Slashdot Mirror
ADHD Drugs Aren't Doing What You Think, Scientists Warn (inverse.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inverse: The study authors Lisa Weyandt, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the University of Rhode Island, and Tara White, Ph.D., an assistant professor of Behavioral and Social Sciences at Brown University, started out investigating the effects of ADHD medications in students that actually have a diagnosable attention deficit disorder. They showed that in these students, there is decreased activity in the areas of the brain controlling "executive functions," which can make it hard for them to stay organized or focused. But because both authors work with college students, they soon became more interested in the misuse of Adderall. In students whose brains aren't affected by ADHD, does Adderall act as a supercharger? Does it make those areas fly into overdrive and unlock otherwise untapped intellectual ability, as all pill-popping students hope?
Weyant and White's double-blind, placebo-controlled study on 13 college students was a small sample, they admit, but their experiment had a rigorous study design. Neither the students nor the researchers knew who was getting Adderall and who was getting placebo sugar pill. The six tests evaluated different aspects of cognition, like working memory, reading ability and reaction time. While students on Adderall did make fewer errors on a reaction time test, it actually worsened working memory, as shown by a decline in performance on a task where they had to repeat sequences of numbers. In short, Adderall improved focus and attention -- but it didn't actually make anyone smarter. The research has been published in the journal Pharmacy.
Weyant and White's double-blind, placebo-controlled study on 13 college students was a small sample, they admit, but their experiment had a rigorous study design. Neither the students nor the researchers knew who was getting Adderall and who was getting placebo sugar pill. The six tests evaluated different aspects of cognition, like working memory, reading ability and reaction time. While students on Adderall did make fewer errors on a reaction time test, it actually worsened working memory, as shown by a decline in performance on a task where they had to repeat sequences of numbers. In short, Adderall improved focus and attention -- but it didn't actually make anyone smarter. The research has been published in the journal Pharmacy.
" Adderall improved focus and attention -- but it didn't actually make anyone smarter." Presumably, you are reasonably smarter already, being accepted in college. So the real benefit is focus and attention, not "smarter".
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
I'll believe real scientists
No matter their degree, as long as their conclusions match my biases.
I've had a lot of teachers whose specialty was in this area, and honestly this is kind of the equivalent of 'We checked, water is wet.' ADHD is basically a bandwidth problem--people with attention deficit disorders (there's several) lack the standard suite of preprocessing filters on their incoming data. These normally are present to basically try to get you to stick with what (the filters judge to be) the important stuff in the incoming data is--without these filters, you're attempting to drink from the proverbial firehose. Hyperactivity is the most common method by which the brain attempts to cope--"Maybe if we move really really really fast we can get all this sorted!"
There's other strategies, too, such as 'shut down' and 'increase processing power' which have their own relative issues and your attention is still going to be not working like what is classed as 'normal'--in some populations, ADD is normal, because assumptions about what is/isn't important in your environment tended to get selected against instead of heavily agricultural populations where we strongly selected for the ability to not be too bothered by spending many hours staring at the hind end of a draft animal... It's not shot; you can get hyperfocus and flow, where your attention is very tightly focused on doing a task, vastly more easily than the normal population.
There is, however, one thing about this that's surprising--and that's that you get the same kind of effects in normal people. One of the old methods for confirming an ADD diagnosis is that you had an atypical reaction to stimulants...which Adderall and Ritalin are. To be specific, they're amphetamines...
What will really bust your noodle later is a large majority of behavior modification/investigation is done ostensibly with college students. These same students have to take part in research study as part of a required course's requirements. This is not a great source of random sampling.
FYI: Working memory is basically the RAM of the brain--it's short-term holding for stuff you're processing and using, which is why it's called working memory. One of the things you check for if somebody who should be doing well in school but isn't? Is if their working memory is functioning correctly.
Focus and attention aren't anywhere near as important. You can only be vaguely paying attention and still retain a surprising amount of information, but you need your working memory to remember the start of a paragraph when you reach its end, and other things rather important to the ability to reason and make good choices.
So it's not just that it didn't make anybody 'smarter,' it actually managed to hose something you direly need working to be smart. Though, if amphetamines in general screw with the working memory, that explains so much about the life choices of amphetamine addicts...
Do they work on the people who need it?
You mean the drug prescribed for Attention Deficit Disorder treated attention deficit, but wasn't helpful in treating cognitive deficit? And that's why it doesn't do what people think it does? Umm... what?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
they make big pharma and those who write the scripts for the drugs a lot of money
Remember when the cure for ADHD was an ass whoopin'? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Same goes for kids acting up in a restaurant. In the old days you took them out to the car. When they came back they weren't acting up anymore.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I'm glad we have scientists that brand speed and then sell it to people for profit, legally.
Wish they did it with cocaine and weed too, I'm sure we can find an excuse WHY it's a good idea. Just invent another imaginary illness, or "condition".
Correct. A sample size of 13 is utterly worthless statistically. No useful information can be had from such an experiment.
Incorrect. A sample size of 13 does give statistically significant results (for a fairly specific version of significant), and is, in fact, the smallest sample size to do so.
It might never have occurred to you to wonder why legal trials have a judge and 12 people on a jury - making 13 people. Perhaps you should look into that: mathematically it's quite interesting.
I'm not sure which is more shocking. That you wrote that FUCKing post or that I read all of that FUCKing post!
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
I don't care how perfectly well you've set up your experiment. 13 people does not a respectable sample size make. It's all too likely that a fluke is majorly skewing the results. I don't even understand what this post is doing here. We should know better.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
They're supposed to make you pay attention to what you're told, not to reflect upon it.
Working as designed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
After all, they are responsible for the horrendous torture that came about with asylums and their "scientific" methods.
Maybe dead ones. Might as well say the same for medical doctors and leeches or trepanning.
Here is the top youtube video showing ADHD vs non-ADHD child. Does the girl have ADHD or is she just anxious? Look at how she sits and how the boy sits. Count how many times the boy smiles and how many times the girl smiles (hint: zero). If the girl is the top example of ADHD, I can give 100 children ADHD interviews and classify a large portion as having ADHD. Of course I would be impartial and have no stake in classifying kids as having ADHD and charging for weekly counseling, writing prescriptions, etc.
I'm not sure which is more shocking. That you wrote that FUCKing post or that I read all of that FUCKing post!
Dooood! Cut that adderall dose in half man!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Is it you Tom Cruise?
I'd assume the answer to why trials have 12 people on the jury is a matter of tradition. I seriously doubt anyone did the maths on it when it was decided. At some point someone decided 12 people was the right number for a jury and it stuck.
I think that feeding psychoactive drugs to boys because their teachers don't know how to raise boys and are boring and dumb is going to produce adults that are angry, poorly educated, and anti-social. And what I "think" these drugs do seems to be exactly what they are doing.
I've actually hired a babysitter for myself just to keep me focused and to not get distracted. $14/hr sucks but it currently is the only way I can do work most days. I've tried quite a few ADHD drugs and they either have no effect or they make me drowsy. By drowsy I mean do not operate any motor vehicle drowsy. My doctor failed to mention that part.
... what people think: Enhancing attention and focus. It says, right there in the Metaarticle. So thanks for confirming that.
Sidenote: I'd stear clear from any medication, even when in a tough spot at college.
Lack of excersize, bad nutrition, bad sleep hygene, excess media consumption and consumerism are what I have found to correlate with symptoms generally regarded as "ADHD".
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
still looking for a good drug for my ADHD
Some advice:
#1 Nutrition. Stop any type of sugar. Like, don't freaking even touch the stuff for 10 weeks and you'll notice a significant difference in cognitive performance. Promise. Avoid processed foods, preferably like the plague. Learn to cook/prepare your own meals. Do paleo or some other hippster compliant diet if that helps you. I've become a bit of a salad expert. My salads are full meals with grilled veggies or mushrooms or seitan & tofu as topping. Shop organic and rather skip that next piece of expensive hardware your eyeing. I shop organic and am typing this on a refurbished ThinkPad. Wouldn't want it the other way around.
#2 Social Media: Stop it. No facebook, no whatsapp or instagram. I message with my girlfriend, my daughter and two to three of my buddies and that's it. It's basically email. Any more would be unhealthy. The only "addiction" I have in this area is slashdot (duh), and there I try to write meaningful comments (duh again). I'd like to tune down a little, but to be fair, the threads I join are ususally a meaningful and ongoing discussion, so it's not a complete waste of time - also due to us all leaning to the smarter side :-) . Although it does cut time away from my real life. Again: Facebookers are zombies. On the tram I sometimes the only one with his head up. I look out the window and muse, while others are addicted to their streams. ... Yes, I sometimes refresh my slashdot comments to see my ratings, but that's a habbit I'm working on to change. And I can, because I know how good real life feels vis-a-vis facebook and whatscrap.
#3 Media consumption: Stop TV and avoid anything else as much as possible. The lesser the better. A movie a quarter should be the rule of thumb. Seriously. Limit your video game time to one game and a maximum of 3 hours per week. Fill the gained time with excersize (see below). For gaming chose P&P RPGs with a group of friends or boardgames over videogames (on or offline).
#4 Excersize. This is a big one. Can't emphasize this one enough. My wellbeing directly correlates with how much excersize I have. Do martial arts, social dancing, yoga, calisthenics or something like that at least 3 times a week, better yet 4 or 5 times a week. Freeclimbing, boldering, paraglying and surfing (the real kind) are awesome too. I did Argentine Tango for 10 years, traveling around Europe and mingling with the scene of Tango-Bums/Tango-Nomads, at least 3 times a week which had the added benefit of meeting an abundance of very, *very* cute ladies and having the occasional intimate episode coming out of that, and now I'm moving into swimming and yoga. I'm doing this because now I have a girlfriend (Tango dancer/teacher) and the most amazing sex ever, which significantly lowers the attraction of Tango for me. :-) I just swam 800 meters this afternoon. Awesome. Excersize and make a routine or some sort of excersize an essential part of your life. Your ADHD will recede below percievable levels and people will know you for being a generally younger and healthier self. Your concentration and brain performance will rise significantly, I promise. And the ladies will start turning their heads too. I promise that aswell.
#5 Limit screen time. This is a big one for computer nerds like us. I work 20 hours/week. I earn enough. I live minimalistic (highly recommended) and would rather do yoga 90 minutes per day than sit in front of the screen 12 hours in a row. Doing part time helps you focus on automating your tedious IT work and focusing on the fun parts of reality. When I only sit for 4 hours per session max. it's way easyer for me to focus on that one technology than spreading myself to thin with 5 or 10 at a time (we've all been there). Again: Limit screen time. 6 hours per day should be enough for any expert who knows how to automate the tedious computer work, i.e. programm.
#6 Stay away from d
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I am wondering if it is reasonably to give people sugar pills as a placebo to test these kinds of things. I would think that sugar does give people energy but perhaps less attention?
Yep. A Google search revealed the historical reason that I had presumed from the beginning: it's because of the 12 tribes of Israel: https://www.insidescience.org/news/mathematics-jury-size
More directly, it was connected to Jesus' twelve apostles, but the reason there were 12 apostles was because it was symbolic of the 12 tribes.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
13 students take a drug, 8 of them fall violently ill, then certainly it's stupid to dismiss that as statistically irrelevant.
To be fair that was a fairly interesting article, especially in the fact that it specifically mentions that jury sizes other than 12 have been discussed or tried.
That being said, the historical 'fact' of "why today's juries tend to have 12 people is that the Welsh king Morgan of Gla-Morgan, who established jury trials in 725 A.D., decided upon the number" is sketchy at best (Glamorgan* not even being a dream by that date - this was almost certainly prior, even, to Glywysing being renamed Morgannwg because of the family name), and the rationale for it, attributed to Morgan is, as far as I can tell, a fantasy by the author if the article.
However, my certitude as to the origins of the number or jurors was almost certainly a 'mis-speaking', or a verbal shortcut to the result, as my experience of the mathematics of jury size was covered in a university maths class back in the late 90's, but that certainly only accounts for why we continue to use 12 people, not why we started using 12 people. The hypothesis of Jesus and his disciples, or the 12 tribes of Israel, are perhaps as valid as the "Thing" which was introduced from, I believe, a non-Jewish, non-Christian culture.
Either way, the primary point remains: 13 people is, for a small degree of error, a valid sample size. Clearly larger would be better, but to dismiss the study entirely, based purely on a misguided notion that a sample of 13 people is not 'significant', would be a mistake.
*fwiw, which ain't much I'll grant, this (Glamorgan) is where I live...
Really? I would have thought prescribing amphetamines to people would do exactly what you think. I must say - I'm surprised.
I don't care how perfectly well you've set up your experiment. 13 people does not a respectable sample size make.
Because you said so? Feel free to tell us which part of this you disagree with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We should know better.
Yes, yes we should....