Naturopathy

[SCBassist]

I'm not so sure that it jsut an increase in kids who have autism, but more of an advance in out diagnostic procedures and a better undrstanding of the disorder leading to increased diagnosis. I think there were always autistic kids; they just weren't called "autistic." It akes much more than "abnormal behavior" to arrive at a diagnosis of autism.

Thats right, psychological disorders are not easily diagnosable, but I'm still not convinced a huge population of kids are really affected.

 

[jillio]

Thats right, psychological disorders are not easily diagnosable, but I'm still not convinced a huge population of kids are really affected.

You have to remember, too that autism occurs on a spectrum from very mild as in Asperger's Syndrome in which the individual exhibits few, if any, of the more typical autistic behaviors, and is on the high end of the intelligence scales, to the more severe forms which manifest the very typical behaviors such as self comforting behaviors like the stereotypical hand flapping or body rocking. This individual, instead of being at the high end on intelligence as the Asperger's indvidual, will usually have anywhere from mild to profound mental retardation. Since there are so many degrees of severity on the autism spectrum, it is difficult to categorize it as always falling into the same presentation. Prevalence statistics on the rate of autism include those with the mild form, or with Asperger's. You may interact with someone with Asperger's on a daily basis and never realize that they have autism because their symptoms aren't obvious. But still, they are included in the prevalence rates. That could lead a casual observer to conclude that the rates are inflated, but it really is that the rates cover the entire spectrum.

 

[deafdyke]

I'm not a big fan of using naturopathy to treat medical conditions. I think it's a great adjunct to standard care, but I would not rely on it as a stand-alone treatment for anything

On the other hand......I do think that in some cases, things like adding fish oil or eliminating casien or whatever could really help kids with various and sundry issues.
It's pretty much a given that autism/add may have different causes. For some people, it's possible that the cause of their autism/add is due to severe allergies or gut dysfunction.

 

[jillio]

On the other hand......I do think that in some cases, things like adding fish oil or eliminating casien or whatever could really help kids with various and sundry issues.
It's pretty much a given that autism/add may have different causes. For some people, it's possible that the cause of their autism/add is due to severe allergies or gut dysfunction.

Anything is possible....but it is highly improbable. Medical science has limited the possible causes to a very few suspected etiologies. Allergies or gut dysfunction are not among them.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

On the other hand......I do think that in some cases, things like adding fish oil or eliminating casien or whatever could really help kids with various and sundry issues.
It's pretty much a given that autism/add may have different causes. For some people, it's possible that the cause of their autism/add is due to severe allergies or gut dysfunction.

That's not what we're discussing. Would you give someone Vitamin B to treat a stroke? No. You'd get that person to a hospital where they can be assessed and treated.

Conversely, I think certain diseases can be treated through diet such as seizures. Seizures are routinely treated with a ketogenic diet AFTER standard medications have failed. The difference between this and what we're talking about is there are studies that are done that prove the therapy works. In the case of this other bs Jillio mentioned, there was NO study that indicated it's effectiveness.

In short, show me a study that proves a treatment is effective and I'll go with it, but if no reputable study exists, I'm going with standard care!

 

[shulafaus]

Replying to Jillio re the Feingold Diet

This is in reply to the "victimized by the Feingold Diet" posting and the "Description" of the diet later posted by Jillio. Both are sourced at Quackwatch.com written mostly by Stephen Barrett, a retired (some say unlicensed) psychiatrist who claims to be an expert on all medical treatments.

I am writing as the research person for the Feingold Association - although I am also a mom who has successfully used the Feingold diet for many years. I began it when my child developed Tourette Syndrome from stimulant meds and other meds just made him worse. The diet was our miracle. I later became a volunteer with the Feingold Association. My son finished college with a degree in chemistry and one in civil engineering; he has a fine job, a wife and baby - and continues to use the Feingold diet without which he would not have made it through high school, for sure.

Jillio, this “victim” who claims to be an attorney is anonymous. As an attorney, this person would know that an unsigned letter has no validity whatsoever. And it is certainly not written the way an attorney normally writes. The only place that this letter is posted is on the Quackwatch site and its clones. And if you read enough of the site, you will get to recognize Stephen Barrett’s writing – and boy, does this victim ever write just like HIM!!! I would venture to say, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, that Barrett made it up himself. Read it together with the “description” of the diet you posted later, and you will see that the writer carefully follows along with everything Barrett says in that article.

By the way, it is so interesting that the writer blames the diet for “FORCING” him or her to cheat on it and lie about it… and then blames the diet equally for not working. Well, if you don’t do a diet properly – any diet – it doesn’t work. That goes for weight loss diets and low sodium diets too. By the way, the writer says she was “grounded for drinking a Pepsi.” Well, what do you know – Pepsi and Coca Cola Classic are okay on the Feingold diet. Guess Mama didn’t know that.

Moving on to the description – please be aware that this is again from Quackwatch. That would be okay if they were actually as interested in the science as they claim to be. Unfortunately, they are not. This is obvious because they quote studies from over 30 years ago, while ignoring studies published in 2007!!

This is what they say:

“In 1983, the review team's co-chairman and another colleague reviewed additional studies and concluded that no more than 2% of children respond adversely to dye additives, and even that statistic was questionable [5]. Since that time, experimental findings have been mixed. Some researchers have reported little or no adverse effect during challenge experiments [6-7] and some have reported worsening behavior during such experiments [8-10]. However, it remains clear that the percentage of children who may become hyperactive in response to food additives is, at best, very small."

Look first at the date: 1983. That is 25 years ago! And the review team was reviewing studies done in the 1970’s – 30 years ago and more!!!! And yes, the statistic of 2% is questionable since not one single study that they reviewed actually proved any such thing. Most of those old studies were very small and were funded by the food additive industry. They tried their best to show that the diet didn’t work. Harley (1978) put 10 kids on 2 diets in a double blind study. 100% -- yes, 100% -- of the mothers reported that the kids on the Feingold diet did better. They did not know which diet was which. And yet Harley managed to conclude that there was no scientific basis for the Feingold diet. I could go on about the various studies because that is what I do – I collect and study the research. But I am sure you don’t want to be deluged with it all. It’s all old anyhow.

Okay – down to the details of the “description” of the Feingold diet by Barrett:

(1) Barrett claims that the Feingold diet requires a "change in family lifestyle and eating patterns"

------- This is NOT TRUE. Why change your eating patterns? Buy anything listed in our 200-page shopping guide and eat when and how you want.

(2) Barrett says that "carefully designed experiments fail to support the idea that additives are responsible for such symptoms in the vast majority of children."

------- Vast majority? The vast majority of children don't have such symptoms (but as additives increase, the percentage is increasing). Those studies were designed and funded by companies that make money from additives. "Carefully designed" studies by Philip Morris may prove that smoking is good for you. Would you believe them?

(3) Barrett says any improvement "appears related to changes in family dynamics, such as paying more attention to the children"

------- He made this up. All mainstream psychopharmacologists and psychiatrists agree that ADHD is NOT caused by poor parenting, and improved parenting or extra attention will not cure it. There is not one single study that claims to prove that this is so.

(4) Barrett claims that the "salicylates" eliminated by the Feingold Association (FAUS) do not match some other list of salicylates organized by weight or quantity.

------- Plants contain many kinds of salicylate, which are mildly toxic chemicals used as protection against insects. There is ethyl salicylate, methyl salicylate, octyl salicylate, acetyl salicylate, sodium salicylate, etc. - and their toxicity per amount is not necessarily the same for all of them. (Think of the difference between ethyl alcohol and methyl alcohol.) The list used for the Feingold Program is based on clinical response. It is a list developed in Germany in the 1930's for aspirin-sensitive asthma. It works, and has stood the test of time with very little change needed. Other lists are based on quantity regardless of type of salicylate compound – that is interesting, but not relevant. FAUS hopes to see some research on the different types of salicylate and their relative toxicities one day.

(5) Barrett quotes results from seven small studies funded and designed by the Nutrition Foundation way back in the 1970's. At an average of only 27 children per study, he adds them up to 190 to sound better, and claims this is proof the diet does not work.

------- These studies are over 30 years old. The now-defunct Nutrition Foundation is a food and additive industry group, including Dow Chemical and Coca Cola.

(6) Barrett footnotes Rowe 1988 study as one that "reported no effect."

------ This is false. 72.7% of children improving on the diet is NOT "no effect." The other study footnoted for this claim was the Gross 1987 study (20 years ago) on 39 kids of which only 18 had ADHD. Of those all but one were on medication (with coloring) throughout the study. The one not on medication was dropped from the study when he reacted to the additives. There was nobody left, then, to study. And Gross used a tasteless (his own opinion) diet with no desserts, but ignored additives in soap, toothpaste, medicine, etc. And the diet lasted only ONE WEEK. It usually takes a week in the best environment for any improvement to begin to show.

(7) Barrett says it is "clear that the percentage of children who may become hyperactive in response to food additives is, at best, very small."

---- Really? Studies using Feingold-type diets report the following percent of children responding to the diet:
Egger 1985 ……….. 81.6%
Swanson 1980 ……. 85%
Rowe 1988 ………… 72.7%
Egger 1989 ………… 80%
Egger 1992 ………… 76%
Carter 1993 ………... 75.6%
Rowe 1994 …………. 75%
Boris 1994 ………….. 73%

Below this email I have pasted more detail on studies that may interest you.

(8) Barrett claims that sugar does not cause ADHD

------- FAUS agrees, but what is the relevance? The Feingold Program does not eliminate sugar.

(9) Barrett thinks it is absurd to think that children and adults may be sensitive to environmental chemicals.

-------- From other articles on his site, Barrett clearly believes that any chemical not strong enough to kill you outright cannot make you ill or produce any neurological impairment. Believe that if you want to. Go ahead. Put a little formaldehyde in your soup. However, considering that the FDA has no authority over fragrances and cannot even force them to do safety studies, although many of these chemicals are known carcinogens and neurotoxins, we do encourage you to pay attention and make sensible choices. Of course, in our opinion, the only sensible choice is to avoid toxic environmental chemicals as much as possible.

(10) Barrett says the diet teaches children that their behavior is related to what they eat rather than what they feel (huh?)

------ No, we teach children what to do to feel better. Of course better behavior is related to feeling better and learning responsibility.

(11) Barrett says the diet makes children feel unhealthy and fragile.

------- He made this up, based on no evidence. On the contrary, the children's health often improves, and they are more in control of their lives.

(12) Barrett says the diet makes the children look peculiar to other children.

------ Really? Is something peculiar about a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich or a Boars Head Turkey sandwhich with whole milk and maybe Swiss Miss Pudding for dessert? Of course, if you try hard enough, you can make your child's lunch peculiar, on or off the diet.

(13) Barrett says the children's "fear of chemicals" would make them look peculiar to others.

------ Whether the problem is behavior, migraine or asthma, if a perfume or an additive makes the child sick, he must be protected, period. If the school cooperates, there is no issue.

(14) Barrett thinks the Feingold Program deprives the children of "appropriate professional help."

-----He means they are deprived of receiving stimulant drugs. If they no longer need drugs, diet IS the appropriate treatment. If they still need drugs, they can use them. They are deprived of nothing. Our members who use diet with medication often report being able to use a lower dose of stimulant medication when on the diet. The diet can be used along with any other required treatment.

SOME STUDIES OF INTEREST, SHOWING HOW MANY KIDS RESPOND TO DIETARY MODIFICATION
________________________________________
Salamy 1982 - Children were given drinks containing food additives or placebos (double-blind, meaning that nobody knew which were the additive drinks and which were the placebos). Measuring EEG (brain waves) and heart rate, Salamy found that the additives caused physiological changes in all the children, but the hyperactive children showed greater changes.
________________________________________

Egger 1983 - 93% of 88 children with severe frequent migraine recovered on an oligoantigenic* diet, and a double-blind study confirmed this in 40 of the children. In addition to headache, other symptoms improved: abdominal pain, behavior disorder, seizures, asthma, and eczema.

* An "oligoantigenic" diet is a "few foods" additive-free and allergen-free diet similar to the Feingold Diet but more restricted.
________________________________________

Egger 1985 - 81.6% of 76 overactive children improved using the oligoantigenic diet. Other symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, and fits, also improved.
________________________________________

Rowe 1988 - 72.7% of 55 children put on a 6-week trial of the Feingold Diet "... demonstrated improved behaviour."
________________________________________

Egger 1989 - 80% of 45 children with epilepsy and recurrent headaches, abdominal symptoms, or hyperkinetic behavior improved on an oligoantigenic diet. 55% of these children ceased to have seizures and 11 had fewer seizures during diet therapy. Egger reports, "Headaches, abdominal pains, and hyperkinetic behavior ceased in all those whose seizures ceased, and in some of those whose seizures did not cease." 75% of the children with generalized epilepsy, and 85% of the children with partial epilepsy, recovered or improved. 18 other children, who had epilepsy alone, with no other symptoms, were treated with the same diet, but none improved.
________________________________________

Kaplan 1989 - More than half the children put on a Feingold-type diet (but not eliminating salicylates) exhibited "reliable improvement in behavior and negligible placebo effects." In addition, several other problems these children suffered from tended to improve, including halitosis, night awakenings, and latency to sleep onset.
________________________________________

Egger 1992 - Some children with migraine and/or ADHD also have night-time or daytime wetting problems. 76% of 21 such children whose behavior and headaches had improved on a diet similar to the Feingold Diet, also improved or were cured of their urinary problems.
________________________________________

Carter 1993 - 75.6% or 78 children referred for "hyperactive behavior" improved on an open trial of an elimination diet similar to the Feingold Diet. 19 of them were studied in a placebo-controlled double-blind challenge protocol.
________________________________________

Rowe 1994 - 75% of 200 children improved on an open trial of the Feingold Diet, and deteriorated upon introduction of foods containing synthetic colorings. This was followed by double-blind challenge tests, in which 82.5% of "reactors" and 10% of the "control" children (those not expected to react to food dye) reacted to a variety of mild single-item challenges of tartrazine (Yellow #5) - at a maximum of only 50 mg per day. The kind of reaction and length of time the children were affected depended on the dose, as well as their age.
________________________________________

Boris 1994 - 73% of 26 children responded favorably to an elimination diet similar to the Feingold Diet. 16 of them were challenged, double-blind, and ALL of them reacted to the challenge of 100 mg food dye plus some food ingredients chosen by parents. Placebo effect was carefully ruled out.

The author writes, "Dietary factors may play a significant role in the etiology of the majority of children with ADHD."
________________________________________

Uhlig 1997 - This is the first investigation to show an association between brain electrical activity and eating "provoking foods" in children with food-induced attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
________________________________________

Pelsser 2002 - 80.6% of the 31 children who completed a 2-weeks trial of an elimination diet showed an improvement in behavior of at least 50% on two official rating scales. Authors write, "An elimination diet can lead to a statistically significant decrease in symptoms." Note: This study was done in Holland where a Feingold Foodlist is not available. Their diet was very much more limited than the usual Feingold Diet.
________________________________________

Then, of course, more recently yet, are the Bateman and McCann studies in 2004 and 2007 which showed that in the general population in England – normal kids – hyperactivity symptoms increased when they were exposed to a modest amount of food coloring and a preservative. Finally, England and Europe are paying attention. They are putting warning labels on food containing additives, and requiring food aimed at children to be dye-free. Big companies like Kraft and Hersey’s and McDonald’s seem to have no problem providing natural versions of their M&M’s and strawberry milkshakes in England and Europe – but they are not doing it in the United States because they assume we Americans just don’t CARE. Yes – that is what they told Michael Jacobson at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Now regardless of whether or not you plan to use the Feingold diet for your family, perhaps it is time to CARE what kind of stuff they put into foods they sell to our kids.

I am giving you the link to the Feingold Association website where you can find more information. At least, I think I am doing that - by putting the URL in the trackback field. I will be happy to answer any questions anyone wants to ask.

Added: I can't find the trackback (?) so I'll try it this way -- for more information, see The Feingold Diet Program for ADHD where you will find as much science as you want to read ... and if you want even more, see Diet and Health: PDF documents ... if you have other symptoms besides ADHD that you are wondering if diet can help, see the studies divided by symptom at Diet & Symptoms: Research

 

[jillio]

This is in reply to the "victimized by the Feingold Diet" posting and the "Description" of the diet later posted by Jillio. Both are sourced at Quackwatch.com written mostly by Stephen Barrett, a retired (some say unlicensed) psychiatrist who claims to be an expert on all medical treatments.

I am writing as the research person for the Feingold Association - although I am also a mom who has successfully used the Feingold diet for many years. I began it when my child developed Tourette Syndrome from stimulant meds and other meds just made him worse. The diet was our miracle. I later became a volunteer with the Feingold Association. My son finished college with a degree in chemistry and one in civil engineering; he has a fine job, a wife and baby - and continues to use the Feingold diet without which he would not have made it through high school, for sure.

Jillio, this “victim” who claims to be an attorney is anonymous. As an attorney, this person would know that an unsigned letter has no validity whatsoever. And it is certainly not written the way an attorney normally writes. The only place that this letter is posted is on the Quackwatch site and its clones. And if you read enough of the site, you will get to recognize Stephen Barrett’s writing – and boy, does this victim ever write just like HIM!!! I would venture to say, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, that Barrett made it up himself. Read it together with the “description” of the diet you posted later, and you will see that the writer carefully follows along with everything Barrett says in that article.

By the way, it is so interesting that the writer blames the diet for “FORCING” him or her to cheat on it and lie about it… and then blames the diet equally for not working. Well, if you don’t do a diet properly – any diet – it doesn’t work. That goes for weight loss diets and low sodium diets too. By the way, the writer says she was “grounded for drinking a Pepsi.” Well, what do you know – Pepsi and Coca Cola Classic are okay on the Feingold diet. Guess Mama didn’t know that.

Moving on to the description – please be aware that this is again from Quackwatch. That would be okay if they were actually as interested in the science as they claim to be. Unfortunately, they are not. This is obvious because they quote studies from over 30 years ago, while ignoring studies published in 2007!!

This is what they say:

“In 1983, the review team's co-chairman and another colleague reviewed additional studies and concluded that no more than 2% of children respond adversely to dye additives, and even that statistic was questionable [5]. Since that time, experimental findings have been mixed. Some researchers have reported little or no adverse effect during challenge experiments [6-7] and some have reported worsening behavior during such experiments [8-10]. However, it remains clear that the percentage of children who may become hyperactive in response to food additives is, at best, very small."

Look first at the date: 1983. That is 25 years ago! And the review team was reviewing studies done in the 1970’s – 30 years ago and more!!!! And yes, the statistic of 2% is questionable since not one single study that they reviewed actually proved any such thing. Most of those old studies were very small and were funded by the food additive industry. They tried their best to show that the diet didn’t work. Harley (1978) put 10 kids on 2 diets in a double blind study. 100% -- yes, 100% -- of the mothers reported that the kids on the Feingold diet did better. They did not know which diet was which. And yet Harley managed to conclude that there was no scientific basis for the Feingold diet. I could go on about the various studies because that is what I do – I collect and study the research. But I am sure you don’t want to be deluged with it all. It’s all old anyhow.

Okay – down to the details of the “description” of the Feingold diet by Barrett:

(1) Barrett claims that the Feingold diet requires a "change in family lifestyle and eating patterns"

------- This is NOT TRUE. Why change your eating patterns? Buy anything listed in our 200-page shopping guide and eat when and how you want.

(2) Barrett says that "carefully designed experiments fail to support the idea that additives are responsible for such symptoms in the vast majority of children."

------- Vast majority? The vast majority of children don't have such symptoms (but as additives increase, the percentage is increasing). Those studies were designed and funded by companies that make money from additives. "Carefully designed" studies by Philip Morris may prove that smoking is good for you. Would you believe them?

(3) Barrett says any improvement "appears related to changes in family dynamics, such as paying more attention to the children"

------- He made this up. All mainstream psychopharmacologists and psychiatrists agree that ADHD is NOT caused by poor parenting, and improved parenting or extra attention will not cure it. There is not one single study that claims to prove that this is so.

(4) Barrett claims that the "salicylates" eliminated by the Feingold Association (FAUS) do not match some other list of salicylates organized by weight or quantity.

------- Plants contain many kinds of salicylate, which are mildly toxic chemicals used as protection against insects. There is ethyl salicylate, methyl salicylate, octyl salicylate, acetyl salicylate, sodium salicylate, etc. - and their toxicity per amount is not necessarily the same for all of them. (Think of the difference between ethyl alcohol and methyl alcohol.) The list used for the Feingold Program is based on clinical response. It is a list developed in Germany in the 1930's for aspirin-sensitive asthma. It works, and has stood the test of time with very little change needed. Other lists are based on quantity regardless of type of salicylate compound – that is interesting, but not relevant. FAUS hopes to see some research on the different types of salicylate and their relative toxicities one day.

(5) Barrett quotes results from seven small studies funded and designed by the Nutrition Foundation way back in the 1970's. At an average of only 27 children per study, he adds them up to 190 to sound better, and claims this is proof the diet does not work.

------- These studies are over 30 years old. The now-defunct Nutrition Foundation is a food and additive industry group, including Dow Chemical and Coca Cola.

(6) Barrett footnotes Rowe 1988 study as one that "reported no effect."

------ This is false. 72.7% of children improving on the diet is NOT "no effect." The other study footnoted for this claim was the Gross 1987 study (20 years ago) on 39 kids of which only 18 had ADHD. Of those all but one were on medication (with coloring) throughout the study. The one not on medication was dropped from the study when he reacted to the additives. There was nobody left, then, to study. And Gross used a tasteless (his own opinion) diet with no desserts, but ignored additives in soap, toothpaste, medicine, etc. And the diet lasted only ONE WEEK. It usually takes a week in the best environment for any improvement to begin to show.

(7) Barrett says it is "clear that the percentage of children who may become hyperactive in response to food additives is, at best, very small."

---- Really? Studies using Feingold-type diets report the following percent of children responding to the diet:
Egger 1985 ……….. 81.6%
Swanson 1980 ……. 85%
Rowe 1988 ………… 72.7%
Egger 1989 ………… 80%
Egger 1992 ………… 76%
Carter 1993 ………... 75.6%
Rowe 1994 …………. 75%
Boris 1994 ………….. 73%

Below this email I have pasted more detail on studies that may interest you.

(8) Barrett claims that sugar does not cause ADHD

------- FAUS agrees, but what is the relevance? The Feingold Program does not eliminate sugar.

(9) Barrett thinks it is absurd to think that children and adults may be sensitive to environmental chemicals.

-------- From other articles on his site, Barrett clearly believes that any chemical not strong enough to kill you outright cannot make you ill or produce any neurological impairment. Believe that if you want to. Go ahead. Put a little formaldehyde in your soup. However, considering that the FDA has no authority over fragrances and cannot even force them to do safety studies, although many of these chemicals are known carcinogens and neurotoxins, we do encourage you to pay attention and make sensible choices. Of course, in our opinion, the only sensible choice is to avoid toxic environmental chemicals as much as possible.

(10) Barrett says the diet teaches children that their behavior is related to what they eat rather than what they feel (huh?)

------ No, we teach children what to do to feel better. Of course better behavior is related to feeling better and learning responsibility.

(11) Barrett says the diet makes children feel unhealthy and fragile.

------- He made this up, based on no evidence. On the contrary, the children's health often improves, and they are more in control of their lives.

(12) Barrett says the diet makes the children look peculiar to other children.

------ Really? Is something peculiar about a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich or a Boars Head Turkey sandwhich with whole milk and maybe Swiss Miss Pudding for dessert? Of course, if you try hard enough, you can make your child's lunch peculiar, on or off the diet.

(13) Barrett says the children's "fear of chemicals" would make them look peculiar to others.

------ Whether the problem is behavior, migraine or asthma, if a perfume or an additive makes the child sick, he must be protected, period. If the school cooperates, there is no issue.

(14) Barrett thinks the Feingold Program deprives the children of "appropriate professional help."

-----He means they are deprived of receiving stimulant drugs. If they no longer need drugs, diet IS the appropriate treatment. If they still need drugs, they can use them. They are deprived of nothing. Our members who use diet with medication often report being able to use a lower dose of stimulant medication when on the diet. The diet can be used along with any other required treatment.

SOME STUDIES OF INTEREST, SHOWING HOW MANY KIDS RESPOND TO DIETARY MODIFICATION
________________________________________
Salamy 1982 - Children were given drinks containing food additives or placebos (double-blind, meaning that nobody knew which were the additive drinks and which were the placebos). Measuring EEG (brain waves) and heart rate, Salamy found that the additives caused physiological changes in all the children, but the hyperactive children showed greater changes.
________________________________________

Egger 1983 - 93% of 88 children with severe frequent migraine recovered on an oligoantigenic* diet, and a double-blind study confirmed this in 40 of the children. In addition to headache, other symptoms improved: abdominal pain, behavior disorder, seizures, asthma, and eczema.

* An "oligoantigenic" diet is a "few foods" additive-free and allergen-free diet similar to the Feingold Diet but more restricted.
________________________________________

Egger 1985 - 81.6% of 76 overactive children improved using the oligoantigenic diet. Other symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, and fits, also improved.
________________________________________

Rowe 1988 - 72.7% of 55 children put on a 6-week trial of the Feingold Diet "... demonstrated improved behaviour."
________________________________________

Egger 1989 - 80% of 45 children with epilepsy and recurrent headaches, abdominal symptoms, or hyperkinetic behavior improved on an oligoantigenic diet. 55% of these children ceased to have seizures and 11 had fewer seizures during diet therapy. Egger reports, "Headaches, abdominal pains, and hyperkinetic behavior ceased in all those whose seizures ceased, and in some of those whose seizures did not cease." 75% of the children with generalized epilepsy, and 85% of the children with partial epilepsy, recovered or improved. 18 other children, who had epilepsy alone, with no other symptoms, were treated with the same diet, but none improved.
________________________________________

Kaplan 1989 - More than half the children put on a Feingold-type diet (but not eliminating salicylates) exhibited "reliable improvement in behavior and negligible placebo effects." In addition, several other problems these children suffered from tended to improve, including halitosis, night awakenings, and latency to sleep onset.
________________________________________

Egger 1992 - Some children with migraine and/or ADHD also have night-time or daytime wetting problems. 76% of 21 such children whose behavior and headaches had improved on a diet similar to the Feingold Diet, also improved or were cured of their urinary problems.
________________________________________

Carter 1993 - 75.6% or 78 children referred for "hyperactive behavior" improved on an open trial of an elimination diet similar to the Feingold Diet. 19 of them were studied in a placebo-controlled double-blind challenge protocol.
________________________________________

Rowe 1994 - 75% of 200 children improved on an open trial of the Feingold Diet, and deteriorated upon introduction of foods containing synthetic colorings. This was followed by double-blind challenge tests, in which 82.5% of "reactors" and 10% of the "control" children (those not expected to react to food dye) reacted to a variety of mild single-item challenges of tartrazine (Yellow #5) - at a maximum of only 50 mg per day. The kind of reaction and length of time the children were affected depended on the dose, as well as their age.
________________________________________

Boris 1994 - 73% of 26 children responded favorably to an elimination diet similar to the Feingold Diet. 16 of them were challenged, double-blind, and ALL of them reacted to the challenge of 100 mg food dye plus some food ingredients chosen by parents. Placebo effect was carefully ruled out.

The author writes, "Dietary factors may play a significant role in the etiology of the majority of children with ADHD."
________________________________________

Uhlig 1997 - This is the first investigation to show an association between brain electrical activity and eating "provoking foods" in children with food-induced attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
________________________________________

Pelsser 2002 - 80.6% of the 31 children who completed a 2-weeks trial of an elimination diet showed an improvement in behavior of at least 50% on two official rating scales. Authors write, "An elimination diet can lead to a statistically significant decrease in symptoms." Note: This study was done in Holland where a Feingold Foodlist is not available. Their diet was very much more limited than the usual Feingold Diet.
________________________________________

Then, of course, more recently yet, are the Bateman and McCann studies in 2004 and 2007 which showed that in the general population in England – normal kids – hyperactivity symptoms increased when they were exposed to a modest amount of food coloring and a preservative. Finally, England and Europe are paying attention. They are putting warning labels on food containing additives, and requiring food aimed at children to be dye-free. Big companies like Kraft and Hersey’s and McDonald’s seem to have no problem providing natural versions of their M&M’s and strawberry milkshakes in England and Europe – but they are not doing it in the United States because they assume we Americans just don’t CARE. Yes – that is what they told Michael Jacobson at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Now regardless of whether or not you plan to use the Feingold diet for your family, perhaps it is time to CARE what kind of stuff they put into foods they sell to our kids.

I am giving you the link to the Feingold Association website where you can find more information. At least, I think I am doing that - by putting the URL in the trackback field. I will be happy to answer any questions anyone wants to ask.

Added: I can't find the trackback (?) so I'll try it this way -- for more information, see The Feingold Diet Program for ADHD where you will find as much science as you want to read ... and if you want even more, see Diet and Health: PDF documents ... if you have other symptoms besides ADHD that you are wondering if diet can help, see the studies divided by symptom at Diet & Symptoms: Research

The fact that you are a reasearcher for the Feingold Institute makes your post completely and totally biased. Likewise, you have absolutely nothing to dispute said post of mine. The members of this forum are well aware of where the post came from as I posted a link right along with it.

Secondly, if you plan to support an argument with me, I suggest you post a link to the studies from which you have taken a statement out of context. I will look at the methods used, the population used, and the analysis of any and all data, and determine whether these studies have been conducted in a scientific manner, and if they are in any way generalizable. In addition, I will look at the qualifications of the researchers. What you have posted is useless.

Thirdly Quackwatch.org is a consumer alert site. Yes, it is manned by a retired physician, but he is a physician, not a naturopath with an online degree and a bunch of mystical, magical information from the dark ages.

Likewise, there is nothing scientific on the Feingold website. In fact, the majority of what is stated in in direct opposition to science, and not a single claim has been substantiated empirically with valid research.

 

[jillio]

Folks, I just did a search using an academic search engine regarding articles on naturopathic treatment of ADHD, autism, and depressive illness in the professional journals that publish empirical research. Guess what I found? Absolutely nothing. That shows right there, that there is no scientific research that supports the claims made by the naturopaths.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Folks, I just did a search using an academic search engine regarding articles on naturopathic treatment of ADHD, autism, and depressive illness in the professional journals that publish empirical research. Guess what I found? Absolutely nothing. That shows right there, that there is no scientific research that supports the claims made by the naturopaths.

You don't have to convince me. I've relied heavily on Western medicine throughout my life and I will continue to do so.

 

[jillio]

You don't have to convince me. I've relied heavily on Western medicine throughout my life and I will continue to do so.

Yeah, I know. I just want to make sure that others aren't taken in by these unsubstaniated claims.

I also went to the website by the poster a couple of posts back re: the Feingold Institute. The full articles are not available. The only thing that can be accessed is an abstract. I can only conlcude that the full article is not available becuase these so called "researchers" don't want their methodolgy and their conclusions scrutinized. That tells me the "research" is not valid.

 

[Marcia]

I'm usually a lurker and I'm new so I don't know the history of this thread but I had to "speak" up. My son is on the Feingold diet and is now an adult still using it effectively. I've seen some of the studies and they are done by credible scientists published in credible peer reviewed journals. Here is a link to a recent on (Last fall published on Lancet): http://www.precaution.org/lib/food_additives_and_hyperactivity.070906.pdf

This particular study has received a lot of press. The UK is close to banning 6 of the dyes and some supermarkets ban them. CSPI here is urging our FDA to do the same.

The diet is credible.

 

[shulafaus]

The fact that you are a reasearcher for the Feingold Institute makes your post completely and totally biased. ...

Secondly, if you plan to support an argument with me, I suggest you post a link to the studies from which you have taken a statement out of context. I will look at the methods used, the population used, and the analysis of any and all data, and determine whether these studies have been conducted in a scientific manner, and if they are in any way generalizable. In addition, I will look at the qualifications of the researchers. What you have posted is useless.

...
Likewise, there is nothing scientific on the Feingold website. In fact, the majority of what is stated in in direct opposition to science, and not a single claim has been substantiated empirically with valid research.

My goodness -- first of all, there is no Feingold INSTITUTE. It is the Feingold ASSOCIATION which is a parent support group. It is a volunteer-based organization. Nobody gets any commissions or makes any big money. If only 2% of the people we help succeeded in getting better, we volunteers would pack up and go away ... it would be depressing, don't you think?

We do have medical people on our medical advisory board including Dr. L. Eugene Arnold who reported on nonstimulant treatments for the NIH Consensus Development Conference in 1998, Dr. Arnold Brenner, who did his own research to prove Dr. Feingold wrong back in the 1970s and discovered that he was not wrong, and Dr. Bernard Weiss, a toxicologist at Rochester U.

I don't know what your problem is, but I gave you the links to the research -- ALL of which is in the mainstream medical literature, and MOST of which is linked to the full abstracts on MedLine. Where possible, I have also linked to the full text of the studies. I have spent countless hours scanning the studies I have on paper into PDF files so that they can be posted for sharing at Diet and Health: PDF documents ... it's too bad if you were unable to access them.

How about the article by the American Academy of Pediatrics, in which they now admit that they "MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRONG" for the past 30 years? See their whole article at http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/AAP08.pdf

Yes, it is on our website -- I had to pay for it.

I have to leave now so there is no more time to list these this morning, but surely someone as capable as you are can click on the other links and find the FULL TEXTS. The authors of these studies in Lancet, New England Journal of Med, etc. would not be too happy to be written off as quacks before you read them.

 

[jillio]

My goodness -- first of all, there is no Feingold INSTITUTE. It is the Feingold ASSOCIATION which is a parent support group. It is a volunteer-based organization. Nobody gets any commissions or makes any big money. If only 2% of the people we help succeeded in getting better, we volunteers would pack up and go away ... it would be depressing, don't you think?

There you go. You are a volunteer. A volunteer has either the experience nor the education to determine why a patient has gotten better. Your assumptions that it is the diet that is resposnible cannot be substantiated and supported through empirical research. When it comes to a child's health care, one should not be relying on untrained volunteers, but on professionals in the medical field. One should rely on proven and empirically supported and rigorously tested methods, not on some magical, mystical inofrmation out of the past.
We do have medical people on our medical advisory board including Dr. L. Eugene Arnold who reported on nonstimulant treatments for the NIH Consensus Development Conference in 1998, Dr. Arnold Brenner, who did his own research to prove Dr. Feingold wrong back in the 1970s and discovered that he was not wrong, and Dr. Bernard Weiss, a toxicologist at Rochester U.

Why isn't that research made available so that it can be analyzed? The fact that they are on your board leads any thinking person to conclude that their attempts at research are biased. The fact of the matter is,there is no scietific research that supports your claims, or the claims of the Feingold organization. Zilch, nada, zero, none.
I don't know what your problem is, but I gave you the links to the research -- ALL of which is in the mainstream medical literature, and MOST of which is linked to the full abstracts on MedLine. Where possible, I have also linked to the full text of the studies. I have spent countless hours scanning the studies I have on paper into PDF files so that they can be posted for sharing at Diet and Health: PDF documents ... it's too bad if you were unable to access them.

You provided links to nothing more than abstracts, and even some of the abstracts were contradiciting your claim. For instance, in one of the abstracts, it was stated that children who had specific items removed fromtheir diet, and then were tested with both the forbidden food item and a placebo showed the same effects with both. That one point alone indicates that the diet is not responsible.

When I review research, I need more than an abstract. Abstracts are virtually usless. I need to see methodology, statistical analysis, population, and conclusions. Those are the areas that fallicious claims, improper methodolgy, population skews, and incorrect conclusions are found. Failure to provide an entire article is generally indicative of someone, such as a volunteer, knows absolutely nothing about research and are not thinking in a critical manner, but merely acceptingwhatever some quack has told them is true without taking time to investigate the claim for themselves. When researchers fail to make the rentire research report available, it is generally because they know theat their methods are questionable, and the conclusions would prove invalid as a result.

How about the article by the American Academy of Pediatrics, in which they now admit that they "MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRONG" for the past 30 years? See their whole article at http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/AAP08.pdf

Yes, it is on our website -- I had to pay for it.

Why would I spend good money for invalid research? No other medical research is costly to the consumer. If it is valid research by ethical researchers, I can obtain it for free. I don't pay for false research any more than I pay for false "cures". And, if you indeed do have complete copies of this research, and it indeed does provide empirical evidence for your claim, your failure to post such is just more indication that naturopathy is nothing more than unfounded mystical belief, and not science in the least.

I have to leave now so there is no more time to list these this morning, but surely someone as capable as you are can click on the other links and find the FULL TEXTS. The authors of these studies in Lancet, New England Journal of Med, etc. would not be too happy to be written off as quacks before you read them.

I have already done a complete academic search and there is absolutely nothing in the literature to support your claims.
I repeat: NOTHING.

Fredfam can round up all the friends she wants to come in here and post supportive anectdote about naturopathy. It is still nothing more than anecdote. Anecdote is not empirical evidence, and does absolutley nothing to substantiate or support your claims. Until you can use scientific support, your claims are not any better than the claims that trephining in the Middle Ages cured mental illness, or that possession by evil spirits is the cause of illness.

 

[jillio]

I'm usually a lurker and I'm new so I don't know the history of this thread but I had to "speak" up. My son is on the Feingold diet and is now an adult still using it effectively. I've seen some of the studies and they are done by credible scientists published in credible peer reviewed journals. Here is a link to a recent on (Last fall published on Lancet): http://www.precaution.org/lib/food_additives_and_hyperactivity.070906.pdf

This particular study has received a lot of press. The UK is close to banning 6 of the dyes and some supermarkets ban them. CSPI here is urging our FDA to do the same.

The diet is credible.

I will be reviewing the article in depth and responding after doing so. But the first problem I see is that is was published on line, not in a peer reviewed journal, and that said research was not conducted my medical researchers qualified to interpret the results, but by psychologists.

EDIT: It didn't take long to start finding problems with this research related to validity and reliability. In the population alone, I discovered the following:


Attrition rates.
Children used as subjects were not children with ADHD. There was no control for children without ADHD and children with ADHD. Therefore, the study cannot state that the diet controls the symptoms associated with ADHD.
Age gaps are extreme. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to state that the diet is beneificial for any child that is not 3 or 8/9 years of age.

Reports were by teachers who are not trained in diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, anecdotal evidence was used to determine hyperactivity. That creates a problem with the operational definitions used in the study.
Random selection was not used.

Base reports were obtained by parental report, not by medical procedure indicating that the child indeed suffered from hyperactivity in any form other than those issues that cause children to be more active due to developmental age.

Participant’s parents were paid to take part in the study. Skews results.

No doubt the rest of the article will indicate just as many problems with validity as did the one small section regarding population. When this many difficulties are found in the first few paragraphs of a research report, you can pretty much throw the research out. It is neither reliable nor valid.

 

[shulafaus]

The studies re diet and behavior

I have already done a complete academic search and there is absolutely nothing in the literature to support your claims.
I repeat: NOTHING.

I can see that you want studies. Not all studies on diet and behavior put the word "feingold" in their name - in fact, most of them don't. And I didn't help with the link I gave you since that page was uploaded in two places, and I gave you the wrong one, so that many of the links didn't work. I apologize for the frustration that must have incurred. I have corrected it now (yes, I maintain the website too) and I hope that you have no further problem with it. Here is the page again ... it looks the same, but these links are working: Diet and Health: PDF documents

Now I will list some of the studies in random order with my comments, and if there are any you want to discuss in detail, that will be fine too. That is what I like to do.

____________________________________________

ADHD & Food Additives Revisited
AAP Grand Rounds 2008
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/AAP08.pdf

In this 2-page article, all of which you can see at the above link, she discusses the British study published in Lancet, concluding, "Thus, the overall findings of the study are clear and require that even we skeptics, who have long doubted parental claims of the effects of various foods on the behavior of their children, admit we might have been wrong."
____________________________________________

Food Additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial
McCann D, et al
Lancet, September 6, 2007 on line.

Conclusion:

"Artificial colours or a sodium benzoate preservative (or both) in the diet result in increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population."
This is the study discussed by the AAP. This is the study which has caused massive change in English school system lunches, the major British supermarkets, etc., and has resulted in laws expected to be passed which will put warning labels on all foods continuing to contain food dyes in Europe.

FULL TEXT:
Stevenson/McCann study of food dyes and behavior in Lancet 2007

____________________________________________

Treatment Alternatives for ADHD
L. Eugene Arnold
Journal of Attention Disorders
Vol. 3, No. 1, April 1999, pp. 30-48
FULL TEXT:
Treatment Alternatives for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder L

Dr. Arnold was under contract by the NIH to review all nonstimulant treatments for ADHD for their Consensus Development Conference in 1998. How interesting that the minute you heard he is on our medical advisory board you assume that he is a quack, biased, and/or unqualified. The NIH didn't think so, obviously, and he was involved in designing the big multi-modal drug and therapy study done a few years ago. He is one of those people that those knowledgeable in the ADHD field have all heard of. However, when he concluded that dietary modification is a credible treatment - and he was ignored by the NIH people - he got mad. Up until that time, he didn't even know that there is a Feingold Association.

____________________________________________

Assessment of Chemical Factors in Relation to Child Hyperactivity
Neil Ward
Food, Brain & Behavior Conference 1996
published in Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine (1997) 7, 333-342
FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Ward97.pdf

Dr. Ward is a chemist in Britain. This is his paper from a conference in which he was discussing his findings that kids with ADHD react to exposure to food dyes by losing zinc excessively - leading to a variety of symptoms ranging from hyperactivity to asthma ....and including symtpoms of ADHD as well as other symptoms helped by the Feingold diet.

Unfortunately, I don't have the full text of one of his earlier studies published in 1990, but here is the abstract:
Ward Study, 1990

Conclusion:
"Tartrazine (Yellow #5) induces a reduction in serum and saliva zinc concentrations and an increase in urinary zinc content with a corresponding deterioration in behaviour/emotional responses of the hyperactive children but not the controls."

____________________________________________

Synthetic Food Coloring and Behavior: A dose response effect in a double blind placebo-controlled, repeated-measures study
K.S.Rowe & K.J.Rowe
Journal of Pediatrics, November 1994, Vol. 135, pp.691-8
FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Rowe94.pdf

Conclusion:
"Behavioral changes in irritability, restlessness, and sleep disturbance are associated with the ingestion of tartrazine in some children. A dose response effect was observed."

You may argue that these were not diagnostic ADHD symptoms- but everybody knows that these are symptoms usually associated with ADHD, and that parents of kids with ADHD would often be quite happy to see a reduction of irritability, restlessness, and sleep difficulties. Another thing to pay attention to in this - and other - studies is the dosage of food dye used as the challenge. They used 1 mg to 50 mg and used a very sensitive questionnaire (more so than the Conners questionnaire) which gave them their dose response. However, 50 mg is NOT a high dose.

Using a recipe for something popular here in Georgia called Red Velvet Cake, and the information I had from McCormick's about how much Red #40 is in liquid food coloring per drop, I was able to determine that one cake has over 1,000 mg Red #40. Depending on the size of the slice, a child would get 85 mg to 125 mg PER SLICE OF CAKE. That does not include what they got from their blue toothpaste, breakfast blueberry poptart, Sunny Delite juice, M&M's snack, red applesauce at lunch, etc.

It seems to me that if we are going to freely give kids 125 mg of Red #40 PER SLICE of cake, then somewhere there should be a study to see if that much Red #40 is safe for them. And what about the kid who eats 2 slices? There is no such study.

Okay -- before you yell at me about it -- there was one study (David 1987) using 200 mg of coloring. That should have proven something. However, what he did was recruit kids who were NOT doing well on an elimination diet, whose parents came to him for help!! And he tested them with the coloring while they were in the middle of reactions ... and concluded that nothing happened. Well, what did he expect to happen? That is sort of like taking kids with headaches and hitting their head against the wall and finding that they still had headaches. I guess you could thus prove that hitting your head against the wall can't hurt you.

____________________________________

A randomised controlled trial into the effects of food on ADHD.
Pelsser et al
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008 Apr 21. [epublished MedLine]
FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/pelsser2008.pdf

Conclusion:
"A strictly supervised elimination diet may be a valuable instrument in testing young children with ADHD on whether dietary factors may contribute to the
manifestation of the disorder and may have a beneficial effect on the children’s behaviour."

They eliminated some other stuff (such as milk) as well as additives, and this study was done in the Netherlands where there is no Feingold Association to teach parents or provide Food List help. It is not the best study in the world, because it showed that kids in the study (on the diet) got better while kids on the waiting list (doing nothing different) did not. Not exactly double blind. Nevertheless, they did some credible measurements of improvement, and when 70% of the experimental group got better versus ZERO of the "waiting" group, that is nothing to sneeze at.

__________________________________________


Okay. If you want more, I can continue. Oh -- one more item you can't go without seeing: In the Lau 2006 study, done in the lab, not on kids, he showed using standard tests of neurotoxicity that not only are the food dyes neurotoxic, but when combined with MSG or aspartame (as they so often are in real life), the effect is multiplied many-fold.

Synergistic Interactions Between Commonly Used Food Additives in a Developmental Neurotoxicity Test.
Lau K, et al.
Toxicological Sciences, 2006 Mar;90(1):178-87, 2005 Dec 13; [Epub ahead of print]

FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Lau06.pdf

The scariest sentence in this study:
"Inhibition of neurite outgrowth was found at concentrations of additives theoretically achievable in plasma by ingestion of a typical snack and drink."

 

[shulafaus]

I will be reviewing the article in depth and responding after doing so. But the first problem I see is that is was published on line, not in a peer reviewed journal, and that said research was not conducted my medical researchers qualified to interpret the results, but by psychologists.

EDIT: It didn't take long to start finding problems with this research related to validity and reliability.

Back in the 1990s, in college, I took a course in finding flaws in research. ALL research has flaws in it. And yes, it's great fun to find them, isn't it?

That said, you have jumped the gun here. While this study was considered important enough to be epublished (i.e., in MedLine via internet before the paper publication was out), it has indeed been officially published in the Lancet. The citation is Lancet. 2007 Nov 3;370(9598):1560-7

I am sure you would agree that the LANCET is a peer reviewed credible publication.

Since when are psychologists not credible as far as measuring symptoms of ADHD or other psychiatric disorders? Measurements is what psychologists DO.

You claim it is a flaw that the kids were not hyperactive. They were not supposed to be hyperactive -- they were supposed to be kids in the normal population. Did you read the title of the study? It explicitly states "children in the community" ... not those with a medically diagnosed condition, but NORMAL kids.

Next you conclude that the diagnostic criteria were all wrong because the teachers were not trained in diagnosis. They were not supposed to be. They filled out forms -- this is similar to the normal diagnostic methods in which parents and teachers fill out forms. The teachers did not DO the diagnoses. For better or worse, most kids are diagnosed for ADHD by such methods, since there is no blood test or really reliable psychiatric assessment tools to use alone for toddlers. Perhaps you didn't read far enough in the study, however -- the older kids were tested with the Conners continuous performance test II (CPTII), which is a computerized test of attention similar to the TOVA test. Psychologists are qualified to use this test, as I'm sure you know. And no, these kids did not become diagnosable as having the disorder ADHD -- if the small amount of coloring given them had made them diagnosably ADHD, then by no means would they have been kids in the "general population" -- they would have already had a diagnosis of ADHD. No, they simply exhibited an increase in such symptoms when exposed to the coloring. THAT is important. And YES -- it was double blind! It is like taking the whole bell curve of behavior and moving it a few degrees over to the right -- do we want to do that to a whole population? Just make everybody a tad more irritable and inattentive? Why? In order to give them green applesauce? In order for the company to use Blue #1, Blue #2, and Red #40 instead of real blueberries in their pop tarts ... so the companies can make more money?

If participants parents were paid, so what? That could not skew results, since it was DOUBLE BLIND ... remember? It is not unusual for participants to get paid or to receive some other benefit for participation.

I do not understand your complaint about the "age gap." There was no "gap." It was basically two separately done studies on different age groups. This was an outgrowth of the earlier Bateman (2004) study which was done only on toddlers. That is, it replicated the Bateman study and added a similar study on adolescents. The groups were not combined. Yes, the statistics are a little complex, but I'll go with the American Academy of Pediatrics analysis that concluded that they were credible and clear. For 30 years, the AAP has been saying that diet has no effect on behavior. They had to eat a little crow here to admit that the study was so clear and credible that they had to accept it. They certainly would have preferred to debunk it. Maybe they should have hired you.

Oh - in case you didn't know, both the McCann study and the Bateman study were funded by the British government. They were done at important universities. You mustn't just trash them without good reason.

 

[Jolie77]

Hmm, I find this interesting. Even though there are flaws whether it's biased or not in these research - How exactly do we get to really know that there are causes or let's say - a validation to know which one is correct or isn't correct?

 

[jillio]

Back in the 1990s, in college, I took a course in finding flaws in research. ALL research has flaws in it. And yes, it's great fun to find them, isn't it?

Then one would think it would be very easy for you to find the research flaws in the articles you cite. Why is it that you haven't been able to do that?

That said, you have jumped the gun here. While this study was considered important enough to be epublished (i.e., in MedLine via internet before the paper publication was out), it has indeed been officially published in the Lancet. The citation is Lancet. 2007 Nov 3;370(9598):1560-7

I am sure you would agree that the LANCET is a peer reviewed credible publication.

You provided the online publication, not the journal publication in your first post. And, simply because an article has been published does, in no way indicate that it is valid nor reliable.

Since when are psychologists not credible as far as measuring symptoms of ADHD or other psychiatric disorders? Measurements is what psychologists DO.

Psychologists are competent to take these measures. However, these were not the measures being utilized in this study. It had nothing to do with ADHD, nor with any mental illness.

You claim it is a flaw that the kids were not hyperactive. They were not supposed to be hyperactive -- they were supposed to be kids in the normal population. Did you read the title of the study? It explicitly states "children in the community" ... not those with a medically diagnosed condition, but NORMAL kids.

I did not say the kids were not hyperactive. What I said was, none, none of the participants had ADHD, and therefore the study was not generalized to kids that had been diagnosed with ADHD. If Feingold is going to claim that his diet cures ADHD, or even serves as a treatment in and of itself for kids with ADHD, then a valid and reliable study would have used control groups containing children with ADHD and children without ADHD. This was not the case, and therefore, this study cannot be used to support the Feingold diet as treatment for ADHD. Hyperactivity and ADHD are not the same thing. And quite frankly, we don't have any information in this study regarding confounding variables, and therefore, actually know very little about the participants of this study. Likewise, there is no longitudinal data suggesting that the results seen on one occassion extend past that one single incident.

Next you conclude that the diagnostic criteria were all wrong because the teachers were not trained in diagnosis. They were not supposed to be. They filled out forms -- this is similar to the normal diagnostic methods in which parents and teachers fill out forms.
Self report, or second hand report are nortoriously unreliable. Nor are they used for diagnosis, but as an adjunct to specific diagnostic criteria. Likewise, I did not say the diagnositic criteria was all wron. I said the methods used for measurement was all wrong. There was no diagnosis involved, as these subjects were not ADHD sufferers. And, no I have not read the entire article yet. I read through the population section, due to a crunch in time, and found enough flaws in just that short amount of time that I would never cite this article in any profesional paper. If I were looking for research to support either side, this one would have gone in the trash because it simply will not stand up to analysis.COLOR]

The teachers did not DO the diagnoses. For better or worse, most kids are diagnosed for ADHD by such methods, since there is no blood test or really reliable psychiatric assessment tools to use alone for toddlers.
Nor did anyone say the teachers did the diagnosis. Once again, there is no diagnosis. Having the teachers fill out a subjective opinion form that is included in data used to take measurements is not diagnosis. There was no diagnosis involved in this study, and the very fact that you are so confused about that simple fact tells me that perhaps you are not as informed regarding research methodolgy as you seem to think you are. Andyou are also incorrect. There most certainly are valid and reliable instruments for assessing ADHD. The reason it is not diagnosed in toddlers is due to developmental issues that cannot be separated from any other etiology for the behavior being exhibited. Obviously, you aren't very well versed in daignostic procedure. But the simply fact still remains that this paper cannot be used as support for treatment of ADHD because there were no children with ADHD in the study.
Perhaps you didn't read far enough in the study, however -- the older kids were tested with the Conners continuous performance test II (CPTII), which is a computerized test of attention similar to the TOVA test. Psychologists are qualified to use this test, as I'm sure you know. And no, these kids did not become diagnosable as having the disorder ADHD -- if the small amount of coloring given them had made them diagnosably ADHD, then by no means would they have been kids in the "general population" -- they would have already had a diagnosis of ADHD. No, they simply exhibited an increase in such symptoms when exposed to the coloring.
They also exhibited an increase in activity after being given a placebo. And you still cannot rule out extraneous variables for behavior exhibited. Why? Because this study did not control for the many extraneous variables that could have caused changes in behavior. Without control of these extraneous variables, one cannot definately conclude that diet was responsible.

THAT is important. And YES -- it was double blind! It is like taking the whole bell curve of behavior and moving it a few degrees over to the right -- do we want to do that to a whole population? Just make everybody a tad more irritable and inattentive? Why? In order to give them green applesauce? In order for the company to use Blue #1, Blue #2, and Red #40 instead of real blueberries in their pop tarts ... so the companies can make more money?

Obviously, you know nothing of the bell curve, as your application is totally ridiculous.

If participants parents were paid, so what? That could not skew results, since it was DOUBLE BLIND ... remember? It is not unusual for participants to get paid or to receive some other benefit for participation.

Evidently, they didn't teach you in that class of yours that research in which participants are paid is useful for marketing, but the very fact that they are paid can, and often does, skew the results of empirical results. What you are talking about is a marketing study, not a scientific one.

I do not understand your complaint about the "age gap." There was no "gap." It was basically two separately done studies on different age groups. This was an outgrowth of the earlier Bateman (2004) study which was done only on toddlers. That is, it replicated the Bateman study and added a similar study on adolescents. The groups were not combined. Yes, the statistics are a little complex, but I'll go with the American Academy of Pediatrics analysis that concluded that they were credible and clear. For 30 years, the AAP has been saying that diet has no effect on behavior. They had to eat a little crow here to admit that the study was so clear and credible that they had to accept it. They certainly would have preferred to debunk it. Maybe they should have hired you.

Because the age gap means that the results cannot be generalized to any child outside that age group. In other words, it does not apply to the ages that were left out of the study. And the toddlers also have many developmental issues occrring at that age that create too many confounding variable to make the conclusions that diet was responsibile valid or reliable.

Oh - in case you didn't know, both the McCann study and the Bateman study were funded by the British government. They were done at important universities. You mustn't just trash them without good reason.

I have good reason.

 

[jillio]

I can see that you want studies. Not all studies on diet and behavior put the word "feingold" in their name - in fact, most of them don't. And I didn't help with the link I gave you since that page was uploaded in two places, and I gave you the wrong one, so that many of the links didn't work. I apologize for the frustration that must have incurred. I have corrected it now (yes, I maintain the website too) and I hope that you have no further problem with it. Here is the page again ... it looks the same, but these links are working: Diet and Health: PDF documents

Now I will list some of the studies in random order with my comments, and if there are any you want to discuss in detail, that will be fine too. That is what I like to do.

____________________________________________

ADHD & Food Additives Revisited
AAP Grand Rounds 2008
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/AAP08.pdf

In this 2-page article, all of which you can see at the above link, she discusses the British study published in Lancet, concluding, "Thus, the overall findings of the study are clear and require that even we skeptics, who have long doubted parental claims of the effects of various foods on the behavior of their children, admit we might have been wrong."
____________________________________________
This article links right back to the organization attempting to sell this diet. Hardly a way to support your points.

Food Additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial
McCann D, et al
Lancet, September 6, 2007 on line.

Conclusion:

"Artificial colours or a sodium benzoate preservative (or both) in the diet result in increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population."
This is the study discussed by the AAP. This is the study which has caused massive change in English school system lunches, the major British supermarkets, etc., and has resulted in laws expected to be passed which will put warning labels on all foods continuing to contain food dyes in Europe.

FULL TEXT:
Stevenson/McCann study of food dyes and behavior in Lancet 2007

I've already listed the numerous problems with this study. I don't need to say more on the lack of usefullness in using the article to support claims of the Feingold diet "curing" ADHD, or of even being a viable treatment.____________________________________________

Treatment Alternatives for ADHD
L. Eugene Arnold
Journal of Attention Disorders
Vol. 3, No. 1, April 1999, pp. 30-48
FULL TEXT:
Treatment Alternatives for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder L

Dr. Arnold was under contract by the NIH to review all nonstimulant treatments for ADHD for their Consensus Development Conference in 1998. How interesting that the minute you heard he is on our medical advisory board you assume that he is a quack, biased, and/or unqualified. The NIH didn't think so, obviously, and he was involved in designing the big multi-modal drug and therapy study done a few years ago. He is one of those people that those knowledgeable in the ADHD field have all heard of. However, when he concluded that dietary modification is a credible treatment - and he was ignored by the NIH people - he got mad. Up until that time, he didn't even know that there is a Feingold Association.

__This is not a professional journal, and the author has a masters in education. Hardly qualifies him to comment of health related issues.__________________________________________

Assessment of Chemical Factors in Relation to Child Hyperactivity
Neil Ward
Food, Brain & Behavior Conference 1996
published in Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine (1997) 7, 333-342
FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Ward97.pdf

Dr. Ward is a chemist in Britain. This is his paper from a conference in which he was discussing his findings that kids with ADHD react to exposure to food dyes by losing zinc excessively - leading to a variety of symptoms ranging from hyperactivity to asthma ....and including symtpoms of ADHD as well as other symptoms helped by the Feingold diet.

Unfortunately, I don't have the full text of one of his earlier studies published in 1990, but here is the abstract:
Ward Study, 1990

Conclusion:
"Tartrazine (Yellow #5) induces a reduction in serum and saliva zinc concentrations and an increase in urinary zinc content with a corresponding deterioration in behaviour/emotional responses of the hyperactive children but not the controls."

Abstracts are useless as support of an argument. One has to be able to do a critical analysis of methods, population, instruments used and conclusions reached before it can be used as supportSynthetic Food Coloring and Behavior: A dose response effect in a double blind placebo-controlled, repeated-measures study
K.S.Rowe & K.J.Rowe
Journal of Pediatrics, November 1994, Vol. 135, pp.691-8
FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Rowe94.pdf

Conclusion:
"Behavioral changes in irritability, restlessness, and sleep disturbance are associated with the ingestion of tartrazine in some children. A dose response effect was observed."

Again, taking a statemetn out of context is totally useless. Obviously, the Feingold organization has trained you well in how to appear to be credible while actually providing no support for your claims that can stand up to scrutiny.

You may argue that these were not diagnostic ADHD symptoms- but everybody knows that these are symptoms usually associated with ADHD, and that parents of kids with ADHD would often be quite happy to see a reduction of irritability, restlessness, and sleep difficulties. Another thing to pay attention to in this - and other - studies is the dosage of food dye used as the challenge. They used 1 mg to 50 mg and used a very sensitive questionnaire (more so than the Conners questionnaire) which gave them their dose response. However, 50 mg is NOT a high dose.

Using a recipe for something popular here in Georgia called Red Velvet Cake, and the information I had from McCormick's about how much Red #40 is in liquid food coloring per drop, I was able to determine that one cake has over 1,000 mg Red #40. Depending on the size of the slice, a child would get 85 mg to 125 mg PER SLICE OF CAKE. That does not include what they got from their blue toothpaste, breakfast blueberry poptart, Sunny Delite juice, M&M's snack, red applesauce at lunch, etc.

It seems to me that if we are going to freely give kids 125 mg of Red #40 PER SLICE of cake, then somewhere there should be a study to see if that much Red #40 is safe for them. And what about the kid who eats 2 slices? There is no such study.

Okay -- before you yell at me about it -- there was one study (David 1987) using 200 mg of coloring. That should have proven something. However, what he did was recruit kids who were NOT doing well on an elimination diet, whose parents came to him for help!! And he tested them with the coloring while they were in the middle of reactions ... and concluded that nothing happened. Well, what did he expect to happen? That is sort of like taking kids with headaches and hitting their head against the wall and finding that they still had headaches. I guess you could thus prove that hitting your head against the wall can't hurt you.

____________________________________

A randomised controlled trial into the effects of food on ADHD.
Pelsser et al
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008 Apr 21. [epublished MedLine]
FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/pelsser2008.pdf

Conclusion:
"A strictly supervised elimination diet may be a valuable instrument in testing young children with ADHD on whether dietary factors may contribute to the
manifestation of the disorder and may have a beneficial effect on the children’s behaviour."

They eliminated some other stuff (such as milk) as well as additives, and this study was done in the Netherlands where there is no Feingold Association to teach parents or provide Food List help. It is not the best study in the world, because it showed that kids in the study (on the diet) got better while kids on the waiting list (doing nothing different) did not. Not exactly double blind. Nevertheless, they did some credible measurements of improvement, and when 70% of the experimental group got better versus ZERO of the "waiting" group, that is nothing to sneeze at.

__________________________________________


Okay. If you want more, I can continue. Oh -- one more item you can't go without seeing: In the Lau 2006 study, done in the lab, not on kids, he showed using standard tests of neurotoxicity that not only are the food dyes neurotoxic, but when combined with MSG or aspartame (as they so often are in real life), the effect is multiplied many-fold.

Synergistic Interactions Between Commonly Used Food Additives in a Developmental Neurotoxicity Test.
Lau K, et al.
Toxicological Sciences, 2006 Mar;90(1):178-87, 2005 Dec 13; [Epub ahead of print]

FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Lau06.pdf

The scariest sentence in this study:
"Inhibition of neurite outgrowth was found at concentrations of additives theoretically achievable in plasma by ingestion of a typical snack and drink."

If you are going to spend so much time looking up articles, try and find something valid and reliable that was done empirically, not this psuedoresearch sponsored by the very organization that promotes the diet. If you want to support your claims, you need independent research that validates it, not the orgainization that promotes the diet coming up with invalid research. Find some independent empirical research to support these claims, and you will have an argument. Otherwise, it is nothing more than anecdote, and anecdote supports nothing. At this point, you have wasted a lot of space and a lot of time posting absracts and links that go right back to the Feingold organization, not links to empirical research in reputable journals. The factof the matter is, there is no scietific evidence that supports the claim that the Feingold diet is useful in managing ADHD, much less in treating it, or as has been claimed, curing it.

You and Fredfam seem to make the same erors. Why don't I find that surprising.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

If you are going to spend so much time looking up articles, try and find something valid and reliable that was done empirically, not this psuedoresearch sponsored by the very organization that promotes the diet. If you want to support your claims, you need independent research that validates it, not the orgainization that promotes the diet coming up with invalid research. Find some independent empirical research to support these claims, and you will have an argument. Otherwise, it is nothing more than anecdote, and anecdote supports nothing. At this point, you have wasted a lot of space and a lot of time posting absracts and links that go right back to the Feingold organization, not links to empirical research in reputable journals. The factof the matter is, there is no scietific evidence that supports the claim that the Feingold diet is useful in managing ADHD, much less in treating it, or as has b een claimed, curing it.

Whats more ...

Those that are defending this diet signed up to show their allegience to this quackery. I wonder if they realized this was a deaf forum or not? What reason would they have to sign up on the forum other than beating the drum for this alledged treatment?

Btw, good job, Jillio!