7 ms·

I've always been skeptical of ADHD diagnoses, thinking that it was widely over-diagnosed and a problem in American culture more than anything, and not as common

I've always been skeptical of ADHD diagnoses, thinking that it was widely over-diagnosed and a problem in American culture more than anything, and not as commonplace in reality. My googling took me to this article which suggests I am wrong: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/

6stringmerc 10y ago
One thing that has troubled me as a self-taught "dietician" (re: for fitness, using PEDs effectively, etc) is wondering how much the pronouncement of ADHD might correlate with dietary and lifestyle habit changes over the past couple generations. Basically, I have a hunch regarding general population and dietary overlap. I was a "hyper" kid for a lot of my formative years, and didn't undergo medication for it, but wonder if it'd been even more pronounced with not quite as strict of a household regimen (I was fortunate in this regard - pretty routine home-cooking, balanced diet, occasional sugar treats but not a staple). A 2012 article I just quickly dredged up seems to note there's interest and some control studies possible for recommendations that don't deny the utility of medication, but seem to look for dietary conditions worth evaluation[1]. [1] http://www.oregonholisticcounseling.com/uploads/Kids_Nutrition_Literature_Review.pdf http://www.oregonholisticcounseling.com/uploads/Kids_Nutriti...
- sotojuan 10y ago
  When I was a kid (6-12~) I had to take Ritalin everyday—sometimes during school the teacher had to give it to me (this was in South America were casually asking a teacher to give me meds was ok). When we suddenly moved to the US and I started middle school here I stopped taking it. I've always suspected I was and am still "hyper", because I have trouble focusing and always have to fidget or walk around the office. I just don't get up and run around like I did when I was 7. Even then, without meds, I managed to do pretty great in school and college, as well as my programming career. I've always wondered how much different I would've been had I taken ADHD/"focus" meds.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Same, I had lots and lots of outdoor activities (unstructured) mostly revolving around riding my bicycle. I'm sure I got lots of energy out that way. I rode to and from elementary school, and would ride after school, then also was an active swimmer. Not sure some of those are everyday options for young people (generally speaking in urban/sprawl suburban/helicopter parenting places). Mostly I think my home discipline helped me 'focus' on doing school and those things, to allow things to get channeled...like picking up guitar seriously at 14. Not going to get good at guitar without focusing and practicing, if I'm honest. So, in a time when I would've been out riding my bike, I was concentrating on the instrument and tiring out my brain daily I think. Well, and the whole "don't do well in school don't get to play guitar" thing hanging over my head (for the best). I kind of think I'd be, well, maybe a less creative person today because I like to let my mind wander. A person recently asked "How do you remember so much erratic & tangential information so fast?" and my only reply was thinking my brain is like a giant orb-spider-web-thingy that can fire stuff all around really fast and bring it back. I like to think my wandering mind made the most of spending time in the local library as a kid too - pick up book, read for a while, get another one, etc.
  - Vraxx 10y ago
    I had a similar experience where my 3rd grade teacher was pretty much solely responsible for getting me medicated. I took Adderall every day from 3rd grade to about Sophomore year of high school, when I convinced my parents that I was capable of managing myself without it. At the time, I detested it because it subdued my extroverted nature, for instance, I would read books at recess instead of playing kickball or talking with friends. After graduating undergrad just fine and landing a software engineering gig, I looked the medication again, and it's a lot more helpful than I remember giving it credit for. My personal hypothesis is that the dose I had as a kid was a bit too strong, but the one insight I gained from taking it after being off of it for so long is that I don't absolutely need it to function, but it sure makes things a hell of a lot easier for me. Obviously, this is just anecdotal, but my experience seemed similar enough to yours that I thought I might share a hypothetical answer to your question.
raverbashing 10y ago
The issue is how much regular behaviour is being targeted as something that requires medication
leereeves 10y ago
I'm far from an expert on this, but I've always thought that the symptoms (inattention and/or impulsivity and hyperactivity) are only maladaptive in modern culture, where young people are expected to spend long hours sitting quietly at attention in school. Is that a disease, or a flaw in modern culture?
- jackgavigan 10y ago
  The article addresses this issues: One clinician quoted in the book more or less admits defeat: “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”
  - leereeves 10y ago
    The article briefly mentions the issue then moves on. But is it true that "it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment" or simply that established powers make more money by "modifying the kid"?
    - Vraxx 10y ago
      In a way, those can both be true simultaneously. Just from the assumptions that the "established powers" make more money by modifying the kid implies that even if modifying the kid's environment cost $0, it would "cost" them lost profits of modifying the kid. Costs are relative, and I think the point remains that the kid's parents are relatively powerless to alter the kid's environment significantly enough to solve the adhd problem. Thus, the decision of the cost/benefit analysis of modifying the environment vs modifying the kid falls to the "established powers", also known as, collective society.
      - leereeves 10y ago
        By "established powers" I meant the people with enough political power to influence educational and medical policy. As long as everyone with significant influence is comfortable with the status quo, there's little pressure to search for other options, even if many parents might prefer another option.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joshuak 10y ago
These are very old studies. It is now known that ADHD is a genetic disorder. In fact it has unusually high correlation. It is absolutely not caused by environmental factors. Though there is one virus (that I'm aware of) that may cause it. It is not only an issue of attentiveness, but ranter all executive functions. The poor naming of the disorder, and the observability of a persons focus, causes people to over emphasize the inattentiveness symptom. If you are interested in understanding the reality of ADHD I'd suggest watching some of the talks by Dr. Russel Barkely. Here: https://youtu.be/GR1IZJXc6d8 https://youtu.be/GR1IZJXc6d8 For a more complete talk: Here: https://youtu.be/SCAGc-rkIfo https://youtu.be/SCAGc-rkIfo

6stringmerc 10y ago

One thing that has troubled me as a self-taught "dietician" (re: for fitness, using PEDs effectively, etc) is wondering how much the pronouncement of ADHD might correlate with dietary and lifestyle habit changes over the past couple generations. Basically, I have a hunch regarding general population and dietary overlap. I was a "hyper" kid for a lot of my formative years, and didn't undergo medication for it, but wonder if it'd been even more pronounced with not quite as strict of a household regimen (I was fortunate in this regard - pretty routine home-cooking, balanced diet, occasional sugar treats but not a staple). A 2012 article I just quickly dredged up seems to note there's interest and some control studies possible for recommendations that don't deny the utility of medication, but seem to look for dietary conditions worth evaluation[1]. [1] http://www.oregonholisticcounseling.com/uploads/Kids_Nutrition_Literature_Review.pdf http://www.oregonholisticcounseling.com/uploads/Kids_Nutriti...

sotojuan 10y ago
When I was a kid (6-12~) I had to take Ritalin everyday—sometimes during school the teacher had to give it to me (this was in South America were casually asking a teacher to give me meds was ok). When we suddenly moved to the US and I started middle school here I stopped taking it. I've always suspected I was and am still "hyper", because I have trouble focusing and always have to fidget or walk around the office. I just don't get up and run around like I did when I was 7. Even then, without meds, I managed to do pretty great in school and college, as well as my programming career. I've always wondered how much different I would've been had I taken ADHD/"focus" meds.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Same, I had lots and lots of outdoor activities (unstructured) mostly revolving around riding my bicycle. I'm sure I got lots of energy out that way. I rode to and from elementary school, and would ride after school, then also was an active swimmer. Not sure some of those are everyday options for young people (generally speaking in urban/sprawl suburban/helicopter parenting places). Mostly I think my home discipline helped me 'focus' on doing school and those things, to allow things to get channeled...like picking up guitar seriously at 14. Not going to get good at guitar without focusing and practicing, if I'm honest. So, in a time when I would've been out riding my bike, I was concentrating on the instrument and tiring out my brain daily I think. Well, and the whole "don't do well in school don't get to play guitar" thing hanging over my head (for the best). I kind of think I'd be, well, maybe a less creative person today because I like to let my mind wander. A person recently asked "How do you remember so much erratic & tangential information so fast?" and my only reply was thinking my brain is like a giant orb-spider-web-thingy that can fire stuff all around really fast and bring it back. I like to think my wandering mind made the most of spending time in the local library as a kid too - pick up book, read for a while, get another one, etc.
- Vraxx 10y ago
  I had a similar experience where my 3rd grade teacher was pretty much solely responsible for getting me medicated. I took Adderall every day from 3rd grade to about Sophomore year of high school, when I convinced my parents that I was capable of managing myself without it. At the time, I detested it because it subdued my extroverted nature, for instance, I would read books at recess instead of playing kickball or talking with friends. After graduating undergrad just fine and landing a software engineering gig, I looked the medication again, and it's a lot more helpful than I remember giving it credit for. My personal hypothesis is that the dose I had as a kid was a bit too strong, but the one insight I gained from taking it after being off of it for so long is that I don't absolutely need it to function, but it sure makes things a hell of a lot easier for me. Obviously, this is just anecdotal, but my experience seemed similar enough to yours that I thought I might share a hypothetical answer to your question.

raverbashing 10y ago

The issue is how much regular behaviour is being targeted as something that requires medication

leereeves 10y ago

I'm far from an expert on this, but I've always thought that the symptoms (inattention and/or impulsivity and hyperactivity) are only maladaptive in modern culture, where young people are expected to spend long hours sitting quietly at attention in school. Is that a disease, or a flaw in modern culture?

jackgavigan 10y ago
The article addresses this issues: One clinician quoted in the book more or less admits defeat: “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”
- leereeves 10y ago
  The article briefly mentions the issue then moves on. But is it true that "it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment" or simply that established powers make more money by "modifying the kid"?
  - Vraxx 10y ago
    In a way, those can both be true simultaneously. Just from the assumptions that the "established powers" make more money by modifying the kid implies that even if modifying the kid's environment cost $0, it would "cost" them lost profits of modifying the kid. Costs are relative, and I think the point remains that the kid's parents are relatively powerless to alter the kid's environment significantly enough to solve the adhd problem. Thus, the decision of the cost/benefit analysis of modifying the environment vs modifying the kid falls to the "established powers", also known as, collective society.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      By "established powers" I meant the people with enough political power to influence educational and medical policy. As long as everyone with significant influence is comfortable with the status quo, there's little pressure to search for other options, even if many parents might prefer another option.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

joshuak 10y ago

These are very old studies. It is now known that ADHD is a genetic disorder. In fact it has unusually high correlation. It is absolutely not caused by environmental factors. Though there is one virus (that I'm aware of) that may cause it. It is not only an issue of attentiveness, but ranter all executive functions. The poor naming of the disorder, and the observability of a persons focus, causes people to over emphasize the inattentiveness symptom. If you are interested in understanding the reality of ADHD I'd suggest watching some of the talks by Dr. Russel Barkely. Here: https://youtu.be/GR1IZJXc6d8 https://youtu.be/GR1IZJXc6d8 For a more complete talk: Here: https://youtu.be/SCAGc-rkIfo https://youtu.be/SCAGc-rkIfo