Diet Might Have Some Effect on ADHD

Review found omega-3 fatty acids may help kids with disorder, while Western diet could hurt By Jenifer Goodwin HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 9 (HealthDay News) -- There's limited evidence that any particular diet or supplement helps kids with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but at least some research suggests that omega-3 fatty acids may help while fatty "Western-style" diets do these children no favors. Researchers from Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago reviewed previous studies on diets and supplements that have been tried in children with ADHD. Among the diets tested: restricting sugar, which some parents believe worsens hyperactivity; avoiding food containing additives and preservatives, known as the "Feingold diet"; an "elimination diet" that avoids foods most often implicated in food allergies; and supplementing with omega-3 fatty acids, such as fish oil capsules. Little research supports the idea that sugar or artificial sweeteners affect children's behavior, according to the review. Nor is there much evidence from controlled trials to support the Feingold diet, which first became popular in the 1970s and advocates avoiding food that contains red and orange dyes and preservatives (including apples, grapes and lunch meats). Yet, some studies have suggested some kids with ADHD benefit from an elimination, also known as a hypoallergenic, diet. But that typically means forgoing cow's milk, cheese, wheat cereal, eggs, chocolate, nuts and citrus foods, which can be tough on the child and on the family, said study author Dr. J. Gordon Millichap, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Medical School and neurologist at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. Moreover, the results of studies on hypoallergenic diets have been mixed. "We find the hypoallergenic diet might be effective, but difficult for families to manage them," Millichap said. One study by Australian researchers suggested that kids who ate a typical "Western-style" diet that's high in fat, salt and refined sugars had a higher risk of ADHD than kids who had a healthier diet that was rich in fish, vegetables, fruit and whole grains and that contained lots of fiber, folate and omega-3 fatty acids. Dr. Roberto Lopez-Alberola, an associate professor and chief of pediatric neurology at University of Miami School of Medicine, said he strongly advocates children with ADHD following such a healthier diet and avoiding dyes, preservatives and other additives. Though the precise biological mechanism hasn't yet been uncovered, Lopez-Alberola believes the increase in obesity rates and in ADHD are not unrelated, and unhealthy modern diets may be contributing to the problem. "I am a firm believer that we ultimately are what we eat, and unfortunately as a result of our poor Western diet, we see this in the increase in the rate of obesity, particularly in the young population," Lopez-Alberola said. "The fast foods. The processed food. The preservative-rich foods . . . In the same way we see an impact physically, it's going to have an impact from the neurodevelopmental standpoint. It's not surprising we see a parallel in the increase in obesity and in ADHD." Another study, conducted by researchers in England in children who were excessively clumsy -- some of whom also had ADHD -- found that omega-3 supplements didn't help with motor skills, but did seem to help with attention. Other research has found that many kids with ADHD had unusually low levels of iron in the blood. One Israeli study found that the parents of kids given iron supplements reported less ADHD symptoms in their kids, but teachers saw no such effect. Therein lies much of the problem with research that looks at dietary interventions for ADHD, said Dr. Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Steven & Alexandra Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York. The placebo effect can be powerful. Much of the research on dietary interventions compares dietary interventions to no treatment, while there's little research that compares a diet to stimulant medications such as Ritalin (methylphenidate) or Adderall (dextroamphetamine and amphetamine), which have decades of research showing that they're effective in kids with ADHD, Adesman said. "For better or worse, medications are the single most effective treatment available for ADHD," Adesman said. "We don't have data to suggest dietary interventions are any more effective than medications, and there is little, if any, data to suggest dietary interventions are as effective as medications." The review is published in the February issue of Pediatrics. ADHD affects an estimated 5 percent to 8 percent of school-aged children. Symptoms, which often persist into adulthood, include inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity beyond what's normally seen, given a child's age and development. Understandably, many parents are reluctant to medicate their young children, and so there's lots of interest in alternative treatments, experts said. "We do find parents are becoming more interested in the possibility of using diets rather than, or as a complement to, medication," Millichap said. While the first line of treatment for ADHD is medication and behavioral therapy, which uses positive reinforcement to help kids learn to control impulsivity, parents who want to try dietary interventions should be supported in their efforts, Millichap said. "Diets can be used in the treatment of ADHD, but it's usually not a first choice with most parents," he said. "But some parents prefer it and don't like medications at all. That's one of the reasons for considering the diets. Another is if there are side effects or adverse effects from the medications. Then one might turn to dietary treatments." Added Adesman: "Families are welcome to explore and pursue alternative approaches, but they need to recognize that oftentimes there is limited research to support or justify their use and the benefits will likely be less substantial than conventional treatment."

The Future of Preventive Brain Medicine: Breaking Down the Cognition & Alzheimer’s Disease Alphabet Soup

By: Dr. Dharma Singh Khalsa @ Alzheimer's Research & Prevention Foundation

As the pres­i­dent and med­ical direc­tor of the Alzheimer’s Research and Pre­ven­tion Foun­da­tion (ARPF), it’s my job to stay on top of advances in the field of Alzheimer’s research. Recently, a num­ber of arti­cles in the med­ical lit­er­a­ture have caught my atten­tion. They are focused on a par­tic­u­lar ques­tion that con­cerns most Baby Boomers like me: “Is mem­ory loss just a nor­mal part of aging?”
Many of my patients in their fifties, six­ties, and older notice that they occa­sion­ally for­get things like a name, face, or where they put their keys. They won­der whether this behav­ior is nor­mal, or if it is a sign of Alzheimer’s dis­ease. It’s a rea­son­able worry: Alzheimer’s dis­ease is reach­ing epi­demic pro­por­tions and recent sur­veys by the Alzheimer’s Asso­ci­a­tion and oth­ers reveal that it is the Baby Boomers’ biggest health fear.
The answer to that ques­tion used to be, “Yes, we all expe­ri­ence some mem­ory loss as we age. Don’t worry—it’s not Alzheimer’s.” Indeed, it was once thought that a lit­tle mem­ory loss was an expected and accepted part of the nor­mal aging process. There was even a term for it: Age-Associated Mem­ory Impair­ment (AAMI). It included a gen­eral slow­ing of men­tal func­tions such as pro­cess­ing, stor­ing, and recall­ing new infor­ma­tion. It also included a gen­eral decline in the abil­ity to per­form tasks related to cog­ni­tive func­tion such as mem­ory, con­cen­tra­tion, and focus.
But here’s the rub: AAMI was never a clin­i­cal diag­no­sis, even though many physi­cians, lay people—and, yes, even yours truly—thought oth­er­wise. Instead, AAMI is a tech­ni­cal diag­no­sis. It’s made by a psy­cho­me­t­ric test, not by actual clin­i­cal symptoms.
These days, we have a num­ber of other, more accu­rate acronyms to describe the vary­ing states of mem­ory loss—a whole bowl of Alzheimer’s-related alpha­bet soup, if you will. And, unlike AAMI, these labels are based on real clin­i­cal diag­noses. They include:

• No Cog­ni­tive Impair­ment (NCI). This is just what it sounds like: You have no mem­ory issues or complaints.
• Sub­jec­tive Cog­ni­tive Impair­ment (SCI). This means that you feel your mem­ory isn’t work­ing as well as it used to or should—maybe you have trou­ble remem­ber­ing names, num­bers, or words, for example—and you com­plain about it to your doc­tor. Tests, how­ever, show that your mem­ory is normal.
• Mild Cog­ni­tive Impair­ment (MCI). You expe­ri­ence short-term mem­ory loss that is greater than what peo­ple describe with SCI but still doesn’t inter­fere very much with your daily life. Tests may show some abnor­mal­i­ties. MCI is con­sid­ered a seri­ous pro­gres­sive con­di­tion that many experts con­sider an early form of Alzheimer’s disease.
• Alzheimer’s Dis­ease. This is a pro­gres­sive neu­rode­gen­er­a­tive dis­or­der that is incur­able and fatal. It used to be that Alzheimer’s dis­ease could only be diag­nosed after death dur­ing an autopsy, but newer tests, some still inves­ti­ga­tional, can con­firm an Alzheimer’s diag­no­sis much earlier.

That’s a lot of letters—but these new labels aren’t what I want you to take away from this prover­bial soup bowl. The real issue here is not just a name change; it’s a shift in the way we think about mem­ory loss and aging. Indeed, these alpha­bet diag­noses are not sim­ply sta­tic states of mem­ory impair­ment. A grow­ing body of research sug­gests that they are instead points on a con­tin­uum of mem­ory loss that often ends with a diag­no­sis of the dreaded Alzheimer’s dis­ease. Unless prop­erly treated—in my view, with an inte­gra­tive med­ical program—memory loss tends to get worse over time. In my expe­ri­ence, with inte­gra­tive treat­ment, mem­ory loss can be improved and people’s func­tion­al­ity can be pre­served for a much longer time.
But is any mem­ory loss “nor­mal”? I recently asked that same ques­tion of Barry Reis­berg, M.D., Pro­fes­sor of Psy­chi­a­try and Direc­tor of The Aging and Research Cen­ter at New York Uni­ver­sity. Dr. Reis­berg is one of the world’s lead­ing experts on the sub­ject of mem­ory loss and has stud­ied it for decades. His answer: “Mem­ory loss may be nor­ma­tive (aver­age), but that doesn’t mean it’s nor­mal. The real ques­tion is what is pro­gres­sive over time.”
And that brings us back to our alpha­bet soup. In one land­mark study, Dr. Reis­berg and his col­leagues looked at 260 peo­ple, 60 of whom had NCI and 200 of whom had SCI. After 7 years, they dis­cov­ered that mem­ory declined in 7 peo­ple with NCI (15%) and 90 with SCI (54.2%). Of the peo­ple with NCI, 5 devel­oped MCI and 2 devel­oped prob­a­ble Alzheimer’s. On the other hand, of the 90 peo­ple with SCI who pro­gressed, 71 devel­oped MCI and 19 declined all the way to Alzheimer’s.
What this means is that SCI appears to progress to MCI and even to Alzheimer’s dis­ease. Sub­jec­tive or not, even minor mem­ory problems—the kind that many of us typ­i­cally attribute to just “get­ting older”—are not nor­mal and should be taken seri­ously. Con­sider these sta­tis­tics, also from Dr. Reisberg:

• At age 65, 25% to 55% of peo­ple have SCI.
• After 15 years, up to 55% of peo­ple with SCI will have pro­gressed to MCI. (Only 15% of peo­ple with­out SCI will develop MCI.)
• Even more sober­ing, accord­ing to the National Insti­tutes of Health,  about 40% of peo­ple over age 65 who have been diag­nosed with MCI will develop demen­tia within 3 years
• By age 85, an esti­mated 55% of all peo­ple will have Alzheimer’s disease.

Num­bers like these not only drive home the seri­ous news that no mem­ory loss is a nor­mal part of aging, but they also make it clear that we’re on the cusp of what many experts believe will be an epi­demic of Alzheimer’s dis­ease as Baby Boomers con­tinue to age.
I’ve shared infor­ma­tion on ARPF’s web­site about the inte­gra­tive med­ical approach to pre­vent and reverse mem­ory loss. But the fact is that pro­tect­ing against mem­ory loss isn’t just an individual’s respon­si­bil­ity.  They say it takes a vil­lage to raise a child. Well, it takes a vil­lage to sup­port the fight against Alzheimer’s disease—and the types of mem­ory loss that pre­cede it—too.
To that end, in late Novem­ber, U.S. Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Ed Markey and Chris Smith, co-chairs and co-founders of the Bipar­ti­san Con­gres­sional Task­force on Alzheimer’s Dis­ease, out­lined their rec­om­men­da­tions for the National Alzheimer’s Plan, a strat­egy pro­posed for Pres­i­dent Obama’s admin­is­tra­tion to tackle the dis­ease. I heartily agree with many of their sug­ges­tions, which include:

• Increased fund­ing for research. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment spends an astound­ing $130 bil­lion in Medicare and Med­ic­aid pay­ments for the treat­ment of Alzheimer’s dis­ease, and an esti­mated 15 mil­lion care­givers pro­vide some 17 bil­lion hours of unpaid care to loved ones with Alzheimer’s. Yet the National Insti­tutes of Health gives Alzheimer’s dis­ease just $429 mil­lion in annual research fund­ing, com­pared to $6 bil­lion and $3 bil­lion for can­cer and AIDS research, respec­tively. We need to start mak­ing Alzheimer’s dis­ease a top research pri­or­ity, as well as fund inno­v­a­tive screen­ing, pre­ven­tive, and treat­ment approaches.
• Increased resources. Peo­ple with mem­ory loss should receive the best care pos­si­ble. Yet many Alzheimer’s patients and their loved ones do not get the resources they need. This is partly due to insur­ance lim­i­ta­tions: Insur­ance com­pa­nies typ­i­cally cover some diag­nos­tic tests for Alzheimer’s, but tend to curb the amount of time doc­tors can spend with patients. As a result, patients and their care­givers may not get the best infor­ma­tion about the dis­ease or get con­nected to resources to help them man­age it prop­erly. We need to con­tinue to pro­mote early diag­no­sis of mem­ory loss and give patients and their fam­i­lies the sup­port they need.
• Increased pub­lic aware­ness. If the “alpha­bet soup” les­son I’ve shared here comes as big sur­prise, you’re not alone. Many peo­ple are woe­fully mis­in­formed about Alzheimer’s dis­ease and about mem­ory loss in gen­eral. While the ARPF and I do our part to try to edu­cate the pub­lic about opti­mal brain health, we still have a long way to go in spread­ing the mes­sage about symp­toms, diag­no­sis, clin­i­cal tri­als, treat­ment, and resources for patients and care­givers. We espe­cially need to improve the dis­sem­i­na­tion about infor­ma­tion on the cur­rent research proven meth­ods of prevention.

Mem­ory loss isn’t like gray hair or wrin­kles. Con­trary to what many of us used to believe, it is not a nor­mal sign of aging. In my opin­ion, that’s all the more rea­son to make Alzheimer’s disease—and the whole bowl of “alpha­bet soup”—a thing of the past by pri­or­i­tiz­ing pre­ven­tion treat­ment today. Beyond that, we clearly need to move past a “magic bul­let” drug approach mentality.
There is a lot we can do right now to live a brain healthy lifestyle and shar­ing that work with soci­ety is where I’d like to see our focus in the future.

Dating...Creatively

So...either you've met someone new...or you're planning a date-night with your significant other....need a some dating ideas?

Michael Webb has come up with a book just for you...Dating Creatively with an Ebook titled 300 Creative Dates.  Below is some information from his site...it's definitely worth a look!

Oprah Love Expert Reveals The 300 Cool and Creative Date Ideas That Men Are Using To Win Over The Women Of Their Dreams!

id you know that while going out for dinner and a movie is one of the most popular dates, it is also one of the very worst dates you can go on? -- especially for couples in the early stages of dating!

Don't believe me?

Imagine this. You're sitting at a restaurant with a beautiful woman and everything seems to be going fine. But after ordering your meals, you realize you can't think of anything interesting to talk about. You try to think of something… anything!…

At that moment, your palms sweat, your heart thumps, and your mind begins to race at 100 miles an hour, as you notice her looking around the room disinterested.

You're losing her. And after two hours filled with awkward silence and generic questions, you take her home… …only to be struck with the cold sinking feeling that you blew your chances forever. Still think dinner is a good idea? Don't get me wrong, dinner can be great but it's just too hard to make a good impression over dinner. And if you're always going on dinner dates with a long-term partner, it's likely that things are getting a little stale and you're dying to try something new.

Dinner dates are a bad idea! It's just too hard to make a good impression.

Either way, you want to keep having lots of fun with a special someone and you know that going on original dates is perhaps the very best tool to accomplish that.

Some of the media Michael Webb has appeared in:

But Finding Unique and Creative Date Ideas Is The Hard Part!

Let's face it, trying to come up with cool unique date ideas is tough!

Honestly, it could take you hours searching only to come up with average ideas like: "spend the day at the beach or cook dinner at home." These ideas are 'okay' but there are much better ideas.

New Review of Neurofeedback Treatment for ADHD — Current State of the Science

By: Dr. David Rabiner

Neu­ro­feed­back — also known as EEG Biofeed­back — is an approach for treat­ing ADHD in which indi­vid­u­als are pro­vided real-time feed­back on their brain­wave activ­ity and taught to alter their typ­i­cal EEG pat­tern to one that is con­sis­tent with a focused and atten­tive state. Accord­ing to neu­ro­feed­back pro­po­nents, this often results in improved atten­tion and reduced hyperactive/impulsive behavior.
Sev­eral years ago I sum­ma­rized the sci­en­tific sup­port for neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment — see here - and noted that although pos­i­tive find­ings had been reported in mul­ti­ple pub­lished stud­ies, lim­i­ta­tions of these stud­ies led many researchers to regard neu­ro­feed­back as a promis­ing, but unproven treatment.
The Amer­i­can Psy­cho­log­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion has estab­lished a 5-level sys­tem for grad­ing the evi­dence in sup­port of men­tal health treat­ments. These grades, and their asso­ci­ated lev­els of research sup­port, are as follows:
Level 1 Not Empir­i­cally Supported 
Sup­ported only through anec­do­tal evi­dence or non-peer reviewed case-studies.
Level 2 Pos­si­bly Efficacious 
Shown to have a sig­nif­i­cant impact in at least one study, but the study lacked a ran­dom­ized assign­ment between controls.
Level 3 Prob­a­bly Efficacious 
Shown to pro­duce pos­i­tive effects in more than one clin­i­cal, obser­va­tional wait list or within-subject or between-subject study.
Level 4 Efficacious 
Shown to be more effec­tive than a no-treatment or placebo con­trol group; the study must con­tain valid and clearly spec­i­fied out­come mea­sures, and it must be replic­a­ble by at least two inde­pen­dent researchers demon­strat­ing the same degree of efficacy.
Level 5 Effi­ca­cious and Specific 
Shown to be sta­tis­ti­cally supe­rior to cred­i­ble placebo ther­a­pies or to actual treat­ments, and it must be shown as such in two or more inde­pen­dent studies.
Using the grad­ing sys­tem above, and based on stud­ies pub­lished through 2005, the con­clu­sion reached by the Pro­fes­sional Advi­sory Board of CHADD was that evi­dence sup­port­ing neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD war­ranted a Level 2, or ‘Pos­si­bly Effi­ca­cious’. You can read CHADD’s sum­mary state­ment at www.help4adhd.org/en/treatment/complementary/WWK6A and I believe you will find this to be of interest.
Based on a research base that includes more recently pub­lished stud­ies, how­ever, the con­clu­sions reached by Arn et. al., (2009) were far more pos­i­tive. These researchers con­ducted a meta-analysis of 15 stud­ies, 4 of which were reported to be ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als. Their con­clu­sion was that “Neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD can be con­sid­ered ‘Effi­ca­cious and Spe­cific’ (Level 5) with a large effect size for inat­ten­tion and impul­siv­ity and a medium effect size for hyper­ac­tiv­ity.” This is a very dif­fer­ent con­clu­sion from the CHADD review and it is under­stand­able that par­ents, edu­ca­tors, and pro­fes­sion­als would be con­fused about the strength of the evi­dence base for neu­ro­feed­back treatment.
New Review Pro­vides Some Clarification
The Jour­nal of Atten­tion Dis­or­ders recently pub­lished an updated review of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD that helps clar­ify its sci­en­tific sup­port [Loft­house et. al., (2011). A review of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD. Jour­nal of Atten­tion Dis­or­ders, pub­lished online 16 Novem­ber 2011. DOI: 10.1177/1087054711427530]. The authors include sci­en­tists who have con­ducted research tri­als of neu­ro­feed­back and also been part of the Mul­ti­modal Treat­ment Study of ADHD (MTA Study), the largest ADHD treat­ment study ever con­ducted. They are thus well equipped, in my view, to pro­vide a thor­ough and objec­tive review of a com­pli­cated area.
The research base for their review was 14 stud­ies of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for chil­dren with ADHD in which par­tic­i­pants were ran­dom­ized to neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment or a con­trol con­di­tion. Eleven of these stud­ies were con­ducted between 2005 and 2010; this speaks to the strong accel­er­a­tion of neu­ro­feed­back research, which is a wel­come development.
Their review was lim­ited to those that ran­domly assigned chil­dren to treat­ment or con­trol con­di­tions which is an essen­tial ele­ment of rig­or­ous treat­ment stud­ies. For each study, the authors pro­vide a detailed cri­tique it’s strengths and lim­i­ta­tions. As a detailed review of the indi­vid­ual study cri­tiques is beyond what I can do here, below I sum­ma­rize the authors’ con­clu­sions on the state of the science.
Results Sum­mary
Treat­ment effects
When aver­aged across the stud­ies for which appro­pri­ate out­come data was avail­able, the over­all mean effect size (ES) was .79 for inat­ten­tion mea­sures, and .71 for hyperactivity/impulsivity mea­sures. These are in a range that would be con­sid­ered ‘large’ for inat­ten­tion and ‘mod­er­ate’ for hyperactivity/impulsivity and are below what is typ­i­cally reported for stim­u­lant med­ica­tion. Five of the stud­ies showed neu­ro­phys­i­o­log­i­cal changes that were spe­cific to neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment. Over­all, these results are con­sis­tent with ben­e­fi­cial effects of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD.
Sum­mary of study limitations
The authors iden­ti­fied 5 dif­fer­ent lim­i­ta­tions that under­mine the con­clu­sions about neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment effi­cacy that can be made.
1. Min­i­mal use of Triple Blinding 
The ideal study would be one where chil­dren, par­ents and/or teach­ers who rate children’s behav­ior before and after treat­ment, and clin­i­cians don’t know whether the child received active treat­ment. This elim­i­nates — or at least strongly reduces — the like­li­hood that appar­ent ben­e­fits asso­ci­ated with neu­ro­feed­back can be explained by expec­ta­tions that the child would benefit.
Only 4 of the 14 stud­ies uti­lized triple blind pro­ce­dures, how­ever, and in 6 of the stud­ies none of these 3 sources was blind.
2. Nature of Con­trol Group 
The strongest neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment study would be one that used ‘sham’ treat­ment for chil­dren ran­dom­ized to the con­trol group, i.e., par­tic­i­pants receive feed­back that is not linked to the EEG state that is the focus of actual train­ing. The ben­e­fit of this is that — in the­ory — it keeps chil­dren, par­ents, and clin­i­cians blind to whether real treat­ment is being pro­vided, thus elim­i­nat­ing poten­tial biases to the out­come rat­ings they provide.
For the 14 stud­ies review, how­ever, only 4 employed sham treat­ment. And, of those 4, only 1 used what was felt to be a truly cred­i­ble ‘sham’. In the absence of a cred­i­ble ‘sham’ treat­ment, con­duct­ing a ‘triple blind’ study is not possible.
The other stud­ies either used ‘wait list’ con­trols or com­pared neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment to a dif­fer­ent type of cog­ni­tive train­ing. The use of wait list and alter­na­tive treat­ment con­trol groups are preva­lent in the treat­ment lit­er­a­ture, but are less able than a true ‘sham’ con­di­tion to unequiv­o­cally estab­lish that treat­ment gains asso­ci­ated with neu­ro­feed­back are attrib­ut­able to the feed­back chil­dren receive on their EEG state.
3. Insuf­fi­cient iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, mea­sure­ment, and con­trol of con­comi­tant treatments
Chil­dren par­tic­i­pat­ing in these stud­ies were fre­quently receiv­ing other treat­ments as well, either med­ica­tion, psy­chother­apy, or edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions. Because the pres­ence and changes in con­comi­tant treat­ments tended not to be care­fully mon­i­tored, how­ever, pos­i­tive change asso­ci­ated with neu­ro­feed­back may have been caused, or at least influ­enced in some way, by unre­ported changes in these other treatments.
4. Gen­eral lack of post-treatment follow-up 
Fol­low­ing chil­dren beyond the end of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment is crit­i­cal for deter­min­ing long-term effi­cacy and/or the need for booster ses­sions. How­ever, only 3 of the stud­ies included a post-treatment fol­low up of neu­ro­feed­back. And, in these stud­ies, the pro­ce­dures for assess­ing the sus­tain­abil­ity of treat­ment ben­e­fits were judged to be com­pro­mised. Thus, the authors con­clude that the dura­tion of any gains asso­ci­ated with neu­ro­feed­back remains largely unknown.
5. Lim­ited atten­tion to pos­si­ble adverse side effects
Although neu­ro­feed­back is described as safe and with­out side effects, only 1 study actu­ally mon­i­tored and reported adverse events that chil­dren and par­ents related to treat­ment. Although no such effects were found, some have argued that all truly effec­tive treat­ments pro­duce some side effects in some per­cent­age of indi­vid­u­als who receive them. Thus, rather than not attend­ing to this pos­si­bil­ity in neu­ro­feed­back stud­ies because the treat­ment is assumed to be safe, the authors sug­gest that this is an area where greater scrutiny is warranted.
Over­all Summary
Based on their review of the lit­er­a­ture, the authors argue that “…due to the lack of blind­ing and sham con­trol con­di­tions in ran­dom­ized stud­ies” neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD should not be con­sid­ered ‘Effi­ca­cious and Spe­cific’ as was con­cluded in the 2009 review by Arn and his colleagues.
Instead, they believe that a grade of 3 on the APA evi­dence scale, which cor­re­sponds to ‘Prob­a­bly Effi­ca­cious’ is war­ranted. They note that a large mul­ti­site triple-blind sham-controlled Ran­dom­ized Con­trolled Trial is needed to set­tle the issue.
Clearly, it is pos­si­ble to review the same evi­dence and reach a dif­fer­ent con­clu­sion. Some would argue that the authors are overly cau­tious in the evi­dence grade they assign and that more is being required of neu­ro­feed­back than of other ADHD treat­ments. For exam­ple, although the long-term ben­e­fits of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment may remain rel­a­tively unknown, evi­dence on the long-terms ben­e­fits of med­ica­tion treat­ment is also limited.
One could also argue that requir­ing a triple-blind trial with a cred­i­ble sham con­di­tion is unrea­son­able because this is a higher stan­dard than that employed most psy­chother­apy out­come research. In stud­ies to estab­lish the effi­cacy of behav­ioral treat­ment for ADHD, for exam­ple, a triple blind trial is not pos­si­ble because clin­i­cians know what treat­ment they are pro­vid­ing and par­ents will know what treat­ment their child is receiv­ing. Despite this, behav­ior ther­apy is con­sid­ered a strong evidence-based treat­ment for ADHD.
In response to this objec­tion, the authors argue that the high­est stan­dard of sci­en­tific rigor should be required for any treat­ment offered to the pub­lic for which triple blind stud­ies are pos­si­ble (they are not pos­si­ble for behav­ior ther­apy), and which are not pre­cluded by strong eth­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions. They note that this is espe­cially true for neu­ro­feed­back, as such a study is pos­si­ble and the treat­ment requires sub­stan­tial time, effort, and expense.
Some Final Thoughts
My view is con­sis­tent with the authors. I would very much like to see the type of study they call for and believe the evi­dence grade they sug­gest of ‘Prob­a­bly Effi­ca­cious’ is appro­pri­ate. Hav­ing this con­clu­sion pub­lished in a sci­en­tific jour­nal that does not focus on neu­ro­feed­back research rep­re­sents sig­nif­i­cant progress for the field as it was not too long ago that a com­monly held view seemed to be that there was lit­tle if any cred­i­ble evi­dence sup­port­ing this treatment.
It is also impor­tant to rec­og­nize that what remains unclear is not whether chil­dren with ADHD who receive care­fully admin­is­tered neu­ro­feed­back will gen­er­ally derive some ben­e­fit — the stud­ies reviewed in this arti­cle estab­lish that — but, rather, why does ben­e­fit occurs. Here is what the authors say:
“…due to the lack of con­trols, it is unclear as to whether the large ESs for impul­siv­ity and inat­ten­tion and the medium ES for hyper­ac­tiv­ity are due to the active com­po­nent of EF and/or non­spe­cific treat­ment factors.”
In other words, the research estab­lishes that neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment yields ben­e­fits for core ADHD symp­toms but is not clear on what explains those ben­e­fits. Is it the spe­cific feed­back on EEG activ­ity and learn­ing to con­trol that activ­ity that pro­duces the gains? Or do non­spe­cific fac­tors asso­ci­ated with the treat­ment, e.g., expectancy effects, clin­i­cian atten­tion, praise for the effort involved, etc., that actu­ally accounts for the gains?
This is the impor­tant sci­en­tific ques­tion that remains to be answered. In the mean­time, how­ever, the research reviewed here indi­cates that if par­ents obtain high qual­ity neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for their child there is a rea­son­able basis for expect­ing that ben­e­fits will occur. The deci­sion to do so should be made with the knowl­edge that med­ica­tion treat­ment and behav­ioral ther­apy would be regarded as hav­ing stronger research sup­port at this time.
To dis­miss neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment sim­ply as ‘unproven’, how­ever, ignores the con­sid­er­able research on this approach that has been con­ducted. Help­ing fam­i­lies bet­ter under­stand the strengths and lim­i­ta­tions of this research can enable them to make a bet­ter informed deci­sion about whether to con­sider this treat­ment option for their child

Choosing Attachment

By LaShelle Charde
Understanding the necessity of attachment in your life is fundamental to thriving.  The basic psycho-emotional-physiological attachment bond with others is part of what keeps you balanced and feeling whole.  Unfortunately it is not always so easy to discern a healthy attachment bond from co-dependence.

I know I have felt torn, feeling the natural impulse to create a deep bond with my partner, while at the same worrying about losing myself and being co-dependent.

The trick is making it a conscious decision.  Choosing to enter into an attachment bond with someone means trusting your heart and vulnerability to their caretaking while maintaining your own sense of self-responsibility and choice.

Suffering from poor attachment with my parents, I am still learning how to create healthy attachment in relationships. I spent many years in desperate and hurt feelings as the people I dated and befriended weren't able to respond in the way I needed.  In one failed relationship after another I unconsciously lunged towards those that I thought might be able to fulfill this longing.  In the face of such a powerful drive, I had no access to wise discernment.  But slowly over time, with much suffering, reflection, and support the pattern has begun to reveal itself.

There are many resources on attachment, so I won't get into the theory of that here. I have included some resources at the end of the article, if you would like to learn more.

What I want to emphasize here is an affirmation of your drive toward bonding deeply with another in a conscious mindful way.  Choosing to bond with another is a choice you make again and again, moment after moment.  It's not about jumping into the deep end and hoping she or he will catch you.  It's about allowing another to know you deeply and hold you with care from his or her own conscious choosing to do so.

If you have a sense that a healthy attachment bond is missing in your life, you can begin to explore this by taking little steps with people you trust and with whom you have consistent in person contact.  Mentors, therapists, spiritual teachers, and partners are all likely candidates.

Start to notice how you block the bond and how you let it grow.  For myself, one way I notice that I habitually block a bond is by creating a rigidity in my torso, I sit too straight.  I then move my attention away from feeling and into analysis or subtle, but removed, observation.  While I can sometimes gain insight from this maneuver, I do it at cost to the potential bond with the person present.

In addition to your own thoughts, energy, and body, you might also reflect on your use of technology like facebook, twitter, email, movies, and blogs as possible blocks to bonding.  Technology provides channels for information and entertainment.  It may even serve as a periphery support to a real connection, but it can never replace in person human contact. 

Take a moment now and choose one relationship in which you would like to be especially mindful about this week.  Pay close attention to how you hold back and how you let this other person see you and hold you.

Hair Length = Sexuality?

Give a man two pictures of the same woman – in one her hair is long and in the other her hair is short – which one will he pick?

If you guessed the long hair version – you are right. It doesn’t matter if the long hair is flattering or frayed because his reaction is primeval.

According to evolutionary psychologists, long hair indicates a woman’s happiness, health and general well-being. Cave paintings reveal the celebration of long-haired women; the longer the hair the more fertile…and therefore, the more desirable.

Men’s views haven’t changed much since cavemen times. Just watch a shampoo commercial: long, silky hair tossed and twirled…a visual shorthand for sexual attractiveness.

Dr. Pam Spurr believes that a woman’s hair reflects her emotional life. She says you shouldn’t be surprised to find that when a woman cuts her hair that she is also changing something in her life. Don’t be fooled men if a woman chops off all of her hair and denies there’s anything going on. You can probably bet that some sort of emotional change is taking place. The haircut is symbolic: shedding the hair is like shedding the old life…and yes, that can include sex.

A woman experiencing dissatisfaction with her sex life, and as a result decides she no longer wants to have sex, uses the power of the haircut as a sign to show she’s reclaiming power in the bedroom.

Or, it could be that she’s unhappy in her relationship and by cutting her hair she’s showing that she’s going to stand up for herself.

Does short hair mean that she’s given up on sex? No, but it might mean that she’s more interested in other things than attracting a man. Along the same vein, if a woman is looking for a man, she’s probably not going to cut off her hair.

Neurofeeback for Addiction Recovery

What is the best treatment protocol for addiction recovery?

The answer: "It depends on the person's brain." However, almost for certain at some point in a complete series of neurofeedback sessions a person who is recovering from addiction will benefit from receiving the alpha-theta protocol. The evidenced-based symptom-oriented evaluation will suggest alpha-theta training as a starting protocol for the majority of people with addictions. However, there will be some individuals who will receive alpha-theta after first receiving training with other protocols. It all depends on the results of their individualized assessment.

There is a 2008 study that compared the clinical EEG signals of an alcoholic group to a control group. The results suggested that when the alcoholics were exposed to the stimulus, brain cells were activated and emitted higher voltage than that of the control group. We know that a less active brain produces an increase in alpha brain wave, which is the idle rhythm of the cortex. It means that when the brain is excessively aroused or perceives danger the thinking and reasoning part of the brain gets bypassed. In other words, people react first and ask questions later. For an addicted person this too often has severe consequences.

An addicted brain has its object of addiction ranked nearly as important as air, water and food. Getting sober threatens their long-term relationship with something the brain mistakes for survival. The more effective the intervention, the more resistance one could expect. Most people find change stressful, but with the addictive population this mechanism is significantly magnified, which sabotages their ability to apply treatment learned solutions in their lives. EEG biofeedback, and in particular alpha-theta, appears to work by significantly reducing this acute survival response. It works by training the cortex to remain engaged and not be bypassed as usual during a fight-or-flight reaction. The result is improved compliance in treatment, less recidivism, and continued 12-step or faith-based participation after leaving treatment.

What is alpha-theta protocol? Alpha-theta protocol is named after the two main types of brainwaves that are involved during this protocol. It brings on a deep witness state where people can often observe having dream-like experiences where they calmly observe things that would ordinarily cause them stress. Issues such as distorted beliefs and trauma affect how the brain operates at a sub-conscious level. With alpha-theta, clients train their brain to let go of response patterns that are based on old or false beliefs so they can enjoy life with a new and healthier perspective. In addition, the brain opens up to complementary psychological therapies. People who experience alpha-theta training report that they are more connected emotionally, have increased peace and serenity, are more open-minded and better able to access and integrate repressed experiences. They also seem much more observant of opportunities and have significantly less fear in perusing them.

Alpha-theta is the only neurofeedback protocol proven effective for the addicted population in a large randomized controlled trial. The study was conducted by UCLA and published in "The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse" in 2005.

www.BrainPaint.com

Peak Performance Training

Peak Performance Training

Neurofeedback or EEG Biofeedback helps the brain regulate itself and self regulation is key to optimal brain functioning. It is best considered as mental fitness training that over time teaches the individual's brain improved skills of managing attention, arousal (level of excitability), and affective or emotional state. The individual's brain already manages attention, arousal, and affective state to a certain degree, and the relevant mechanisms are in place to do so. Simply exercising those mechanisms strengthens and engages them, and allows the individual to have better control over his or her own behavior automatically. And when your brain is performing in its optimal manner, you are able to perform at your peak. Isn't this just what we all want. Life is so much better and easier when our brain is working at its best. We are calmer, more focused, attentive, confident and able to enjoy life more. When we achieve this, we are just better at whatever we choose to do. Become a better parent, a better spouse, a better boss, a better student, a better performer, a better athlete, a better employee - A BETTER SELF. Become YOUR BEST SELF!

RELAX, ENJOY LIFE and ACCOMPLISH MORE.

Stress is a total body response to a real or imaginary threat. It can save lives in emergencies by producing knee-jerk reactions which were indispensable to our ancestors who routinely had to flee from predators. However, in today's world, our survival is usually not at stake, and the problems we face require a calm mind for creative solutions. Unfortunately, the very parts of the brain that allow such reasoned response are bypassed under stress. Instead, we make decisions based on fear. One of the goals of the neurofeedback software is to evolve the reactive brain into one that is interactive, and not only during a crisis but in everyday life.

When the human body and mind perceives a threat it goes into flight or flight mode. When this happens stress chemicals flood the body causing the heart to beat faster, the blood vessels to constrict, perspiration and breathing to increase and muscles to become tense. In addition, during this phase the auto immune system also becomes depressed making the body more vulnerable to illnesses. After the threat goes away, your body and mind are not quick to turn these responses off and often do not return to their original state and in part the body and mind continues with this unhealthy response to stress. The heart continues to be stressed and other muscles continue to hold tension. This "normal" stress response is ideally suited for real life and death situations. But when we have this response to other stressors in our lives that are not life or death, this response is over kill.

After a while a person can get used to these stress symptoms in their body, if they do not learn to cope with the stressors in their lives these symptoms start to cause problems in the body, even though the person may be unaware of it.

If someone does not pay attention to these signs and symptoms they can evolve into anxiety, depression, headaches and other pains, stomach and bowel problems and coldness in hands and feet. In addition the stress hormone cortisol can make you inattentive, disorganized and unable to remember simple tasks. The body and mind can no longer cope with the ongoing physiological changes and you are receiving a strong warning to make changes to your life.

Neurofeedback helps your brain to respond better to stresses. It can calm down your "over the top" responses to everyday challenges. Those things that you know shouldn't bother you, stop having an effect. And irritations start to roll right off. You are able to calmly approach your challenges, focus on your end goal and be your best.

For those who have high stress careers or high stress demands on life, have you already begun to see the effects of this over the top response to stress? Is it impeding your performance? Would you like to learn how to respond to these stressors in a healthier way - one that shields your mind and body from all of those disastrous effects and at the same time become a winner in your field? Take charge of your life, by empowering your brain to work at its optimum.

Seniors Hit the Brain Gym

The science of "brain fitness" is about to get a jump-start from a major health insurer. Humana, one of the nation's biggest health insurance companies, announced a partnership yesterday with a San Francisco company that is pioneering the concept.
At an assisted-living facility in the city, seniors are welcome to spend time at the in-house brain gym, "working out" on computers that improve attention span and help recapture memory and hearing -- flexing their mental muscles and improving their lives.
Inside the brain gym, elderly patrons receive instructions on headsets and respond to specific commands. So far, response from participants has been broadly positive, with most users pleased by the results
“Concentration is the one word that I really feel that I've really got better at doing,” said Ellen McCarthy, a 79-year-old brain fitness program user.
“It's made me listen more intently, be more aware of what I'm saying and how I'm speaking,” said Eda Carnilia, an 86 year old in the program.
The software that drives the workouts is the brainchild of Posit Science. The company has spent the last three years developing programs that "teach an old brain new tricks." Participants in controlled studies, aged 60 to 97, have shown the equivalent of 10 years of improvement. But, Posit Science refuses to rest on its initial success.
“It's just the beginning of what is unequivocally going to be a revolution in what we must do to maintain our mental fitness, our brain fitness in life,” said Dr. Michael Mernovich, co-founder of Posit Science.
This revolutionary product is now getting a mainstream stamp of approval. Humana, one of the nation's largest health insurers, plans to offer the brain fitness program to millions of seniors. In addition, Humana Medicare members will be able to purchase the software at a sizable discount. The company says it is a perfect fit with its desire to encourage active lifestyles for older adults.
“The more we can provide opportunities to keep healthy people, we expect people to look at that as a value that Humana is different from other health insurance companies,” said Scott Latimer, a Humana doctor.
If reactions by the brain fitness program’s participants are any indication, Humana
might be right.

- Hampton Pearson

Healthy Brain. Healthy Life

 Do you feel like you're not living up to your potential? Is your life lacking a sense of ease, joy or peace? Neurofeedback can dramatically improve the quality of your life.

Many people understand the benefits of a good diet or exercise program, even if they find it difficult to apply in their lives.  Modern society spends billions of dollars trying to stay physically fit and healthy.  Yet nothing impacts the quality of our lives as directly as our mental fitness and quality of our outlook.  Think of neurofeedback as mental yoga that improves the brain’s flexibility and resilience.  A healthy mind guides a healthy body.

World Cup Italian soccer players have turned to neurofeedback to gain peak performance and get a competitive edge.

 Through a series of sessions with the BrainPaint system, your brain reorganizes itself and functions more effectively. When your brain functions efficiently, you feel more integrated and whole and your body functions better. After training many people experience less stress, improved academic, athletic, creative and work performance as well as more confidence and joy. Many bodily complaints drop away.

Can't Get ADHD Drugs? Change to medication-free treatment.

ADHD meds are in short supply and if you haven’t noticed yet – chances are you will.

Hundreds of patients are finding that their pharmacies don’t have enough pills to fill their prescriptions. The problem lies with the troubled partnership between drug manufacturers and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Pharmaceutical companies are out to maximize their profits …the DEA wants to minimize drug abuse. Caught in the middle are millions of children and adults who rely on the pills to help them stay calm and focused.

Here’s an idea – forget the drugs and choose a medication-free form of treatment. No dependency, no worry of pill shortages, and no fear of abuse.

ADHD affects approximately 3-5% of school age children in the U.S. The majority of children are treated with stimulant medication. Alternative treatments will bypass the risk of developing cardiovascular toxicity of amphetamine and methylphenidate.

My preferred alternative method of treatment is Neurofeedback – specifically EEG Biofeedback with the BrainPaint system. EEG Biofeedback is a well-established, clinically-proven, non-drug treatment modality for ADHD.  Check out these testimonials.