My Kid is a Damn Nutter

[Aliantha]

And yet, the rates of a crapton of other things are inexplicably rising at an alarming rate, including but not limited to autism, Celiac disease, life-threatening allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, type 1 diabetes, and all types of thyroid disease. Science works very hard, no doubt, but it's not the God you want it to be.

I still challenge the notion of these types of diseases actually being on the rise as opposed to them having always been as prevalent but undiagnosed. The problem with this is of course, that it's very difficult to come to a solid conclusion.

I can say though, that in my family, we have a history of gut and digestive problems and it's only recently (over the last ten years or so) that a family tendancy towards Barretts disease is becoming apparent which is also coupled with several members of the family being diagnosed as Celiacs. It could be that because our diet has changed over the last 20 to 30 years and this has caused these family members with a predisposition to exhibit enough symptoms to follow up. Or that they're financial enough to go through the process of finding out instead of just putting up with it. Or it could be that something particular to my family's particular gene set doesn't like something that has been recently introduced to our diets.

Knowing my famly history though, I'm inclined to believe these two particular diseased have always been there. They just weren't diagnosed. That seems to be the concensus among the family also...and there are a lot of us, so it's not a bad study group.

Isn't it true the type 1 diabetes has been attributed to a generally more sedentary lifestyle with a high sugar diet in general?

[Clodfobble]

That's type 2. Type 1 is autoimmune, when the body suddenly begins attacking the pancreas. It is unexpectedly triggered in childhood, and requires immediate and lifelong insulin dependence. Type 2 is when the pancreas is just tired and worn out after years of abuse, and can often be controlled with an improved diet and exercise.

Both types are on the rise, but of course everyone can see why Type 2 is going up--diet and crappy lifestyle, as you said. No one can explain why Type 1 is surging.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I still challenge the notion of these types of diseases actually being on the rise as opposed to them having always been as prevalent but undiagnosed. The problem with this is of course, that it's very difficult to come to a solid conclusion.

Challenge it all you want, there's scientific data to refute you, which even Undertoad acknowledged was convincing. Autism is the only one that's political; the medical community generally agrees about the rest. Type 1 diabetes and life-threatening allergies can't linger undiagnosed for years because they kill you, in ways that make it very obvious what you died from.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Hang on a second. They compared sugar to artificial sweeteners, another substance that is widely suspected to cause behavior problems? Did they ever compare sugar to nothing, or artificial sweeteners to nothing?

I don't have a cite.

Not according to the American Cancer Society, who say that rates didn't even start going down until the early 1990s, and since then they have dropped 18.4% in men and 10.5% in women. And the majority of that drop is due to prevention (i.e. smoking rates are down and breast cancer screenings are becoming more common and more advanced,) not improvements in chemotherapy.

Cancer is hard, because if you survive other problems you eventually wind up with it (1 in 2 probability). It's not what you die of, it's what you survive. You have to go by five-year relative survival rates for a close to accurate measure. These statistics have roughly gone from 50% you will die from this thing (in 1975) to 33% you will die from this thing (in 2004). A remarkable achievement in 19 years.

And yet, the rates of a crapton of other things are inexplicably rising at an alarming rate, including but not limited to autism, Celiac disease, life-threatening allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, type 1 diabetes, and all types of thyroid disease. Science works very hard, no doubt, but it's not the God you want it to be.

Science has identified them for you. It will take longer to fix the problems. Nevertheless it has a MUCH better success rate than shitty websites selling colon cleansers.

[DanaC]

It is of course entirely possible that the website is both promoting a scientifically sound theory on diet and also trying to sell colon cleansers.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Science has identified them for you. It will take longer to fix the problems.

Absolutely, and I have faith that in the long run science will prevail. But just like cancer patients who are willing to participate in very experimental trials, I don't personally have the time to wait around, and neither does anyone else with a child diagnosed with autism or ADHD. I will balance unverified information on the internet against what common sense says is safe to try, and if it works for my kid, you better believe I will add my voice to those spouting the unverified information. Think of it as calling science's Tip Line, and giving them leads in the case.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nevertheless it has a MUCH better success rate than shitty websites selling colon cleansers.

Nyuck nyuck nyuck...

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It is of course entirely possible that the website is both promoting a scientifically sound theory on diet and also trying to sell colon cleansers.

It's entirely possible that an ice cream shop could provide you with something actually nutritious, but that doesn't mean you should eat all your meals there.

[Flint]

Think of it as calling science's Tip Line, and giving them leads in the case.

They go into greater detail on that in this video: The Limits of Science

[Undertoad]

Clod you are doing science on your child, period. You are using the scientific method: you're investigating to form a hypothesis, you're testing your hypothesis with experiment, you're analyzing the results.

You're only testing with a sample size of one, so your findings only apply to one, but they can provide new questions for new hypotheses for a broader population.

[classicman]

That is true UT, but I think the sample of one is, by far, her top priority. If what she does helps others with their research or ideas...... great.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Clod you are doing science on your child, period. You are using the scientific method: you're investigating to form a hypothesis, you're testing your hypothesis with experiment, you're analyzing the results.

You're only testing with a sample size of one, so your findings only apply to one, but they can provide new questions for new hypotheses for a broader population.

And while I'll admit I'm probably more rigorous than most (oh, ow, my arm hurts bending all the way around like that to reach my back...) I would submit that many, many parents out there do the same thing with their children, carefully monitoring the results of their day-to-day activities--if for no other reason than to make our own lives easier. Nobody knows a kid like his mom, and if generation after generation of mothers say that sugar makes their kid hyperactive and poorly behaved... well, I know I'm not imagining what I see in my kid, so I'm inclined to take their word for it when it comes to their kids, too.

[Flint]

Mothers take this shit seriously.

[Undertoad]

It's confirmation bias. Like the vast majority of people, the vast majority of mothers are not critical thinkers or trained scientists, and will make assumptions based on their perception and their understanding of the world.

But it turns out that chocolate doesn't give you acne; it turns out going out in the cold doesn't cause you to catch a cold. There are thousands of beliefs that mothers have, that we all have, that are wrong. There is evidence all around us, that we can't see because we don't allow it in our brains.

Science demands an even more critical view of the child than the mother's view. It will only include unbiased, double-blind, direct observations and will throw out intuition, emotion and previously-held beliefs.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Science demands an even more critical view of the child than the mother's view. It will only include unbiased, double-blind, direct observations

[gathered during a single one-hour snapshot of the kid's life]

and will throw out intuition, emotion and previously-held beliefs

[established through hours and hours and hours of direct observation gathered day after day, year after year, 24/7/365 by someone who is absolutely obsessed with finding the answer to that burning question that drives them on past sleep, past any concerns of themself and their own needs, that person who isn't concerned about grant money, or finding an academic bit of trivia, but who actually needs a real-world solution that will actually WORK and produce visible results]

.

But, yeah, sure. Mothers don't know what's going on with their own kids. They're probably just "hysterical" ...

[Undertoad]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7963081

This study tested the hypothesis that commonly reported negative effects of sugar on children's behavior may be due to parental expectancies. A challenge study design was employed, in which thirty-five 5- to 7-year-old boys reported by their mothers to be behaviorally "sugar sensitive," and their mothers, were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, mothers were told their children had received a large dose of sugar, whereas in the control condition mothers were told their sons received a placebo; all children actually received the placebo (aspartame). Mothers and sons were videotaped while interacting together and each mother was then questioned about the interaction. Mothers in the sugar expectancy condition rated their children as significantly more hyperactive. Behavioral observations revealed these mothers exercised more control by maintaining physical closeness, as well as showing trends to criticize, look at, and talk to their sons more than did control mothers. For several variables, the expectancy effect was stronger for cognitively rigid mothers.

maybe you can study your own response if you eat a bowl of dicks

[Pie]

UT, you're most certainly correct, but MAN!