Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

superluminary
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 274

08 Dec 2013, 5:08 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
For anyone interested, here is the evidence that there is no relationship between diet and autism:
Cochrane: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract
"Research has shown of high rates of use of complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) for children with autism including gluten and/or casein exclusion diets. Current evidence for efficacy of these diets is poor. "


For those not in the know, the Cochrane colaboration is the absolute gold standard for evidence based medicine. They do meta-analyses, taking a large number of smaller studies and using statistical analysis to find patterns. They have no commercial ties or vested interests. If Cochrane says the evidence is weak then the evidence is weak.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,345
Location: Reading, England

08 Dec 2013, 5:52 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I'd just like to clarify that I don't disagree with stuff like this- in fact that's partially why I disagree with talk of curing autism by making complicated dietary changes. It both risks malnutrition, and means you miss out on your comfort foods- neither of which are helpful.


Not eating a bunch of refined sugars doesn't risk malnutrition. It's only in the last 50 years or so that people have crammed their diets so full of refined sugars in the first place, and previous generations of humans were not malnutritioned for not eating them. (not-so) Coincidentally, it's also in the last 50 years or so that rates of mental health problems have skyrocketed.

I would like to add "the post hoc fallacy" to the list of things you need to understand before you can contribute meaningfully to this discussion. I am not saying this to be dictatorial, but rather in the same way that you need to have a good grasp of using a keyboard, spelling, and so forth, you need a good grasp of logic.

You also conflated "complicated dietary changes" for "not eating a bunch of refined sugars".

bumble wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I'd just like to clarify that I don't disagree with stuff like this- in fact that's partially why I disagree with talk of curing autism by making complicated dietary changes. It both risks malnutrition, and means you miss out on your comfort foods- neither of which are helpful.


Not eating a bunch of refined sugars doesn't risk malnutrition. It's only in the last 50 years or so that people have crammed their diets so full of refined sugars in the first place, and previous generations of humans were not malnutritioned for not eating them. (not-so) Coincidentally, it's also in the last 50 years or so that rates of mental health problems have skyrocketed. Missing out on comfort foods is a cost worth the benefit of mental and physical health, in my experience, and thus is very helpful.


Good book, reading it now: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Primal-Body-Min ... rimal+mind

I agree that removing processed crud and sugars is not a bad move and won't in the least bit leave you with malnutrition.

Self published books should usually ring alarm bells as these are not subjected to any editorial standards.

From a review of that book:
Quote:
The research is terrible. Gedgaudas continually gives `facts' that are unsourced and descend into quackery. (No Gedaudas, ADHD cannot be cured by magnesium intake, Wi-Fi is not like tobacco and a quarter of the world's population are not celiacs). The few named sources given are re-quotes from light magazine articles and well known low carb books (including one that has been discredited by the low-carb community!).

(On Magnesium: the only study I could find that showed that it treated ADHD only found that it treated hyperactivity, and was not controlled against placebo, just against "no supplement". In other words, poor science, poorly applied. It might be worth further investigation though)

And another review:
Quote:
However, I found that the author cherry picked the research that suited the book topic. For instance, she recommends only a small intake of fruits due to the fructose. Her argument is that advanced glycation products are more readily synthesized from fructose than glucose. True. However, the glucose intake is much higher than that of fructose, therefore at the end of day, fruit fructose isn't much of a culprit. Additionally, one would have to eat several kilos of fruits per day in order to get sufficient AGE-forming fructose. And that over months! I want to meet the person who is doing that without "floating". Furthermore, fruits are packed with essential nutrients and antioxidants, plus the fibre these contains positively changes the uptake of fructose in the gut. And damn, they taste good!



bumble
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,073

08 Dec 2013, 6:03 pm

I just gloss over the not so sensible sounding bits and stuff that sounds like quackery. I am not strict paleo and don't cut out fruits, legumes or even starchy veg completely. I mostly keep my diet clean of anything processed or artificial and I do wish to limit gluten as celiac disease does actually appear in my family.


I don't know about a quarter of the population having celiac disease but it is an under diagnosed condition. In my case reducing or eliminating gluten and cows dairy (i still consume some goats) pretty much gets rid of the IBS I was diagnosed with completely as well as the pale colour stools I was having an issue with a year or so ago (my dr thought it might be gallstones but I missed the scan appointment and it has ceased for the time being anyway.

Fruit is not all that great for your teeth though...our ancestors did not have the levels of tooth decay that we do as far as i can tell, indicating their diets were much lower in sugars (including fruits and fruit acids) than ours. They simply would not have always been available to them all year round, although that would have depended on where they were living.

it marvels me when I see adverts with dentists saying "the people with the healthiest diets often suffer with the most tooth decay"

Um ...Yeah, I'd question that. Teeth are important, it's one hell of an evolutionary compromise if we are genetically designed to eat a diet that rotts our teeth and gives us things like gum disease.

Sugar, including fruit sugars and acid can cause tooth decay or break down the enamel on the teeth.

Our modern society ignores our ancestry despite the fact we are virtually genetically the same as them...

I do agree with finding a diet that works for your body as an individual which is one thing this book encourages. What is a healthy diet for one may not be a healthy diet for another.

I have not gotten as far as the WI FI comments yet.



DevilKisses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,067
Location: Canada

08 Dec 2013, 7:15 pm

Random42 wrote:
1) NT born with autistic traits(maybe BAP but not diagnosable) and a food sensitivity grows up very aspie-like, and definitely diagnosable. Why? He/she is physically ill causing traits to be amplified. Later, this person tries an elimination type diet in which he/she eliminates the food he/she is sensitive to. Now this person is NT with some nondiagnosable traits. Does this mean this is a cure for autism? No, the person in this example was never actually autistic but had traits worsened by being sick.


I think I am one of those people. Even though I definitely have some traits, my traits have always been atypical. I've also naturally outgrown a lot of my traits.


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 82 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 124 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,309
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

08 Dec 2013, 7:18 pm

bumble wrote:
I just gloss over the not so sensible sounding bits and stuff that sounds like quackery.


I'm curious what bits you think are not so sensible and why, as well as what you think sounds like quackery and why? Feel free to pm if you don't want to go off on this tangent in this thread.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.