Cite?
ADHD is largely a genetic disorder.
Sports drinks are high calorie and a child or adult may rate behavior as more hyperactive, but that is not ADHD.
In the context of food science and nutrition, “processed” essentially means using finely ground or milled macronutrient (non-spice) ingredients, mechanically separated and reformed (e.g. “chicken fingers”, bologna, hot dogs/sausage) product, or adding sugars, fats, or stabilizers to improve flavor and shelf-life for long term storage. Washing, trimming, slicing, roasting, sauteeing, et cetera is not “processing” even though a chef will call deboning or filleting a carcass “processing” in the culinary sense. In some cases, sanitation processing is done for public health reasons such as pastuerization, which has saved many lives compared to foodborne illnesses prior to introduction, and despite the claims of woo artists, does not introduce carcinogens or significantly reduce essential nutrient value (though it does reduce or eliminate probiotic substances which may or may not be beneficial).
All cooking and food preparation is essentially done to make food more appealing and nutrients more readily available (and utterly necessary to support the caloric requirements of our brains), but the highly processed sugar-enriched baked goods and boxed foods are specifically engineered to bypass normal appetite regulation mechanisms, leading to obesity in many if consumed as a dietary staple without restriction. They also lack nutritional balancd in macronutrients and without supplementation or enrichment don’t provide vital micronutrients (vitamins and minerals). Compared to freshly prepared foods and whole grain cereals they are nutritional junk.
Certain additives or imbalances in nutrients may exacerbate physiological cognitive and gastrointestinal (GI) problems, but poor nutrition alone does not “cause” Crohn’s disease, autistic spectrum disorders, ADHD, et cetera. There is evidence that sensitivity to certain types of proteins may cause GI or other inflammatory disorders in some populations of people because of genetic susceptibility, and it is not surprising that diet can influence mood or personality disorders but the idea that processed foods are the cause of all modern ailments besides obesity is not based on factual evidence. At most, we can say that processed foods leave consumers subsceptible to dietary deficiencies that would normally be satisfied by a typical pre-Industrial diet of every edible portion of game or food animals and substantial staples of whole grains and vegetables, and with very little refined sugars besides honey or molasses.
Stranger
That’s not a cite. It’s an article on a for-profit website that is also making unsourced claims.
From the Mayo Clinic:
Processing means much more than this. Processing is a huge collection of activities that makes foods last without spoilage, improves taste and texture, prevents depletion of nutrients, allows for final use by adding just a few ingredients, and all the other things that fill supermarkets and restaurants.
I am not about to argue that every bit of processing is necessary or that none of it is harmful. However, some “additives” and some “processing” are required as soon as you move away from running your own family farm.
Lumping all processing together and damning all additives is food quackery. Saying that additives cause certain ailments is also quackery. It’s basically gossip equivalent to a checkout counter tabloid and has about the same ratio of truth to utter nonsense.
What did I say about “extremely misleading food scare hype that quack sites use to get people to buy they own phony products”? If you scavenge in sewers you’re bound to get sick. Don’t drag somebody’s shit through our living rooms.
You can’t just ditch everything off and say is fake, there was another page with this report…
Are we gonna call the global warming in China fake next?
No. But we’ll call the numerous sites denying it fake.
Someone saying something on the Internet doesn’t make it true. Nor does it make it false. Just the fact that someone is saying something means nothing at all. When someone who knows what they’re talking about says something, though, that does mean something. Someone like, say, the Mayo Clinic.
Oh, and you expect a manufacturer of processed egg products to be an objective source?
I think I found the study that is the source of the claims above, but this is just due to similarities as that article didn’t have cites.
The studies don’t tend to show that it causes ADHD, but that it may impact the manifestation of behaviors in the general population. Check out how the “Difference in estimated means” on Figure 3 and 4 on this paper which seems to be the one with the most cites and references.
Particularly note:
Note how the 95% confidence interval overlaps and is close to 0 on the comparisons. The 95% confidence interval is the values range range that you can be 95% certain contains the true mean of the group. In the case of this study they that range seems to overlap, and thus we need to look at the mean difference between the two groups.
It is fairly safe to assume that if the 95% CI of the difference contains 0, then there is no difference between groups. If it doesn’t contain 0, then there may be a statistically significant difference between groups. But that difference does not imply causation itself.
The Difference in estimated means on the above mentioned figures seems to be this measure. But the data is not public that I can find.
From Table 3: General GHA estimates in linear mixed models during challenge period for 3-year-old children
Mix A vs placebo 0·20 (0·01 to 0·40)‡ 0·24 (0·02 to 0·47)‡ 0·31 (0·04 to 0·58)‡
Mix B vs placebo 0·16 (–0·04 to 0·35) 0·16 (–0·07 to 0·38) 0·19 (–0·08 to 0·46)
Mix A vs placebo 0·20 (0·01 to 0·39)‡ 0·28 (0·05 to 0·51)‡ 0·32 (0·05 to 0·60)‡
Mix B vs placebo 0·17 (–0·03 to 0·36) 0·19 (–0·04 to 0·41) 0·21 (–0·06 to 0·48)
Note how *Mix B * crosses zero, and Mix A (under the lowest p-value) is only 0.01 on the entire sample.
The statistical significance of this study is really just significant enough to justify another study to see if the results can be replicated or improved, but not nearly strong enough to claim a correlation let alone causation. And despite pop-sci and pseudoscience claims that this is evidence that ADHD is caused by the artificial ingredient it does in no way make that claim. I don’t have access to the data or their methods and there still may be a statistically significant difference between the means, but the data they presented, which seems to yet be replicated does not justify claiming it is a cause at this point in time.
Lets put this in perspective, ADHD is a spectrum in the DSM, and it probably doesn’t have a single cause but there are well over 1000 studies linking it to biological inheritance and or genetics, and there still need to be more to claim that is “the cause” and it will probably only account for 75-90% of the diagnoses.
Hopefully this helps some, but note that without pictures or math support I am explaining things in ways that are not exactly correct.
It is frustratingly hard to figure this information out as a consumer, and even the professionals are frustrated with the current state of biomedical and social science studies.
https://www.nature.com/news/statisticians-issue-warning-over-misuse-of-p-values-1.19503
…and if it’s on the Internet, it must be true!
:rolleyes:
I can ditch anything with no scientific cites or journal articles to back it up. They are conspicuous by their absence.
Stop reading random internet articles. If you want to know something go to Google Scholar and search for the original studies and see what they have to say. Even there, remember that one single article does not create proof, although a good study may create disproof.
And what about the global warming right here in America, where you live? How did you happen to leave that out?
So…John Lennon was on to something then?
Well after watching a video of a highway in China covered all up in smog, I can say is not as bad as over in China
Smog has little to do with Global Warming.
You’re being “unserious” again, aren’t you?
Yeah, global warming by definition isn’t happening in any one country. It’s, you know, global.
The scare story about processed chicken started out as a yolk.
“Hey! I have TWO random websites that make the same unsupported claim, and YOU only have a pile of peer-reviewed research!”
Come on guys, I know I am being a bit stupid. But still.
And yes I remember vaguely about the whole yoga mat thing…
What L-Cysteine in our bagels? Isn’t that a bit too much?
Still WHAT? You’re basically just saying “stop arguing with me”.