How the ADHD Brain Processes Sugar Differently
finallyfocused.org
finallyfocused.org
The second study is based on a very small number of participants (only 14 kids with ADHD and 11 without), at varying different stages of puberty (worth carefully considering whether glucose processing in a 7 year old is fairly comparable to a 14 year old).[0]
There's still some stuff to explore on this topic, but the conclusion that changing the way people consume sugar can have an impact on ADHD is, in my opinion, premature.
Obviously, 'reliable, steady' sources of glucose and 'protein-rich' diets are not bad, and better nutrition is likely to help relieve any diet-exacerbated symptoms of ADHD, but I think more research is needed.
[0]: the linked article states '28 children ages 7 to 14—17 with ADHD and 11 without'. I think this is pretty easy to misread, but it's not incorrect. It's an em dash between 14 and 17. The range is 7-14, and the bit after the em dash is the breakdown. It's not as I initially read it '28 children with AHDH aged from 7 to 14-17' (on further introspection, it wouldn't really make sense like that anyway).
It's been shown that ketogenic diets - where whole body and brain switch to fat/ketones instead of glucose for power helps with Epilepsy (and was it also Parkinsons).
And through bypassing damaged or suboptimal glucose pathways, you also bypass problems that come with it.
Of course it might also be that ADHD brains simply do come from evolution of what used to be Hunters (as opposed to Gatherers). It wouldn't be too unreasonable to think Hunters ate more fat and protein than Gatherers.
AFAIK they usually form ahead of ketogenic diet - when people are eating little fat and dont need much enzyme/bile - it's not flushed from gallbladder often enough.
And then increased fat consumption on ketogenic (or Paleo, Mediterranean, Carnivore ...etc) diet requires flushing gallbladder - and only then you realize you have gallbladder stones.
Anyway - true ketogenic diet is hard to pull off and maintain. Even just few glasses of milk (~2.5g of carbs per 100ml) could take you out of ketosis.
Same for basically any typical fruit (e.g. apple, pear, orange, banana...etc) where one fruit is enough carbs to take you out of ketosis.
So it's more realistic to sustain low carb with <=50g of carbs per day, and get most of benefits (including weight loss without increasing exercise) without too much risk of all the mentioned negatives.
Of course YMMV, and you should consult at least your GP (or other specialists) before changing your diet a lot.
In personal experience - such low carb diet works nice in combo with skipping breakfast (not quite intermittent fasting, but time between first and last meal is shorter than time from last meal until next days meal).
If anyone is like me and can't really skip breakfast, nor at least delay first meal until noon.
I've found drinking "bulletproof coffee" takes case of hunger and energy until actual lunch time.
Despite media hype it can be just water, coffee - instant or grounded Turkish/Greek/Balkan style, espresso isn't enough liquid for full mug - with butter and coconut aka MTC oil.
And of course if such coffee doesn't work for you as meal replacement. Then eggs, bacon/sausages, avocado (no bread, no beans, no orange/apple/etc juice) is a perfect (practically 0 carbs) meal that works for breakfast, brunch or dinner.
To force your body into a purely ketone metabolism, you'd need to restrict not just carbohydrates but also protein. If a person is eating a high-fat, high-protein diet, their body will make glucose/glycogen from that.
Not to say there isn't value in a low-sugar diet. There's a whole cascade of other things happening metabolically in response to blood sugar. Just that the notion of "burning ketones instead of glucose" is a medical myth, like "depression is because you have too little serotonin in your brain".
That is expected and fine. It wont make glucose/glycogen in the same way/manner it would do from carbs though, and it's not really a problem for getting into ketosis and staying there (as shown by ketone measurements).
That professor was making a pedantic argument it seems.
We were not exactly counting all the nutrients in details. Since we normally eat a lot of protein and fat (think almost mediterranean diet), we basically focused on eating as little carbs as possible - no bread/pasta/potatoes/etc (even whole banana would be too much carbs in a day).
On the other hand - back as undiagnosed kid, I've used "white coffee" (milk, sugar and 10%~20% of normal coffee/caffeine) and even bits of chocolate throughout study/tests/exams.
It could have 0 to do with cause, and it would look exactly the same.
> "Twenty-five had suffered from ADHD since childhood"
> "adults with childhood-onset ADHD."
ADHD is always from birth and for life. They make it sound like something that can start at random.
> "Extra weight equals extra risk for ADHD."
This implies that the causation is reversed - that obesity somehow causes ADHD.
In medical terms the "onset" matters, and that's not necessarily from birth.
In fact it can be so later, that while the DSM had a maximum age at onset diagnostic criterion for "before 7 years of age" for ADHD, it's now advised to relax it to 12.
In practice (and phenomenologically speaking) it's the same as "when it starts affecting their behavior in any way", since we can't say it affects it if we can't see any sign of it affecting it.
Unless we can observe or measure (and unless we do observe or measure) we'd just be assuming that "of course it does". Which might be a good assumption, but it would still be an assumption.