ADHD and Food Allergies

Written by Anthony Kane, MD


ADHD and Food Allergies

by Anthony Kane, MD

Introduction

There are a number of controversial areas in medicine when it comes to ADHD. Food allergy is certainly one of them.

The classic allergic reaction, which is classified asrepparttar type-1 hypersensitivity reaction, can be elicited by food, but this is fairly uncommon. When we discuss food sensitivities in ADHD we are discussing a different, not well-defined, mechanism.

One ofrepparttar 115081 main progenitors ofrepparttar 115082 food allergy/ADHD connection is Dr. Doris Rapp. Dr. Rapp was a pediatric allergist who noticed that many children in her practice had significant physical and behavioral changes when exposed to certain foods. They may have red ear lobes, dark circles under their eyes, or glazed eyes after eating certain foods. These children could have tremendous swings in behavior. They can be calm one minute and wildly hyperactive a few minutes later.

To make it more interesting, children with food allergies usually craverepparttar 115083 food that affects them negatively. That means a child who is allergic to peanuts will demand peanut butter and jelly for lunch everyday, and forrepparttar 115084 rest ofrepparttar 115085 afternoon you have to peel him off ofrepparttar 115086 ceiling.

What is Food Allergy?

The classic allergic reaction operates through a very specific mechanism. The reaction is caused when a specific type of antibody, called IgE, reacts with a specific provoking substance called an allergen. The result of this interaction is an allergic response andrepparttar 115087 person is deemed allergic to that allergen.

The specific type of antibody involved in classic allergy is called IgE. The proposed antibody mechanism for this type of food allergy does not involve IgE, but a different antibody called IgG. This is significant because standard allergy testing tests only for IgE antibodies. If your child has IgG mediated sensitivity, his allergy test is going to miss it. That means that your child may have a severe allergy to a specific food, but your allergist will tell you he is not allergic to it.

Whyrepparttar 115088 Controversy?

Reason 1: Diagnosis

I said this was a very controversial area of medicine and here is one ofrepparttar 115089 reasons why. Food allergies are very difficult to diagnose. One reason is thatrepparttar 115090 symptoms wax and wane. When a child has a classic allergy, for example to bee stings, then every time a bee stings him, he will have a reaction. Food allergies don’t work that way. There seems to be a threshold that must be exceeded before there are any symptoms. In addition, this threshold seems to vary from day to day. On some days a food will affectrepparttar 115091 child, and on other days it won’t. Dr. Rapp explains this phenomenon usingrepparttar 115092 analogy of a barrel.

We can view each allergic child as if he has a barrel. As long asrepparttar 115093 barrel is empty or only partially full, your child will have no problems. Your child won’t become hyperactive until his barrel is overflowing.

Various things will fill your child’s barrel. Let’s say your child is sensitive to chocolate, cats, and peanut butter. Each of these things all can partially fill his barrel. As long as he only has peanut butter or only plays withrepparttar 115094 cat, his barrel is only partially full. That means that there are no symptoms and that his behavior is fine. Then, one day he has a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, has chocolate ice cream for dessert and plays withrepparttar 115095 cat all afternoon. These things in combination make his barrel overflow, and by evening he is out of control. Your child has food allergies, but sometimes they affect him and sometimes they don’t.

The barrel can change sizes. If your child has a cold or is upset his barrel gets smaller. It takes less to make it overflow. If he is happy his barrel is bigger. It takes more to make it overflow. If he isn’t eating well and that day he is low on certain nutrients his barrel gets smaller.

Many traditional allergists find this barrel concept ludicrous. It doesn’t fit intorepparttar 115096 pattern of how other allergies work.

Reason 2: Method of Diagnosis

The next problem isrepparttar 115097 way in which you test for food allergies. Dr. Rapp describes a technique called provocation-neutralization testing. This method works as follows: Say that a child frequently has headaches after eating eggs. The practitioner will give an intradermal injection of egg extract. If this elicitsrepparttar 115098 child’s headache, thenrepparttar 115099 child tests positive for egg allergy. Other signs of a positive test include an increase in pulse rate of 20 points, a large skin reaction (this indicates a classic IgE reaction), a change inrepparttar 115100 child’s handwriting, or some other physical or emotional complaint. This last criterion “some other physical or emotional complaint” is problematic. It is too vague. The result is that when studies compared how several physicians evaluatedrepparttar 115101 same group of patients, their results didn’t agree. For each patient if there were twenty different doctors with twenty different sets of findings. None of their diagnoses matched.

Reason 3: The Mechanism

As I mentioned before,repparttar 115102 proposed mechanism is an IgG mediated response. Some food allergists diagnose specific food allergies by measuring IgG levels. This runs counter to all of modern allergy practice.

Allergists give allergy shots to treat allergy. The way this works is they give a low level of allergen, which is not enough to elicit an IgE reaction. The dose is slowly increased until eventuallyrepparttar 115103 patient can tolerate a significant exposure torepparttar 115104 allergen.

This is how it works. The repeated low-level exposure torepparttar 115105 allergen inducesrepparttar 115106 body to make a different antibody torepparttar 115107 substance. This antibody attaches torepparttar 115108 allergen and deactivates it before IgE can causerepparttar 115109 allergy reaction. What is this antibody that allergists try to induce to cure their patients of their allergies? You guessed it, IgG. Sorepparttar 115110 very antibodyrepparttar 115111 traditional allergists have been inducing for decades to successfully treat allergies,repparttar 115112 food allergy people claim isrepparttar 115113 antibody guilty of causing allergies.

For a traditional allergist this is nothing short of heresy. IgG has been used for decades to treat allergies successfully. Comes along Rapp and her friends and they claim that IgG causes allergy? This is a little hard for some people to accept.

Just how strongly do allergists reject this idea? I once tried to contact an Israeli physician who was a food allergy specialist to discuss with him provocation-neutralization testing. I calledrepparttar 115114 hospital where he is on staff and asked to speak with him. For some reasonrepparttar 115115 operator instead put me through torepparttar 115116 head ofrepparttar 115117 Department of Allergy.

I began discussing with himrepparttar 115118 theory of food allergies, provocation-neutralization testing and IgG testing. He told me that he wasrepparttar 115119 head of a committee of allergists who were inrepparttar 115120 process of testifying beforerepparttar 115121 Israeli Knesset to get legislation passed to make IgG testing illegal in Israel.

The Feingold Program

Written by Anthony Kane, MD


The Feingold Program

by Anthony Kane, MD

Before We Proceed

We are about to discuss what is officially labeled as an alternative medicine treatment for ADHD.

You should understand that a synonym for “alternative” is controversial. The officially orthodox medical community does not sanction what we will be discussing. If this gives you goose bumps you had better stop reading now.

If not we can proceed.

Feingold and Food Dyes

Historically, Dr. Benjamin Feingold, wasrepparttar first person to promoterepparttar 115080 idea that dietary items might be responsible for causing ADHD. Feingold focused on food additives, which are essentially anything that nature did not put in your food. Each American consumes 8 to 10 pounds of food additives every year. Feingold also implicated some natural chemicals, such as naturally occurring salicylates.

Feingold maintained that salicylates, artificial colors, and artificial flavorings were responsible for 40 to 50 percent ofrepparttar 115081 hyperactivity found in children. He claimed thatrepparttar 115082 most effective form of treatment for hyperactivity was to prepare and serve children foods that were free of these substances. His ideas received tremendous media attention and Feingold Associations, comprised primarily of parents, developed in almost every state.

The Anti Feingold Position

Initially,repparttar 115083 medical community took Feingold very seriously. His idea was so popular, that it was impossible to ignore. However, after some investigationrepparttar 115084 final verdict was that Feingold was wrong.

The most vocal opposition of Feingold came fromrepparttar 115085 Nutrition Foundation.

In 1980, an expert review team assembled byrepparttar 115086 Nutrition Foundation concluded:

“Based on seven studies involving approximately 190 children, there have been no instances of consistent, dramatic deterioration in behavior in hyperactive children challenged, under double-blind conditions, with artificial food colorings. . . . There are three . . . exceptions to these generally negative conclusions; but, in all three cases,repparttar 115087 deterioration is reported byrepparttar 115088 mother with no other objective, confirming evidence available. . . . Withoutrepparttar 115089 confirming evidence of objective tests and/or outside observers, even these exceptions cannot be considered as definite evidence that there may be an occasional, genetically determined, sensitivity to food colorings. Though one cannot prove that no such children will be found, sufficient numbers of highly selected children have been studied to feel confident that such specific sensitivity, if found,will be rare."

These negative findings stand in sharp contrast torepparttar 115090 32-60 percent of children reported by Dr. Feingold and others to improve dramatically when additives were eliminated from their diets.

Nevertheless, in 1980repparttar 115091 Nutrition Foundation, a well-respected group of scientists dedicated torepparttar 115092 furthering of better health through proper nutrition, strongly rejected Feingold’s hypothesis and concluded thatrepparttar 115093 additives used byrepparttar 115094 food industry are perfectly safe. Just so you should know,repparttar 115095 Nutrition Foundation was established and funded by Coca Cola,repparttar 115096 Life Saver Company, and a number of other food industry giants.

The Pro-Feingold Position

The information supporting Feingold is actually much easier to find. You can view most of it yourself by going torepparttar 115097 Feingold Association web site.

I am not going into allrepparttar 115098 studies presented byrepparttar 115099 Feingold Association to prove that Feingold was right. Nor will I discuss here how they explain awayrepparttar 115100 studies showing that Feingold was wrong. I deal with that inrepparttar 115101 program, How to Helprepparttar 115102 Child You Love. However,repparttar 115103 message of all of their studies quoted byrepparttar 115104 Feingold Association web site is that food additives really do affect behavior in certain children. In other words whatrepparttar 115105 Feingold Association is saying is “See, we really do have a reason to exist.” Surprise.

Cont'd on page 2 ==>
 
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use