This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Feingold diet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This "Research findings" section, tagged as being possible OR since 2007 (!), seems composed almost entirely of primary sources and, whre it isn't, out of sources which do not explictly mention the Feingold diet. All of our health content should now be sourced to WP:MEDRS sources. I am moving this content here for possible discussion, in case anything is salvagable:
Content moved from article
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Many studies show that 70% or more of hyperactive children respond positively to the removal of synthetic additives, especially when salicylates or allergens are removed. [1] [2] There is controversy, however, over what happens when researchers take children whose behavior has improved on a diet that eliminates several thousand additives, and then challenge them with one or a few additives, usually synthetic colors. Especially in the early studies, if such a challenge did not produce a change in behavior, researchers often concluded that the diet had not directly caused the initial improvement in behavior. Rather, the assumption was that the improvement had been due to a placebo effect. There are other possible reasons for the failure of a challenge to evoke a response, however. For example, the amount of additive used as a challenge might have been too small to cause an effect. [3] Rowe & Rowe in 1994 found a dose-related effect; the higher the amount of coloring used in the double-blind challenge, the stronger (and longer) the reaction of the children. [1] The following chart lists the amount of coloring used in various studies along with the rate of response:
Considering that in 1976 an FDA scientist estimated that children may be consuming up to 315 mg food dye per day, [13] all the above studies appear to be overly conservative in their choice of challenge amounts. In addition, the effect of an additive might only be seen in synergy with other additives or foods, [14] [15] or the additive used for the challenge may simply not be among those causing the original effect. [13] Early studiesAs with many new developments, the first reports of improvement of behavior via diet were anecdotal. This was followed by clinical trials and eventually by larger, double-blind placebo-controlled studies. Conners, Williams, & Swanson studies ...In 1976, a double-blind crossover diet trial found that both parents and teachers saw fewer hyperkinetic symptoms on the K-P diet as compared to the pretreatment baseline. [16] A 1978 double-blind crossover study using cookies with 13 mg food dye each combined with either medication or placebo found, "The results of this study offer data that a diet free of artificial flavors and colors results in a reduction of symptoms in some hyperactive children." [17] In 1980, forty children were put on a diet free of artificial food dyes and other additives for five days. They then performed the usual double-blind placebo-controlled test but used 100 mg or 150 mg of the food dye mix. They found that the food dyes impaired the performance of the 20 hyperactive children on paired-associate learning tests. The dyes did not hurt the performance of the 20 non-hyperactive children. The study states: "Our data suggest that a large dose of food dye blend decreases attention span in hyperactive children as reflected by performance on the learning test." [18] Nuttition Foundation studies ...In 1980, the Nutrition Foundation [19] reported on the seven small studies they had funded, adding up to a total of 190 children. Some of them were elaborate double-blind diet studies using a Feingold-type diet for which they provided all the food. Others simply took the children off additives and then challenged them with a small amount of food dye. In some studies, the children were taken off their medication, while in others they continued on stimulant medications including artificial colorants during the duration of the study. One of the studies in 1978, [20] for example, used 36 children between 6 and 12, and 10 children between 3 and 5. The teachers of the school-aged children did not record any improvement, but 63% of the mothers reported improved behavior, as well as 100% of the mothers of the preschoolers; however, since the improvement was reported by the parents of the children rather than teachers, and locomotor activity tests were unaffected, it was reported that there was "no diet effect." In 1980 the Nutrition Foundation set up a review team to review studies related to the Feingold diet. [21] They published a report that stated that there was no response at all to the diet. In 1983, the review team's co-chairman and a colleague reviewed a variety of studies and concluded that no more than 2% of children respond adversely to dye additives. [22] Gross et al summer camp study ...An influential comparative diet study was conducted in 1987 by Gross et al. [23] This was a study of 39 children, of whom 18 were hyperactive, and the balance had other learning disorders. Of those 18, all but one were on behavior-modifying medications during the entire study. The researchers provided a Feingold-type diet for a single week that was, by their own description, unpalatable. They particularly noted that the children missed mustard and ketchup; mustard, however, is not eliminated by the Feingold diet, and no reason was given for its exclusion. This diet week was followed by an additive-rich diet the next week. Although the study reported that the camp director and all teachers felt that the children were noisier and more active during the second, additive-rich week, they discounted these observations in favor of filmed 4-minute sequences made during meals. These films were intended to measure reaction to additives in the meals in spite of the fact that any such reaction would not be expected to occur for some time after eating. During the course of the study, three children were dropped: one who was not on stimulant medication, whose behavior became worse during the second week; one who refused to behave altogether; and one whose dose of Cylert became "inadequate" and whose behavior worsened when additives were allowed during the second week. They concluded that the "Feingold diet has no beneficial effect on most children with learning disorders" and moreover that the diet was "distasteful to the typical American child." Later studiesA number of studies conducted since 1980 using diets similar to the Feingold Program report greater than 70% of children responding positively to the diets. Others that eliminated synthetic colors and flavors, but included salicylates still reported greater than 50% positive response. [1] [2] [9] [10] [12] [24] [25] [26] [27] In the biggest such study ever performed, published in 1986, the performance of over a million children in 803 New York City public schools was studied for seven years. The children's average standardized test scores rose 8.1% when levels of sucrose (normal table sugar) were restricted to 11 percent along with the removal of two synthetic food colors; when the remaining food colors and all artificial flavors were removed the next academic year, performance rose another 3.8%; when no further changes were made the following academic year, test performance also remained stable; finally, when the petroleum-based preservatives BHT and BHA were removed from the menu in the next academic year, performance improved another 3.7% for an overall improvement of 15.7% in mean national percentile rankings (from 39.2% to 54.9%). [28] Although it appears that improvement increases as the diet approaches the guidelines of the Feingold Program, the researchers suggest that by removing sugar and additives - thereby removing empty calories and processed foods - malnutrition is reduced. It is not clear what portion of the effects can be contributed to limiting sugar intake or the foods containing BHT and BHA (the related preservative TBHQ did not exist at that time) and what portion can be attributed to the removal of the artificial colorants themselves. A most important and often overlooked detail in this study is that all the children did not improve equally. There was a dramatic decline in learning disabled and repeat-failure children. In 1979, 12.4% of the million children were performing two or more grades below their proper level. By the end of the study in 1983, the percent of children two or more grades below proper level had dropped to 4.9%. Moreover, before the dietary changes, the more school food that was consumed, the worse the children did academically. After the changes, however, the more school food the children ate, the better they did academically. [29] In 1997, an association between brain electrical activity and intake of provoking foods was shown in children with food-induced ADHD. ( Picture) [30] Another study showed that an oligoantigenic diet can work as well as Ritalin for conduct-disordered children. [31] Other research demonstrated the positive effect of treating young criminals with dietary intervention and correction of mineral imbalances, [32] [33] and that toddlers show both significant reductions in hyperactive behaviour when additives are removed from their diet, as well as increased hyperactivity when exposed to a very small (20 mg) amount of food coloring and a benzoate preservative. This effect was observed by parents whether or not the child was hyperactive or atopic. [34] A 2007 British study at the University of Southampton [35] has pointed to food additives as a health hazard for all children, whether they have ADHD or not. The study concluded that artificial colors or a sodium benzoate preservative (or both) in the diet result in increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population. In response to this study and a massive media and grass-roots campaign, the major supermarket chains in the UK have removed additives from their house brands. Several American-based candy companies have done the same with the candies they sell in the UK. In response to that study, which had been financed by Britain’s Food Standards Agency and published online by the British medical journal The Lancet, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that a low-additive diet is a valid intervention for children with ADHD. It released the following statement in the February 2008 issue of its publication, AAP Grand Rounds:
Anne Swain, of the Allergy Unit at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney Australia, measured amounts (but not type) of salicylate in 333 foods in 1985, [36] and has done other research based on the Feingold Diet. [37] References
|
On advice of one of the editors, I will try to present my reasons here to show that the old Kavale & Forness 1983 meta analysis is out of date and inappropriate as a major authority on the effectiveness of the Feingold Diet. Furthermore, I hope to show that the statement citing it -- "there is no good evidence that it (the Feingold Diet) is effective" -- is no longer valid.
However well done the Kavale & Forness analysis may have been in its day, and no matter how high the status of Kavale and Forness in the research community, they were reviewing 23 studies published four decades ago.
Since then, more than 300 newer studies on the subject have been published in MedLine, based on a search for "ADHD Diet." In addition to studies on children, there have been animal studies, immunological studies, epidemiological studies, and even in vitro studies testing neurites exposed to combinations of additives. There is ample new material on the connection of Feingold-type diets and behavior for more modern reviewers to review.
Below are three recent reviews:
Another thing to consider is that far more food dyes are consumed today - 500% more, per person per day - than in 1950. See Vojdani 2013 and Stevens 2014. When the "average child" eats more than 60 mg food dyes per day ( Stevens 2014a, page 3), the studies on children being "challenged" with 1 mg (Rose 1978), 5 mg (Levy 1978), 13 mg (Mattes 1978), 26 mg (Goyette 1978, Williams 1978), 27 mg (Harley 1978, Williams 1978) or 35 mg (Weiss 1980) of food dyes are no longer really relevant.
Taking the above into consideration, may I proceed to update the page? Shulae ( talk) 05:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
This is rather like saying that research on cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease treatment. Okay. Forget the "reviews" ... I challenge you to a duel of studies. Suggest any study you believe disproves the Feingold diet. Such a duel only works if we both have the full text - I have most of them, and will be happy to provide you with the one you want if I have it. I assume you will do the same. Since, as you say, there are really no modern studies of the diet as a whole, you will have to go back and look at the old ones, but you seem quite knowledgeable, so go ahead.
If you don't want to do that, then pray take a look at a modern study not yet included in any of the reviews, so by Wikipedia rules it can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, I guess. Eagle (2014) studied the effect of artificial food colors and salicylate-containing foods (the basic Feingold diet, whether he used the name or not). Both affect an enzyme variously named PST (Phenol SulfoTransferase-P) or SULT1A. He not only describes the process of enzyme inhibition, but also the "U" shaped effect that explains for the first time why some kids actually get worse for a few weeks on the diet before they get better. It also explains, he says, some of the studies that showed little effects from their "active" challenges - because the placebo vehicle used contained the same kind of chemicals as the experimental item. The study I have is under password protection and not open to the public, but I can send it to you via email. It is published in the peer reviewed journal Physiology & Behavior and is indexed in MedLine. Shulae ( talk) 16:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Ronz, all the certified (FD&C and D&C) dyes were eliminated by Dr. Feingold. He specified all of them - therefore, a study on any of them is relevant. He himself didn't do any dye-related research; he was a clinician interested in patients. He called for researchers and biochemists to do the research and predicted it would take 30 years.
Therefore, any study on food dye and behavior ... or flavorings and behavior ... or BHT and behavior ... would be relevant because they are components of the Feingold diet used for behavior.
A study on food dye and cancer, on the other hand, would not be related to the Feingold Diet because the Feingold Diet is not concerned with treatment or prevention of cancer.
It is true that more and better studies are needed, but that doesn't mean those already done are not relevant. Shulae ( talk) 01:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn, no change in "family behavior" is now, or ever was, required in order to properly do the Feingold diet. I know Barrett at Quackwatch says so, but he is simply making that up.
Nothing is wrong with perfume, either -- if it is natural and not a petrochemical. FAUS helps parents find natural products, including perfumes. But what does any of this have to do with the research? Shulae ( talk) 01:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Would you accept this as a second paragraph for this page? (citations to be added properly of course)
Under "History" - I have clarified Dr. Feingold's actual professional history, since he was far more than "just" a pediatrician/allergist. I can cite his biography page in Wikipedia or the Feingold Association's biographical page at http://feingold.org/about-the-program/dr-feingold/bio/, but if you prefer a history book, I will get the citation. I am writing while on a trip across country, and I didn't bring all those books with me.
Also, I might as well ask in advance: Is it okay to quote from his own books or papers to describe the original Feingold Program, or do I have to quote only what somebody else said about it? In a similar vein, may I quote the Feingold Program Handbook if describing some detail of the actual Program? Shulae ( talk) 07:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Question re procedure: I noticed that the citation of the National Health Museum (Footnote #10) just goes to the website http://www.accessexcellence.org/HHQ/qow/qow05/qow051031.html and one would be on their own to find the information referred to. The information is correct, but is such a general source considered sufficient or should I actually find some better or more specific citation for the statement? Shulae ( talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a notation "Check date values in: |access-date= (help)" in the Quackwatch (Barrett) citation in reference #3. I have looked at the cited page and the date (2004) is correct. The page on Quackwatch has not been updated since then. IMO there are a lot of problems with that document, but the date is not one of them, so I will fix the problem with the citation date if somebody can explain the question. Thanks. Shulae ( talk) 01:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The corresponding content in this article seems to require original research with just this source as verification. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I cited was criticized as being OR, apparently because the studies I chose supported what would be a minority viewYou don't appear to understand the concerns. The OR is in asserting that the studies apply to the Feingold diet, when they don't mention the Feingold diet at all.
... the Feingold diet appears to be under the control of this group. Their diet seems a bit different. Any sourcing on such non-US Feingold diets, I wonder? Alexbrn ( talk) 08:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
JamesWatson (?) seems to think that I am supposed to limit myself to making suggestions for you to change this page since my interest causes a COI. So let's see how that works.
Under Effectiveness it says "In general, as of 2014 there is no evidence to support broad claims ..."
In the last sentence of this section, the word treated is in Scare quotes (aka hostile quotes), as follows: not just the subject being "treated" The source cited, Kanarek (2011), used the word treated only once, saying "Feingold treated hyperactive children with a diet..." This is straightforward, without the sneering sense imparted by hostile quotes. I am requesting in the interest of NPOV, please remove the hostile quotes. Shulae ( talk) 18:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"In common with other elimination diets, the Feingold diet can be expensive and boring, and so difficult for people to maintain."
While sounding negative, the sentence means nothing. All food costs money, and you can get tired of hamburgers, too. Also, there is quite a difference between an oligoantigenic diet that allows 5 items total and the Feingold diet which allows all kinds of food and plenty of processed foods, restaurant foods, candy, ice cream, soda ... you name it, there are acceptable brands, even in vending machines.
So ... the article does not specifically prove anything about the Feingold diet -- and we are not talking here about any other diets.
Why no proof? Because there isn't any. No study has ever tested the boringness or expense of using the Feingold diet. This is just somebody's opinion. Or is POV okay as long as it agrees with the "broad picture" of the page?
This sentence cannot be fixed and should be removed. Since I am not an official editor any more, please just remove it. Shulae ( talk) 00:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It really would be nice to refer to some research done after 1982, don't you think? Do you have objections to any of the following newer reviews of studies?
Shulae ( talk) 03:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the word controversial from "the controversial autism researcher" as it is WP:LABEL. Shulae ( talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Ronz, you took off Rimland's review with the comment that you "dont see why a 1983 opinion has weight here" ... if you really believe that, then pray take off the Kavale-Forness 1983 review too. I gave a list of recent ones that specifically refer to Feingold and have asked you and Alexbrn to choose which one(s) you would like to mention. As it happens, every single review on food dyes/additives and behavior in the past decade says that behavior IS affected by food dyes/additives. The only recent review negative to the Feingold diet is Millichap and he (not surprisingly) ignores all the newer research and stresses only those same old studies (which is why his review is not on my list). Shulae ( talk) 21:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the quotes around the word "treated" in the last sentence under Technique WP:SCAREQUOTES. Shulae ( talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Feingold diet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This "Research findings" section, tagged as being possible OR since 2007 (!), seems composed almost entirely of primary sources and, whre it isn't, out of sources which do not explictly mention the Feingold diet. All of our health content should now be sourced to WP:MEDRS sources. I am moving this content here for possible discussion, in case anything is salvagable:
Content moved from article
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Many studies show that 70% or more of hyperactive children respond positively to the removal of synthetic additives, especially when salicylates or allergens are removed. [1] [2] There is controversy, however, over what happens when researchers take children whose behavior has improved on a diet that eliminates several thousand additives, and then challenge them with one or a few additives, usually synthetic colors. Especially in the early studies, if such a challenge did not produce a change in behavior, researchers often concluded that the diet had not directly caused the initial improvement in behavior. Rather, the assumption was that the improvement had been due to a placebo effect. There are other possible reasons for the failure of a challenge to evoke a response, however. For example, the amount of additive used as a challenge might have been too small to cause an effect. [3] Rowe & Rowe in 1994 found a dose-related effect; the higher the amount of coloring used in the double-blind challenge, the stronger (and longer) the reaction of the children. [1] The following chart lists the amount of coloring used in various studies along with the rate of response:
Considering that in 1976 an FDA scientist estimated that children may be consuming up to 315 mg food dye per day, [13] all the above studies appear to be overly conservative in their choice of challenge amounts. In addition, the effect of an additive might only be seen in synergy with other additives or foods, [14] [15] or the additive used for the challenge may simply not be among those causing the original effect. [13] Early studiesAs with many new developments, the first reports of improvement of behavior via diet were anecdotal. This was followed by clinical trials and eventually by larger, double-blind placebo-controlled studies. Conners, Williams, & Swanson studies ...In 1976, a double-blind crossover diet trial found that both parents and teachers saw fewer hyperkinetic symptoms on the K-P diet as compared to the pretreatment baseline. [16] A 1978 double-blind crossover study using cookies with 13 mg food dye each combined with either medication or placebo found, "The results of this study offer data that a diet free of artificial flavors and colors results in a reduction of symptoms in some hyperactive children." [17] In 1980, forty children were put on a diet free of artificial food dyes and other additives for five days. They then performed the usual double-blind placebo-controlled test but used 100 mg or 150 mg of the food dye mix. They found that the food dyes impaired the performance of the 20 hyperactive children on paired-associate learning tests. The dyes did not hurt the performance of the 20 non-hyperactive children. The study states: "Our data suggest that a large dose of food dye blend decreases attention span in hyperactive children as reflected by performance on the learning test." [18] Nuttition Foundation studies ...In 1980, the Nutrition Foundation [19] reported on the seven small studies they had funded, adding up to a total of 190 children. Some of them were elaborate double-blind diet studies using a Feingold-type diet for which they provided all the food. Others simply took the children off additives and then challenged them with a small amount of food dye. In some studies, the children were taken off their medication, while in others they continued on stimulant medications including artificial colorants during the duration of the study. One of the studies in 1978, [20] for example, used 36 children between 6 and 12, and 10 children between 3 and 5. The teachers of the school-aged children did not record any improvement, but 63% of the mothers reported improved behavior, as well as 100% of the mothers of the preschoolers; however, since the improvement was reported by the parents of the children rather than teachers, and locomotor activity tests were unaffected, it was reported that there was "no diet effect." In 1980 the Nutrition Foundation set up a review team to review studies related to the Feingold diet. [21] They published a report that stated that there was no response at all to the diet. In 1983, the review team's co-chairman and a colleague reviewed a variety of studies and concluded that no more than 2% of children respond adversely to dye additives. [22] Gross et al summer camp study ...An influential comparative diet study was conducted in 1987 by Gross et al. [23] This was a study of 39 children, of whom 18 were hyperactive, and the balance had other learning disorders. Of those 18, all but one were on behavior-modifying medications during the entire study. The researchers provided a Feingold-type diet for a single week that was, by their own description, unpalatable. They particularly noted that the children missed mustard and ketchup; mustard, however, is not eliminated by the Feingold diet, and no reason was given for its exclusion. This diet week was followed by an additive-rich diet the next week. Although the study reported that the camp director and all teachers felt that the children were noisier and more active during the second, additive-rich week, they discounted these observations in favor of filmed 4-minute sequences made during meals. These films were intended to measure reaction to additives in the meals in spite of the fact that any such reaction would not be expected to occur for some time after eating. During the course of the study, three children were dropped: one who was not on stimulant medication, whose behavior became worse during the second week; one who refused to behave altogether; and one whose dose of Cylert became "inadequate" and whose behavior worsened when additives were allowed during the second week. They concluded that the "Feingold diet has no beneficial effect on most children with learning disorders" and moreover that the diet was "distasteful to the typical American child." Later studiesA number of studies conducted since 1980 using diets similar to the Feingold Program report greater than 70% of children responding positively to the diets. Others that eliminated synthetic colors and flavors, but included salicylates still reported greater than 50% positive response. [1] [2] [9] [10] [12] [24] [25] [26] [27] In the biggest such study ever performed, published in 1986, the performance of over a million children in 803 New York City public schools was studied for seven years. The children's average standardized test scores rose 8.1% when levels of sucrose (normal table sugar) were restricted to 11 percent along with the removal of two synthetic food colors; when the remaining food colors and all artificial flavors were removed the next academic year, performance rose another 3.8%; when no further changes were made the following academic year, test performance also remained stable; finally, when the petroleum-based preservatives BHT and BHA were removed from the menu in the next academic year, performance improved another 3.7% for an overall improvement of 15.7% in mean national percentile rankings (from 39.2% to 54.9%). [28] Although it appears that improvement increases as the diet approaches the guidelines of the Feingold Program, the researchers suggest that by removing sugar and additives - thereby removing empty calories and processed foods - malnutrition is reduced. It is not clear what portion of the effects can be contributed to limiting sugar intake or the foods containing BHT and BHA (the related preservative TBHQ did not exist at that time) and what portion can be attributed to the removal of the artificial colorants themselves. A most important and often overlooked detail in this study is that all the children did not improve equally. There was a dramatic decline in learning disabled and repeat-failure children. In 1979, 12.4% of the million children were performing two or more grades below their proper level. By the end of the study in 1983, the percent of children two or more grades below proper level had dropped to 4.9%. Moreover, before the dietary changes, the more school food that was consumed, the worse the children did academically. After the changes, however, the more school food the children ate, the better they did academically. [29] In 1997, an association between brain electrical activity and intake of provoking foods was shown in children with food-induced ADHD. ( Picture) [30] Another study showed that an oligoantigenic diet can work as well as Ritalin for conduct-disordered children. [31] Other research demonstrated the positive effect of treating young criminals with dietary intervention and correction of mineral imbalances, [32] [33] and that toddlers show both significant reductions in hyperactive behaviour when additives are removed from their diet, as well as increased hyperactivity when exposed to a very small (20 mg) amount of food coloring and a benzoate preservative. This effect was observed by parents whether or not the child was hyperactive or atopic. [34] A 2007 British study at the University of Southampton [35] has pointed to food additives as a health hazard for all children, whether they have ADHD or not. The study concluded that artificial colors or a sodium benzoate preservative (or both) in the diet result in increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population. In response to this study and a massive media and grass-roots campaign, the major supermarket chains in the UK have removed additives from their house brands. Several American-based candy companies have done the same with the candies they sell in the UK. In response to that study, which had been financed by Britain’s Food Standards Agency and published online by the British medical journal The Lancet, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that a low-additive diet is a valid intervention for children with ADHD. It released the following statement in the February 2008 issue of its publication, AAP Grand Rounds:
Anne Swain, of the Allergy Unit at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney Australia, measured amounts (but not type) of salicylate in 333 foods in 1985, [36] and has done other research based on the Feingold Diet. [37] References
|
On advice of one of the editors, I will try to present my reasons here to show that the old Kavale & Forness 1983 meta analysis is out of date and inappropriate as a major authority on the effectiveness of the Feingold Diet. Furthermore, I hope to show that the statement citing it -- "there is no good evidence that it (the Feingold Diet) is effective" -- is no longer valid.
However well done the Kavale & Forness analysis may have been in its day, and no matter how high the status of Kavale and Forness in the research community, they were reviewing 23 studies published four decades ago.
Since then, more than 300 newer studies on the subject have been published in MedLine, based on a search for "ADHD Diet." In addition to studies on children, there have been animal studies, immunological studies, epidemiological studies, and even in vitro studies testing neurites exposed to combinations of additives. There is ample new material on the connection of Feingold-type diets and behavior for more modern reviewers to review.
Below are three recent reviews:
Another thing to consider is that far more food dyes are consumed today - 500% more, per person per day - than in 1950. See Vojdani 2013 and Stevens 2014. When the "average child" eats more than 60 mg food dyes per day ( Stevens 2014a, page 3), the studies on children being "challenged" with 1 mg (Rose 1978), 5 mg (Levy 1978), 13 mg (Mattes 1978), 26 mg (Goyette 1978, Williams 1978), 27 mg (Harley 1978, Williams 1978) or 35 mg (Weiss 1980) of food dyes are no longer really relevant.
Taking the above into consideration, may I proceed to update the page? Shulae ( talk) 05:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
This is rather like saying that research on cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease treatment. Okay. Forget the "reviews" ... I challenge you to a duel of studies. Suggest any study you believe disproves the Feingold diet. Such a duel only works if we both have the full text - I have most of them, and will be happy to provide you with the one you want if I have it. I assume you will do the same. Since, as you say, there are really no modern studies of the diet as a whole, you will have to go back and look at the old ones, but you seem quite knowledgeable, so go ahead.
If you don't want to do that, then pray take a look at a modern study not yet included in any of the reviews, so by Wikipedia rules it can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, I guess. Eagle (2014) studied the effect of artificial food colors and salicylate-containing foods (the basic Feingold diet, whether he used the name or not). Both affect an enzyme variously named PST (Phenol SulfoTransferase-P) or SULT1A. He not only describes the process of enzyme inhibition, but also the "U" shaped effect that explains for the first time why some kids actually get worse for a few weeks on the diet before they get better. It also explains, he says, some of the studies that showed little effects from their "active" challenges - because the placebo vehicle used contained the same kind of chemicals as the experimental item. The study I have is under password protection and not open to the public, but I can send it to you via email. It is published in the peer reviewed journal Physiology & Behavior and is indexed in MedLine. Shulae ( talk) 16:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Ronz, all the certified (FD&C and D&C) dyes were eliminated by Dr. Feingold. He specified all of them - therefore, a study on any of them is relevant. He himself didn't do any dye-related research; he was a clinician interested in patients. He called for researchers and biochemists to do the research and predicted it would take 30 years.
Therefore, any study on food dye and behavior ... or flavorings and behavior ... or BHT and behavior ... would be relevant because they are components of the Feingold diet used for behavior.
A study on food dye and cancer, on the other hand, would not be related to the Feingold Diet because the Feingold Diet is not concerned with treatment or prevention of cancer.
It is true that more and better studies are needed, but that doesn't mean those already done are not relevant. Shulae ( talk) 01:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn, no change in "family behavior" is now, or ever was, required in order to properly do the Feingold diet. I know Barrett at Quackwatch says so, but he is simply making that up.
Nothing is wrong with perfume, either -- if it is natural and not a petrochemical. FAUS helps parents find natural products, including perfumes. But what does any of this have to do with the research? Shulae ( talk) 01:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Would you accept this as a second paragraph for this page? (citations to be added properly of course)
Under "History" - I have clarified Dr. Feingold's actual professional history, since he was far more than "just" a pediatrician/allergist. I can cite his biography page in Wikipedia or the Feingold Association's biographical page at http://feingold.org/about-the-program/dr-feingold/bio/, but if you prefer a history book, I will get the citation. I am writing while on a trip across country, and I didn't bring all those books with me.
Also, I might as well ask in advance: Is it okay to quote from his own books or papers to describe the original Feingold Program, or do I have to quote only what somebody else said about it? In a similar vein, may I quote the Feingold Program Handbook if describing some detail of the actual Program? Shulae ( talk) 07:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Question re procedure: I noticed that the citation of the National Health Museum (Footnote #10) just goes to the website http://www.accessexcellence.org/HHQ/qow/qow05/qow051031.html and one would be on their own to find the information referred to. The information is correct, but is such a general source considered sufficient or should I actually find some better or more specific citation for the statement? Shulae ( talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a notation "Check date values in: |access-date= (help)" in the Quackwatch (Barrett) citation in reference #3. I have looked at the cited page and the date (2004) is correct. The page on Quackwatch has not been updated since then. IMO there are a lot of problems with that document, but the date is not one of them, so I will fix the problem with the citation date if somebody can explain the question. Thanks. Shulae ( talk) 01:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The corresponding content in this article seems to require original research with just this source as verification. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I cited was criticized as being OR, apparently because the studies I chose supported what would be a minority viewYou don't appear to understand the concerns. The OR is in asserting that the studies apply to the Feingold diet, when they don't mention the Feingold diet at all.
... the Feingold diet appears to be under the control of this group. Their diet seems a bit different. Any sourcing on such non-US Feingold diets, I wonder? Alexbrn ( talk) 08:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
JamesWatson (?) seems to think that I am supposed to limit myself to making suggestions for you to change this page since my interest causes a COI. So let's see how that works.
Under Effectiveness it says "In general, as of 2014 there is no evidence to support broad claims ..."
In the last sentence of this section, the word treated is in Scare quotes (aka hostile quotes), as follows: not just the subject being "treated" The source cited, Kanarek (2011), used the word treated only once, saying "Feingold treated hyperactive children with a diet..." This is straightforward, without the sneering sense imparted by hostile quotes. I am requesting in the interest of NPOV, please remove the hostile quotes. Shulae ( talk) 18:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"In common with other elimination diets, the Feingold diet can be expensive and boring, and so difficult for people to maintain."
While sounding negative, the sentence means nothing. All food costs money, and you can get tired of hamburgers, too. Also, there is quite a difference between an oligoantigenic diet that allows 5 items total and the Feingold diet which allows all kinds of food and plenty of processed foods, restaurant foods, candy, ice cream, soda ... you name it, there are acceptable brands, even in vending machines.
So ... the article does not specifically prove anything about the Feingold diet -- and we are not talking here about any other diets.
Why no proof? Because there isn't any. No study has ever tested the boringness or expense of using the Feingold diet. This is just somebody's opinion. Or is POV okay as long as it agrees with the "broad picture" of the page?
This sentence cannot be fixed and should be removed. Since I am not an official editor any more, please just remove it. Shulae ( talk) 00:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It really would be nice to refer to some research done after 1982, don't you think? Do you have objections to any of the following newer reviews of studies?
Shulae ( talk) 03:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the word controversial from "the controversial autism researcher" as it is WP:LABEL. Shulae ( talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Ronz, you took off Rimland's review with the comment that you "dont see why a 1983 opinion has weight here" ... if you really believe that, then pray take off the Kavale-Forness 1983 review too. I gave a list of recent ones that specifically refer to Feingold and have asked you and Alexbrn to choose which one(s) you would like to mention. As it happens, every single review on food dyes/additives and behavior in the past decade says that behavior IS affected by food dyes/additives. The only recent review negative to the Feingold diet is Millichap and he (not surprisingly) ignores all the newer research and stresses only those same old studies (which is why his review is not on my list). Shulae ( talk) 21:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the quotes around the word "treated" in the last sentence under Technique WP:SCAREQUOTES. Shulae ( talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)