I’ve previously argued that some of the advice on Food For The Brain’s website was potentially dangerous. The website previously advised that autistic children “remove…likely culprit foods such as wheat and dairy from the diet [and] avoid additives and preservatives.” However, the website did not advise parents to seek medical supervision when excluding large numbers of foods from their childrens’ diets; it also didn’t mention the need to find appropriate replacements for the foods which are excluded.
Happily, Food for the Brain have taken my advice on board. This section of their revised ‘action plan’ for autism now reads “consider pursuing a wheat and dairy free diet which has proven helpful for some, but not all, autistic children. However we recommend you do so under medical supervision, or supervision of a dietician or nutritional therapist to ensure that suitable replacement foods are included that ensure your child achieves optimal nutrition.”
While I haven’t had time to read this page in detail this is clearly a significant improvement. It’s great to see that Food For The Brain is taking Holford Watch’s advice on board!
10 responses so far ↓
UKdietitian // April 21, 2007 at 8:27 am
Amazing that Holford has conceded to amend his site with the caveat not to follow the advice without medical supervision.
But to clarify for your wider readership, there is a world, if not a galaxy, of difference between a dietician an a nutritional therapist. Dieticians possess a minimum 4y BSc(Hons)degree in the subject and their title is protected by law, which means what you see IS what you get. You can’t use the moniker ‘RD’ (Registered Dietitian) if you aren’t one.
Whereas anyone reading this can call themselves a ‘nutritional therapist’ if they fancy. In fact, Bob my goldfish can be a nutritional therapist. The title is meaningless. So dieticians and nutritional therapists are not synonymous terms, although I can see the attraction of kudos-by-association….
But lets be very, very clear about this - although the word ‘dietician’ appears on the FFTB site, any dietician involved in patient care would consider their role one of ‘damage limitation’ in salvaging some evidence-based nutritional guidelines from the FFTB morass.
We would certainly distance ourselves from the hair mineral analysis, IgG food ‘intolerance’ tests, and disproportionate promotion of Nairns oatcakes and Dinochews as the basis of a valid clinical dietetic approach.
09/06 entry on http://www.bda.uk.com/newsandevents.php refers
Shinga // April 22, 2007 at 4:17 pm
It’s good to see that your constructive comments are having a positive effect.
Whenever I see people searching desperately for Nairn oatcakes amongst the many available brands on the shelves I usually ask, “Have you been to a Holford seminar or read one of his books”? So far, I’ve yet to hear the answer, “No”.
There is so much publicity being given to wheat and dairy allergies among children. However, most of the time, when I’m talking to parents, the material that they’ve read conflates allergies, intolerances, sensitivies and even auto-immune disease. This Morning and GMTV et al give so much publicity to Holford that it would be good if they would carry some clarifications of these issues.
Regards - Shinga
Jon // April 22, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Thanks for the comments.
UKDietician- yeah, I’m certainly not entirely happy with the food for the brain autism action plan (for example, I don’t see the value in IgG testing), but am still pleased to see some improvement…
Shinga- that’s interesting, I was wondering to what extent Food for the Brain sponsors benefitted from the link… Must admit I’m kind-of out of touch on food branding: I normally shop at a market - so lots of fresh fruit and veg, fish, meat etc. but, ironically, absolutely nothing that’s branded as ‘healthy’ ;)
Shinga // April 23, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Slightly OT for this but relevant to the dietician/nutrional therapist discussion. I came across an unnamed journalist’s account of using YorkTest’s foodSCAN 113.
“Coming in with a staggering +4 intolerance to cows milk (on a sliding scale from +1-+4, +4 being the highest intolerance), I instantly felt relieved that my symptoms hadn’t been a figment of my imagination. Suprisingly, pork, carrots and tea as well as yeast were also on the foods to avoid list.”
“A discussion with a nutrionist explained that cows milk and yeast was indeed a fierce enemy and that if I cut these foods out, I should be OK with carrots, tea etc… Only 13% of results are diagnosed as a +4 which means I need to stay away from cows milk for a good year.”
So, if I understand this correctly, you can get a surprising number of +4 (severe intolerance) results but your nutritionist can pick and choose which ones you may need to eliminate and which ones are probably OK?
Is this what happens when nutritionists are basing their advice on tests of dubious relevance?
Regards - Shinga
Jon // April 23, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Thanks - interesting link. I’m not sure whether the test suggested that cows milk generated more of an IgG response than other foods, or if it was just guesswork? Maybe a ‘good’ interpreter of these tests will combine guesswork with other tools?
What jumped out at me from the story is the claim that “Sugar feeds yeast, therefore I must cut back on fruit juice and anything sugary as this will increase discomfort.” Reminds me of some bad science around candida - http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/candida.html
People with supposed probles with candida are often advised to avoid not just sugar and fruit juice, but fruit as well (making it nigh-on impossible to get the nutrients you need from your diet - and therefore increasing the market for vitamin pills, too).
Anecdotally, lots of the anti-yeast/anti-candida diets that are promoted make it pretty hard to even meet your calorific requirements. With predictable results :(
Shinga // April 24, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Yeah - I’m deeply troubled by the leap from a supposed intolerance to dietary yeast to a belief that this is inevitably linked to candida. No. No. No.
I dislike the way in which food manufacturers disguise the amount of sugar in foods by calling it maltose, dextrose, sucrose etc. but I am sick of reading this stuff about sugar feeding yeast when the discussion is about dietary yeast.
Grumble. Grumble.
Regards - Shinga
Jon // April 24, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Yeah, my understanding is that infections along the lines of ’systemic candida’ can be a problem - but for people who already have a seriously weakened immune system (e.g. AIDS patients). I.e. definitely not the ‘worried well’.
What do you make of the products on offer here - http://www.healthproductsforlife.com/content.asp?id_Content=1744
Shinga // April 25, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I find them a little worrying - primarily because I thought that by and large we still don’t have a good range of tests for flagrant candida overgrowth. I have no idea what reference levels the labs may be using to support a ‘diagnosis’ of candida.
Regards - Shinga
UKdietitian // April 28, 2007 at 9:52 am
there’s nothing wrong with attempting ‘non-conventional’ approaches to chronic health issues just as long as the individual knows that it is experimental, and that a failure to respond should lead to a complete abandonment without lingering guilt of potential benefit.
Parents of children with autism should read the entry at http://www.autism-watch.org/about/bio2.shtml to balance the ‘100% optimal, 100% successful’ myth of the Food for the Brain franchise.
More novel autism advice from the Holford empire - Brain Bio Centre gets in on the game « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // August 2, 2007 at 1:32 am
[...] · No Comments I’m starting to get a bit annoyed here. In April, Food for the Brain agreed to modify their advice on autism: they had previously suggested eliminating several types of food, without mentioning the need to [...]
Leave a Comment