The Rochester autism diet study: What wrong, what you should know

Most Popular posts from other blogs...

Growth data was not part of the study

You've probably seen often on a study of the University of Rochester refer the press to expose the claims that special diets of children with autism to help. This is one of these studies, which - hmmm, for some reason - really gets legs and is off and running. Well, it got under my skin, not only because the study (despite the researchers called it "the most controlled so far" on nutrition interventions for children with autism) poorly designed, but it turns out, I was born in the hospital, where it was done.

The most trabte-Out study in the US press on this issue, generated from the same halls, where I was born? This struck me as an interesting side by side.

I contacted Lenny Schafer, editor of the report autism Schafer on the University CF consider diet for autism effects of GF of Rochester attempt. I the light of day on the study wanted to actually throw flaws - so many, it was from the outset buried or defeat positive condemned to failure. The tragedy is that the meta message has become "Diet help children with autism do not" when it should be "can some help nutrition, but we are not sure the.", if we these kids problems screen is more energetic for nutrition and GI here that down went wrong run on what:

-This is too small a study, and confirm that it its authors.  It contained only 14 children in the test group.  On the other hand Dr. Andrew Wakefield got tour criticized as noticing an effect in only 12 children piece, in his original Lancet on autism and stomach intestine features.  We can't have it both ways: If see an effect, because you saw it only in 12 children, then it is also invalid say you saw no effect in only 14 children. The fact is that both findings deserve further study.

Children with autism who had gastric intestinal symptoms were excluded. This means that the very children who could benefit from a diet intervention intentionally omitted. Why? Susan Hyman MD confirmed again, this error: "The study are not children with significant stomach disease." "It is possible these children and other specific groups could see an advantage." In fact, a child who was found celiac disease have ruled out was as well-an obvious candidate for improvement on a GF diet. Another was excluded for iron deficiency. Thank God, these children were the first candidates. How else would her parents, that their children known serious problems, learn, growth, development and function of the immune system, treatable only with a diet affect intervention had have learned?

-Not is gluten and casein sources mentioned replaced by which protein. If allowed to soy, this will confuse progress that soy protein is the same opioid-like peptides in those who have painting digestion, and often is Antigen. Using it as a daily protein every advantage of the removal of gluten and casein will mask replacement (soy milk, soy yogurt, tofu, Edamame and other soy products).

-The study was to notice a significant effect on a short duration.  In fact, it positively noticed but it reached statistical significance. Would it be a more appropriate length attempt? Children with autism have two problems with food proteins (including gluten and casein) shown: one, they have an antigens in response. This can be a response in the form of allergy (IgE) or sensitivity (IgG). Two, they have poor digestion of these proteins and shows an enzyme deficit either, or an excess of poorly digested proteins in the urine peptides from food. In either scenario, it takes food usually several weeks for this aberrant reactions to reduce, and peptides are to be eliminated. A four-week trial is not sufficient to demonstrate significant change, and that's what parents usually in my practice reports.

-A weak pre trial diet review was that screened for iron status, level of vitamin D, and IgE food allergy wheat or dairy. There was no evaluation of BIRT diet, and there is no mention of standards such as body mass parameter index or growth. This means that we have no idea what these children nutrition diagnosis actually were if status of their diet improves, or if the GF CF diet for them was even hinted at.  Many nutritional Comorbidities are documented other vitamin and mineral deficiency, lack of essential fatty acids and Omega-3 fatty acids in children with autism, including low body-mass index, low ferritin (this will affect drop and functional ability, behavior, and sleep, before frank develop anemia), and so on.  We also don't know whether infections a problem for these children, have been a bit interfere with digestion, absorption and stooling.

-Although the authors "Blind" shoots food made, it is to think that food hide indeed - especially for children with autism may be a line. This rule children with very picky appetite and a fierce radar for ingredients and textures that you like or hate.

The study is mistaken in its very premise that we can test a single diet for the treatment of autism. Authors the study took then children with autism, to respond, tested the possibly least they were too short, and left in unknown of food allowed and other diet or GI problems. The design is similar to after the randomly select a group of children with autism, in a minimal developmental review, then they give all Abilify; then declare all psychiatric medications, no value for children with autism, if the Abilify clearly useful trend show not. Treat diet nutrition problems or metabolic disorders; When autism is often accompanied by them instead of the purely mental health condition, we call it what it is and do the work directly. We children can with autism for nutrition problems of the tests with low density, low sensitivity screen these authors used. Based on the hundreds of diet it is clear that this a population larger than typical diet is at risk reviews I have done on children with autism in the last ten years.  These problems leave, or they can all meet, the wrong take is unhandled message home guess a single nutrition strategy.