I have come across information that says otherwise, anyway, I would like to do more research about it.

Maybe you could try to explain "variables" and "controls" in lay terms? Or avoid using them at all.

I've done all that I can, they need to think about it more, if they are still confused. I'm not an english teacher. Maybe it's just my fault then.

I don't see how it is confusing you. There is a difference between something which causes an exacerbation in symptoms because of an unrelated condition and something which actually causes the disorder. Or an improvement in symptoms because it relieves an unrelated condition and something which actually treats the disorder.

Well, looking at the fact that ADD is not typically curable (however Barliman technically has been, mostly through correction of his spinal issue and reducing the impact stress has on him by various means).. An assessment of his symptoms is no longer ADHD positive. Meaning there aren't enough symptoms to justify a diagnosis of ADHD. Barliman, correct me if I'm mistaken and if you read this. Barliman is a psychiatric doctor himself, and understands ADHD pretty well. He treats ADHD patients and probably diagnoses them as well. Nutritional deprivation, like significant spinal misalignment could probably induce the disorder, if it is chronic. And by chronic, I mean present for extended periods of time. I don't fully comprehend how this may work, though. I need to do more research.

It's fairly simple. If someone has arthritis pain, *and* they have reactions to glucose that cause inflammation, then obviously removing the glucose-heavy foods from their diet will make their arthritis feel better. But the glucose didn't cause the arthritis, and removing the glucose foods doesn't make it go away. It just no longer makes it worse.

I see what you mean. However, we aren't 100% sure what the cause(s) of ADHD is in the first place. But saying it might be something like "metabolic efficiency" isn't helping, because I'm not sure that's even scientific terminology. Just making up words, IMO. When you say no longer makes it worse, then I see that as treating the disorder, but not curing it, like medication..