A valid question is: are there more instances of ADHD than in the past, or do people just lazily diagnose any boisterous behaviour as ADHD?

The answer is probably a bit of both. So if the former is at all true, then why?

There seems to be gorwing evidence that most ADHD-like behaviour can be to a large extent fixed with a sensible, healthy non-junk diet.

Drugs are not the answer.

My senior-in-high-school sister tells me that once the kids on the "ADHD" drugs hit high school, probably even jr high, they stop taking the stuff.

Instead they sell it to other kids -- it's essentially speed -- to get high off.

Those in decline feed the beast sex and drugs.

You forgot "rock and roll." Don't forget "rock and roll." Heheh, hehehe.

Decades ago, in college, I had the opportunity to utilize Ritalin a couple of times. It's effect is somewhat like caffeine. Really boring stuff becomes interesting so you're able to focus on it, even if you're really tired from studying too much. There are no other noticeable effects. It's not so much calming as focusing, giving the user the ability to concentrate on one thing for much longer than they would otherwise be able to. Thus, they aren't really any calmer, they just appear calmer to the casual observer.

It's not very much like speed at all in that there is no noticeable euphoria associated with Ritalin. I'm not, however, surprised that there's a black market for it because it certainly does make studying easier (for some).

I think it's probably a good solution to the problem of having boys sit still (which they're really not made to do, or at least I'm not) to learn stuff. I really don't see a downside.

Bret, then you didn't think it's addictive?

Bret: Your final comment brings to mind a comment I once heard about Finnegan's Wake, "It is the most incomprehensible work ever created by a major artist not known to be insane."

Whether Ritalin is addictive or not is irrelevant. We have fundamentally no idea how the brain works once fully formed. Messing with the chemistry of the developing brain and blithely saying "I really don't see a downside" is ludicrous.

exp, whereas I'm sure different people react differently, my belief is that it is not addictive at all - certainly less than caffeine, tobacco, beer, chocolate, etc.

b, everything messes with the chemistry of a developing brain - drugs, food, soda, even green beans. So what's your point?

Well, gosh Bret, I see your point. Eating green beans has the same qualitative level of effects on the developing brain as does taking Ritalin. So why don't doctors write prescriptions for changing a child's level of green bean intake rather than giving them drugs?

For her first few months, my daughter's gaze would wander around the room. I wanted her to look at me! Maybe with some Ritalin she would have been able to FOCUS on what's really important-ME!

b, I still don't see your point.

Bret: OK, let me repeat myself: "We have fundamentally no idea how the brain works". You have observed the known benefit of Ritalin. And somehow this makes you 100% sure that there are no absolutely adverse effects and that we should give it to 6 year olds?

Bret - woudln't it be better for the boys to learn how to disipline themselves into concentration than to use a drug to acheive that effect?

ADHD or its precursor ADD (euphemistically defined as Another Damn Daydreamer by a friend of mine) is used, in my opinion, an excuse for some parents for the poor performance of their children in the classroom. For the most part I believe it is a grossly overdiagnosed pseudo-syndrome.

b, tens of millions of children have taken Ritalin. That's quite a clinical trial. The side effects are quite limited.

Shelton, that would be great, but then they wouldn't be human boys, they'd be another species.

Bartman, it's only partially for the child's benefit. It's also beneficial to the rest of the class since the child on Ritalin becomes less disruptive.

Bret: Do you even know what "clinical trial" means? Giving drugs to lots of people does not fit under the definition. (note that I am not saying that there haven't been actual clinical trials...)

From this past December:

"A new study conducted in rats by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School suggests that the misdiagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) combined with prescription drug use in children may lead to a higher risk of developing depressive symptoms in adulthood."
(http://www.news-medical.net/?id=6821)

Gee, bathing a developing brain in mind-altering drugs might have effects on the functioning of the adult brain? What a shock!

Bret -

Its part of what makes a human a boy become a human man.

Bret

"Considerable research has shown that agitation, manic psychosis, and violence are well-known effects of certain psychiatric drugs, including Ritalin, and especially Prozac and related selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI's). Eric Harris, one of the Columbine killers was taking an SSRI called Luvox" Here.

"Eric Harris of Littleton, Kip Kinkel, and Thomas J. Solomon�were among the more than 6 million children in the United States who are taking mind-altering drugs prescribed as a treatment. It may well be that the children on Ritalin, on Prozac, Luvox, and other psychiatric drugs, are walking human time bombs" here

Other than that it's fine.

ADD (euphemistically defined as Another Damn Daydreamer...)

ADD is much more than "wandering attention and daydreaming", although it's difficult to tell them apart with young kids.

Daydreaming is simply not paying attention, and can be ended at will; those with ADD have to work to stay focused, and to not be distracted.

There seems to be growing evidence that most ADHD-like behaviour can be to a large extent fixed with a sensible, healthy non-junk diet.

Drugs are not the answer.

The answer is, in part, more Omega 3 fatty acids, particularly Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA), as BrosJudd has touched on before.

The typical modern Western diet contains way too many Omega 6 fats, and far too few Omega 3s.
Further, not all Omega 3 sources provide DHA.

For example, ground flax seed contains Omega 3s but does not actually contain any DHA or EPA.
Instead it contains alpha linolenic acid, which your body has to convert to DHA and EPA.
In many people, particularly the elderly, this conversion process is very inefficient.

Back when cattle were raised on grass, most people got more Omega 3s, but modern grain-fed feedlot beef is much lower in Omega 3s.

Oily fish or fish oil supplements are a good source of Omega 3s, but some don't like 'em.
As Robert Duquette said, "I will go to my deathbed without ever having eaten a sardine, I promise you!"

Other sources include "free range" cattle or buffalo.
Flaxseed, walnuts, and eggs labeled "High in Omega 3s", from chicken fed a special feed blend, also can be helpful, but are lesser sources.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 20, 2005 4:10 PM

h-man.

Empirical evidence has proven that normal little boys don't fit into the preferred public school model of passive zombies. Maybe the nature/God you guys love to debate about made little boys fearless and full of boundless energy so they could learn how to be male animals, to fight and tumble and develop the skills and self confidence they will need to grow up to be men.

Rather than drugging boys to reverse their natural proclivities, schools should design programs that allow boys to learn by being active. Classes needn't be segregated either or. Girls who would like the active program could join in and boys who prefer classroom instruction would be welcome there. The kids will catch up to each other by puberty anyway, so no harm would be done.

The political correctness movement has neutralized men in more ways than one. That's why they hate Bush so much. Whether you share his politics or not, he comes across as a man who wouldn't allow any harm to come to a member of his family and we're all lucky enough to be part of his family.

h-man, show me similar data in a peer reviewed journal, otherwise I'm quite skeptical.

Michael Herdegen, I absolutely agree - I eat that way, and it helps me be much calmer and focused. But getting ones kids to eat that way is extremely difficult (though my kids do share my sardines).

erp, yup, I have girls, but still they go to a charter school that's considered boy friendly because they go out of their way to not require the boys to sit still all day.

If, however, you're gonna force boys to go to a typical public school, you can't get them to eat right, you don't want them to disrupt the class every five minutes, and you don't want to whack 'em, then feed 'em Ritalin and be done with it.

Bret:

With all due respect, this isn't a call for banning Ritalin. Just as with depression, there are lots of cases of disability that demand modern medical intervention. The problem is that we are increasingly unable to distinguish between the treating of the ill and the coddling of the unhappy. The materialist view of life eventually squeezes out any appeal to moral fortutide or any definition of life that doesn't seek ongoing, uninterrupted pleasure, and it sees the absence of it by definition as a medical or behavioural problem requring societal intervention. That reductionalism will eventually get you to the point that, if Johnny can't behave or settle down and do his homework, you call the doctor rather than the father.

Peter B.:

I'm not advocating for overuse of Ritalin. In case you misinterpreted my last comment, when I said "then feed 'em Ritalin" I meant that with the implicit qualification that it improved the child's behavior from below a tolerable threshold to above that threshold in public settings.

I have no problem appealing to moral fortitude, but if a child is disrupting a classroom and negatively impacting the other children, and all it takes to fix it is to give him Ritalin, then I think it should be done. Sure, it would be better if Johnny's father could get Johnny to settle down, but the point is that Johnny's father has not done so, for whatever reason.

Bret -

That's what children's sweat shops are for.

Boys and girls haven't changed, so why didn't we have these horrible behavior problems before we allowed the public schools to slip out of community control and into the control of the teachers unions. Our schools are far and away the most important problem we have.

Schools and programs of instruction need to be designed to serve our kids. We don't need to redesign our kids to serve the school system.

erp, I agree - but I just can't see a major overhaul of the schools happening in my lifetime. Too many special interests.