According to a recent study, children with Celiac Disease, like those with any chronic illness, are more at risk for emotional and behavior problems than their peers.
I don't think it's a huge leap to say any food allergy would work similarly.
And I can't help but wonder if this is what plays a part in my kid's anxiety issues. Is it related to trichotillomania? Or the anxiety driven tantrums?
I don't know. But I can't change the way our family's dietary restrictions work without hurting us. So I can only hope that we can continue to reassure, that the interventions we've chosen are helpful, and that as a society we become more supportive of food restrictions for any reason.
Why would kids with dietary restrictions be more at risk for emotional problems? To my way of thinking it's understandable when they are required to go to school, but school personnel and their peers don't always 'get' allergies. When other parents are busy fighting for their children's right to eat peanut butter, the food allergy kid is hearing "you're ruining things for everyone". When pizza is served to 19 out of 20 kids and the food allergy child gets to grab their own personal lunch from their backpack, they get the message that they aren't as special as the rest of the class. They have to put up a wall to remind themselves to say no, to be polite, to be different.
I don't know what the answer is. But awareness helps. And hopefully therapists will learn a bit about food allergy; and the difference between medically restricted diets and eating disorders.
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Back away from the Jellybeans!
Those lovely assorted iconic Easter candies may just have to go this year. At least the traditional ones.
Although they are on shelves, and nothing in their standard artificial ingredient list has changed, the FDA is beginning to look closer at the questions raised by consumers.
They are catching up to European questions.
Although the evidence is still weak, the fact is that artificial food colorings and sodium benzoate in combination appear to increase the hyperactivity of the average 3-8 year old. The trouble is that activity is subjective. It can't be scientifically measured.
And, while we can note observations that are consistently raised after consumption of suspect foods, it's symptoms we witness occasionally when only safe foods are eaten as well.
The question is whether the colorings themselves are the cause.
I think the answer is obviously that they are one potential cause. And with the lack of testing (foodcolorings slipped under the radar and into our food supply, with slowly increasing amounts. Currently, the average child ingests about 121 milligrams of dye a day. It's a big number in small increments, but it's more than the amount of magnesium a 3 year old should be ingesting, and about a quarter of the calcium. Compared to vitamins...that's a lot of synthetic, non-essential junk. Especially when you factor in the picky eating that is common at that age...and the fact that preschoolers and school age children are still growing and forming. Anything that is going to affect health will have a greater affect on them just because they are at a more vulnerable stage of development than an adult.
Hyperactivity isn't the only health concern associated with artificial dyes and preservatives, it's only the one that gets the most press because of Dr. Feingold's work. Even cancer may be associated with certain colorings, but studies are still in the works.
Meanwhile, I don't think making bland food look brighter is worth the risk. So, this year, the Easter Bunny is searching out safer treats...resorting to beets and turmeric and black carrot juice to color Surf Sweet or Yummy Earth candies with, and maybe he'll splurge on Annie's Homegrown gummy bunnies.
It won't cost a fortune, because kids don't need a lot of sweet. My kids, anyways, will find plenty of non-edibles in their Easter baskets, and the plastic eggs he hides around the house. You don't need old fashioned jelly beans to have fun. And carrot cake can be just as exciting without multicolored springtime sprinkles.
Although they are on shelves, and nothing in their standard artificial ingredient list has changed, the FDA is beginning to look closer at the questions raised by consumers.
They are catching up to European questions.
Although the evidence is still weak, the fact is that artificial food colorings and sodium benzoate in combination appear to increase the hyperactivity of the average 3-8 year old. The trouble is that activity is subjective. It can't be scientifically measured.
And, while we can note observations that are consistently raised after consumption of suspect foods, it's symptoms we witness occasionally when only safe foods are eaten as well.
The question is whether the colorings themselves are the cause.
I think the answer is obviously that they are one potential cause. And with the lack of testing (foodcolorings slipped under the radar and into our food supply, with slowly increasing amounts. Currently, the average child ingests about 121 milligrams of dye a day. It's a big number in small increments, but it's more than the amount of magnesium a 3 year old should be ingesting, and about a quarter of the calcium. Compared to vitamins...that's a lot of synthetic, non-essential junk. Especially when you factor in the picky eating that is common at that age...and the fact that preschoolers and school age children are still growing and forming. Anything that is going to affect health will have a greater affect on them just because they are at a more vulnerable stage of development than an adult.
Hyperactivity isn't the only health concern associated with artificial dyes and preservatives, it's only the one that gets the most press because of Dr. Feingold's work. Even cancer may be associated with certain colorings, but studies are still in the works.
Meanwhile, I don't think making bland food look brighter is worth the risk. So, this year, the Easter Bunny is searching out safer treats...resorting to beets and turmeric and black carrot juice to color Surf Sweet or Yummy Earth candies with, and maybe he'll splurge on Annie's Homegrown gummy bunnies.
It won't cost a fortune, because kids don't need a lot of sweet. My kids, anyways, will find plenty of non-edibles in their Easter baskets, and the plastic eggs he hides around the house. You don't need old fashioned jelly beans to have fun. And carrot cake can be just as exciting without multicolored springtime sprinkles.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Franken-food Revisited
We've long known that the unprocessed, unadorned food is most likely found on the outside aisles of the grocery store. Produce, meats, bakery, deli, and refrigerated section are generally on the outside. Work your way in to find cereals, snack bars, soda and the like.
Dieticians caution their clients to stick to the outside aisles. The slow food movement, overlaying a shift towards "real food" and "whole food" diets, encourages people to stick to the outside aisles, where "real" food is.
But what you see isn't always what you get. Pork, for instance, appears to be a slab of meat that was cut from the carcass of a pig. Of course...most of us would rather not think of the logistics of how that slab of meat got from the field to our roasting pan, but we're pretty certain that we could trace it's journey if pressed to do so.
Science is changing everything.
With breaking new research, stem cells harvested from shoulder muscles can be used to grow pork. No pig, no slaughter, no "Sooo-eeeey!" required. Excited researchers tell us that this technology will easily translate to other flesh foods, and potentially be used to design healthier meals. Like burgers that unclog your arteries with "healthy" fish oil.
The thing is...It's still frankenfood. It's frankenfood taken to the limits of Mary Shelley (author of the original Frankenstein)'s wildest nightmares. It stretches the margins of my nightmares. And the worst part?
Scientists are excited.
The article claims that the environmental impact will be impressive. Somehow, my gut tells me their vision isn't of the multitude of industrial waste involved in the chemical production of fake food. Plastic petrie dishes (made either from biodegradable corn or chemical laden petroleum sources), latex gloves, masks, the building itself. Too much can go wrong.
I'm a life long animal lover. A vegetarian who doesn't WANT to tumble. (I'm eating ethically raised poultry but against my desires.) I was once vegan, for the ethics surrounding the issues of animal consumption.
But I say slaughter the poor creatures and be done with it. We can't play G-d by creating new food out of cells and DNA and test tubes. The idea that they're even contemplating it turns my stomach.
Laboratory food is not the answer to world hunger. World hunger is a political problem, causes of hunger are typically financially related rather than a lack of global calories. It's cheaper to stick seeds in the ground, and anyone can do it, regardless of their educational status. Besides, from what I understand the third world countries most in need of quick, convenient calories to save the masses would never accept some trumped up chemical soup. They don't want to simply survive. They want to thrive by their own hands, and they deserve that dignity.
We need to get back in fields, we need to recreate the fields, and start supporting our local farmers. Not just for produce, but for the meats and eggs and dairy products so many of us consume regularly. Shop outside the box...at the farmer's market, or the local co-op. We need to fight franken food before our other options vanish. We've already seen GMO corn, soy and canola quietly infiltrate the food supply. High Fructose corn syrup avoiders are starting to put up a ruckus as they discover how limiting their diet can be. (Much to the amusement of us uncornies, who can't tolerate the corn in artificial sweeteners, let alone the rest of the derivatives.) America dropped the ball on the food dye issue (the bandwagon comes back every now and then, but no one seems to want to jump on. We'd rather follow at a distance.)
With genetically modified seeds running rampant, and foreign genes in our produce, it's not surprising that the meat is the next to go. the question is where are we, as a society, going to put our foot down? Does it have to have an immediate threat to get our attention? If GMO's made our skin turn purple and our spleens explode within 24 hours, they'd get banned. But it doesn't. Like lead and melamine, it takes awhile before the devastating effects can be seen.
Unfortunately, when our entire food supply is at risk (not to mention the potential of our future food supply) one has to wonder just how much more vital it is to be safe rather than sorry. We're already overmedicating mild conditions not suffered by poorer nations. Digestive disturbances, behavioral problems, and childhood epidemics like the 4-As are skyrocketing. Do we need conclusive proof to use our brains and say there's something unnatural about growing food in environmentally controlled petrie dishes instead of ouside in the sun, soil and elements? After all, that's where it was designed to grow. Fruit on trees, veggies on plants, grains as grasses, and meat on animals.
Dieticians caution their clients to stick to the outside aisles. The slow food movement, overlaying a shift towards "real food" and "whole food" diets, encourages people to stick to the outside aisles, where "real" food is.
But what you see isn't always what you get. Pork, for instance, appears to be a slab of meat that was cut from the carcass of a pig. Of course...most of us would rather not think of the logistics of how that slab of meat got from the field to our roasting pan, but we're pretty certain that we could trace it's journey if pressed to do so.
Science is changing everything.
With breaking new research, stem cells harvested from shoulder muscles can be used to grow pork. No pig, no slaughter, no "Sooo-eeeey!" required. Excited researchers tell us that this technology will easily translate to other flesh foods, and potentially be used to design healthier meals. Like burgers that unclog your arteries with "healthy" fish oil.
The thing is...It's still frankenfood. It's frankenfood taken to the limits of Mary Shelley (author of the original Frankenstein)'s wildest nightmares. It stretches the margins of my nightmares. And the worst part?
Scientists are excited.
The article claims that the environmental impact will be impressive. Somehow, my gut tells me their vision isn't of the multitude of industrial waste involved in the chemical production of fake food. Plastic petrie dishes (made either from biodegradable corn or chemical laden petroleum sources), latex gloves, masks, the building itself. Too much can go wrong.
I'm a life long animal lover. A vegetarian who doesn't WANT to tumble. (I'm eating ethically raised poultry but against my desires.) I was once vegan, for the ethics surrounding the issues of animal consumption.
But I say slaughter the poor creatures and be done with it. We can't play G-d by creating new food out of cells and DNA and test tubes. The idea that they're even contemplating it turns my stomach.
Laboratory food is not the answer to world hunger. World hunger is a political problem, causes of hunger are typically financially related rather than a lack of global calories. It's cheaper to stick seeds in the ground, and anyone can do it, regardless of their educational status. Besides, from what I understand the third world countries most in need of quick, convenient calories to save the masses would never accept some trumped up chemical soup. They don't want to simply survive. They want to thrive by their own hands, and they deserve that dignity.
We need to get back in fields, we need to recreate the fields, and start supporting our local farmers. Not just for produce, but for the meats and eggs and dairy products so many of us consume regularly. Shop outside the box...at the farmer's market, or the local co-op. We need to fight franken food before our other options vanish. We've already seen GMO corn, soy and canola quietly infiltrate the food supply. High Fructose corn syrup avoiders are starting to put up a ruckus as they discover how limiting their diet can be. (Much to the amusement of us uncornies, who can't tolerate the corn in artificial sweeteners, let alone the rest of the derivatives.) America dropped the ball on the food dye issue (the bandwagon comes back every now and then, but no one seems to want to jump on. We'd rather follow at a distance.)
With genetically modified seeds running rampant, and foreign genes in our produce, it's not surprising that the meat is the next to go. the question is where are we, as a society, going to put our foot down? Does it have to have an immediate threat to get our attention? If GMO's made our skin turn purple and our spleens explode within 24 hours, they'd get banned. But it doesn't. Like lead and melamine, it takes awhile before the devastating effects can be seen.
Unfortunately, when our entire food supply is at risk (not to mention the potential of our future food supply) one has to wonder just how much more vital it is to be safe rather than sorry. We're already overmedicating mild conditions not suffered by poorer nations. Digestive disturbances, behavioral problems, and childhood epidemics like the 4-As are skyrocketing. Do we need conclusive proof to use our brains and say there's something unnatural about growing food in environmentally controlled petrie dishes instead of ouside in the sun, soil and elements? After all, that's where it was designed to grow. Fruit on trees, veggies on plants, grains as grasses, and meat on animals.
Friday, October 09, 2009
As Halloween approaches, a reason to be Thankful...
Halloween is always tough around here.
For oldest, no dye, no dairy, no gluten. Not much sense in trick or treating!
For youngest, it used to be no nuts, but this year it's no dye (and she passed the peanut challenge! Yay! Although she claims they still smell disgusting.)
Really, there aren't all THAT many options out there.
Of course, the kids made do. And adore our yearly ritual of sorting out the candy into safe piles, and then into piles by type. Then we trade in the junk for safe candy and cheap part favors. This year, they even want to use it in experiments. (As in, how long does it take a skittle to dissolve? An M&M? Jolly Rancher?)
We even have a yearly outing to a local zoo, where various local businesses set up stations and give out non-candy items. (Flower seeds are always a big hit, and they actively seek out the Apple Juice booth. No candy, please, just the juice!)
Anyways, despite the fun it's still hard to go to school and see kids gorge on multicolored confections on the beloved sugar fest we call "Halloween". We know in our heads that junk food tastes good to your tongue, and real food tastes good to your tummy, but in practice, it's hard to pass up sprinkles and gummies and frosting. (even if you have your own delicious treat waiting.)
My oldest even watched a woman bribing her son with skittles in the library, "Just be good. Here, what color? Any color. Good boy. Now be good. Fine, another color. Any color. Come on, yummy. Choose a color. Now be good, stay with...No, come back, fine. Look. Candy! Yummy!" And thanked me for not being that kind of mom. (Thankfully, not many of us are. The kid wasn't even misbehaving, just looking at the books on the shelf.)
But when 'everyone else' is eating something that looks good, smells good, and you know tastes good; and they keep tempting you to just take a tiny taste; it's hard to say no. And it's hard to watch your kids struggle with that self control. Self control that many adults have failed to master. (Just ask anyone whose ever tried a fad diet how often they cheated.)
However, there is a reason to be grateful for forced moderation. British studies show that kids who eat an excess of sugar in their formative years actually may be at increased risk for arrest due to violent crimes. Of course, the next question is why those kids ate so many sweets to begin with. Was it a parenting issue? A chemical imbalance? Were the sweets a cause or a symptom? And was it sugar itself or the rise in the use of petrochemicals in sweets over the past 20 or 30 years? (This is purely my speculation, but clearly an avenue investigators will have to explore further, as you can see in the article.)
At any rate, maybe it will be easier to ignore those naysayers who 'tsk, tsk" and tell me that my poor kids are so terribly deprived. Not only are they missing out on sugar highs, migraines, stomach aches and mood swings, their risk of acquiring a violent criminal record is dropping.
Maybe we should celebrate.
Candy, anyone?
For oldest, no dye, no dairy, no gluten. Not much sense in trick or treating!
For youngest, it used to be no nuts, but this year it's no dye (and she passed the peanut challenge! Yay! Although she claims they still smell disgusting.)
Really, there aren't all THAT many options out there.
Of course, the kids made do. And adore our yearly ritual of sorting out the candy into safe piles, and then into piles by type. Then we trade in the junk for safe candy and cheap part favors. This year, they even want to use it in experiments. (As in, how long does it take a skittle to dissolve? An M&M? Jolly Rancher?)
We even have a yearly outing to a local zoo, where various local businesses set up stations and give out non-candy items. (Flower seeds are always a big hit, and they actively seek out the Apple Juice booth. No candy, please, just the juice!)
Anyways, despite the fun it's still hard to go to school and see kids gorge on multicolored confections on the beloved sugar fest we call "Halloween". We know in our heads that junk food tastes good to your tongue, and real food tastes good to your tummy, but in practice, it's hard to pass up sprinkles and gummies and frosting. (even if you have your own delicious treat waiting.)
My oldest even watched a woman bribing her son with skittles in the library, "Just be good. Here, what color? Any color. Good boy. Now be good. Fine, another color. Any color. Come on, yummy. Choose a color. Now be good, stay with...No, come back, fine. Look. Candy! Yummy!" And thanked me for not being that kind of mom. (Thankfully, not many of us are. The kid wasn't even misbehaving, just looking at the books on the shelf.)
But when 'everyone else' is eating something that looks good, smells good, and you know tastes good; and they keep tempting you to just take a tiny taste; it's hard to say no. And it's hard to watch your kids struggle with that self control. Self control that many adults have failed to master. (Just ask anyone whose ever tried a fad diet how often they cheated.)
However, there is a reason to be grateful for forced moderation. British studies show that kids who eat an excess of sugar in their formative years actually may be at increased risk for arrest due to violent crimes. Of course, the next question is why those kids ate so many sweets to begin with. Was it a parenting issue? A chemical imbalance? Were the sweets a cause or a symptom? And was it sugar itself or the rise in the use of petrochemicals in sweets over the past 20 or 30 years? (This is purely my speculation, but clearly an avenue investigators will have to explore further, as you can see in the article.)
At any rate, maybe it will be easier to ignore those naysayers who 'tsk, tsk" and tell me that my poor kids are so terribly deprived. Not only are they missing out on sugar highs, migraines, stomach aches and mood swings, their risk of acquiring a violent criminal record is dropping.
Maybe we should celebrate.
Candy, anyone?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Avoiding GMOs
Handy trick I just learned from America's Test Kitchen : To find out how fresh produce was grown look at the sticker. The one that has little numbers on it (Penguin likes to decorate her lunchbox with them) It also happens to have a secret code.
In brief: 4 digits indicate conventional produce and usually start with a 3 or a 4. 5 letter digits beginning with a 9 are the sought after "organically grown" fruits and veggies. And 5 letter digits beginning with the number 8 should be avoided at all costs, since they stand for genetically modified organisms.
I suppose you can purchase number 8 if you like...but personally I find the concept of designer DNA disturbing. I'll stick to organics, thank you. Or conventional. Even if there is the very real potential of "drift" from GMO fields. I want my money to say NO to GMO. And support the farmers who are struggling to agree.
In brief: 4 digits indicate conventional produce and usually start with a 3 or a 4. 5 letter digits beginning with a 9 are the sought after "organically grown" fruits and veggies. And 5 letter digits beginning with the number 8 should be avoided at all costs, since they stand for genetically modified organisms.
I suppose you can purchase number 8 if you like...but personally I find the concept of designer DNA disturbing. I'll stick to organics, thank you. Or conventional. Even if there is the very real potential of "drift" from GMO fields. I want my money to say NO to GMO. And support the farmers who are struggling to agree.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Stress? Or endocrine disruption?
Newsflash. A common herbicide, atrazine, has been linked with endocrine disorders among some amphibians. Namely, it chemically castrates adult male frogs. (Among other things) And, it takes a very small level of exposure to do so.
How small? Well, according to Tyrone Hayes in this article, the amount required to cause damage is equivalent to the weight of 5 grains of salt divided by five thousand. And atrazine used in crops (mostly corn) not only contaminates the crops themselves, but the soil and groundwater around them. Runoff reaches rivers, streams and lakes which means that many aquatic ecospheres are affected. (Not to mention human drinking water.)
The problem was brought to light in 2002. Now, in 2009, the EPA has decided to take action and require...not that atrazine be banned, but that 67 chemicals contained in pesticides and herbicides be tested for their impact on the endocrine system and their potential harm to humans. Eventually, all chemicals will be required to undergo testing.
Theoretically, the next step would be to phase out the harmful chemicals, and replace them with...less harmful ones. And, at some point, clean up the mess left behind.
I wonder how long it will take them to look at the pervasive nature of corn in our current society, and examine it's relationship with endocrine and hormonal disorders among us? In February of 2002, researchers released information that corncob bedding inhibited the mating activity of lab rats, and caused problems with hormonal imbalance. The chemicals these problems were traced to are present in fresh corn and tortillas as well as the cobs...in other words; humans are exposed as well. And I haven't found any good studies showing the affect of corn on our endocrine systems.
Perhaps the public will become more concerned if they trace the increased need for viagra to their corn stuffed mattress and super soft ingeo pillows? I suppose that's another symptom the professionals like to blame on stress...
How small? Well, according to Tyrone Hayes in this article, the amount required to cause damage is equivalent to the weight of 5 grains of salt divided by five thousand. And atrazine used in crops (mostly corn) not only contaminates the crops themselves, but the soil and groundwater around them. Runoff reaches rivers, streams and lakes which means that many aquatic ecospheres are affected. (Not to mention human drinking water.)
The problem was brought to light in 2002. Now, in 2009, the EPA has decided to take action and require...not that atrazine be banned, but that 67 chemicals contained in pesticides and herbicides be tested for their impact on the endocrine system and their potential harm to humans. Eventually, all chemicals will be required to undergo testing.
Theoretically, the next step would be to phase out the harmful chemicals, and replace them with...less harmful ones. And, at some point, clean up the mess left behind.
I wonder how long it will take them to look at the pervasive nature of corn in our current society, and examine it's relationship with endocrine and hormonal disorders among us? In February of 2002, researchers released information that corncob bedding inhibited the mating activity of lab rats, and caused problems with hormonal imbalance. The chemicals these problems were traced to are present in fresh corn and tortillas as well as the cobs...in other words; humans are exposed as well. And I haven't found any good studies showing the affect of corn on our endocrine systems.
Perhaps the public will become more concerned if they trace the increased need for viagra to their corn stuffed mattress and super soft ingeo pillows? I suppose that's another symptom the professionals like to blame on stress...
Thursday, December 25, 2008
I want to take a moment to thank everyone for their support. I'm still dealing with a reaction, and some lingering depression; but I know that it's going to be short lived. (Okay, so I don't know. But I really, really hope it is...) And that helps.
Now, for the actual blog entry. The reason I've decided to leave my earlier ramble up is so that I can refer back to it; also so that others who deal with reactions can possibly relate. Any kind of GI trouble is so socially taboo that it feels isolating, it's not something we talk about. And when we feel better; we try not to think about it. Don't know about you, but I try really hard not to relive moments of physical pain.
Through the e-mails and message boards I frequent, I've been given a lot to consider regarding the relationship between depression and reactions; though I'm not a doctor and I haven't put it all together yet I'd like to start listing it here. I'm not writing at my best, so you'll have to bear with me.
First, and foremost, it's depressing not to feel well. It's even more frustrating when you feel as if you go above and beyond to isolate yourself, to be "different" and still you end up getting sick. Why not give in, live cheap and easy? You're just going to get sick anyways.
This is an "in-your-head" type reaction, but it's human and a valid response. I'm past the isolation, mostly. While I miss the idea of restaurants, I don't miss eating out because I did make the connection that they "hurt" me. And I think that a daily grind would drain me, even if it didn't make me collapse. But it is depressing to spend twice as much on food than a "normal" variation and then have trouble keeping it down.
On the physical level, it's worth noting that the gut is responsible for the production of seratonin. Seratonin is a hormone that affects mood. Most antidepressants work by increasing seratonin levels in the body.
GI reactions cause inflammation in the lining of the gut. In the case of celiac disease, actual physical damage is caused when the immune system kicks in and attacks the lining of the small intestine. Theoretically, this damage could (and would) affect the production of seratonin. Lowered levels of seratonin=depression.
Also of note, researchers recently found that people who are under a lot of stress at the onslaught of a reaction typically have longer or re-curring symptoms which do not respond effectively to medication (antihistamines). These reactions may be caused by increased levels of cytokines like IL-6 or stress hormones called catecholamines. This study was limited to participants experiencing typical environmental allergies---runny nose, watery eyes etc. However, since mild food allergies are treated with anti-histamines as well, one would think the theory should cross into the realm of food allergies.
This supports the frustrating fact that I, at least, find myself reacting worst when it's least convenient. (Like I volunteered to do yard duty or drive the carpool.) The incidents when I end up berating myself because it must be in my head may actually be in my cytokines. :P
I found more discussion on the connection between allergies and depression in an article from Ron Hoggan, MA and James Braly MD here:
Then there is the theory put forth by Dr. Theron Randolph; that some food induced reactions can cause "brain allergy". Dr. Abram Hoffer reports that depression and allergy often co-exist in his patients.
Lastly, but not least, a GI reaction causes inflammation. This inflammation affects the functioning of the GI tract, possibly for a long time after the original antibodies have subsided. As I was one told...If you scrape your knee, it doesn't matter what kind of knee-socks you wear. The fabric rubbing over it is going to keep the scrape raw. And it's difficult to rest your digestive tract. And if you do choose to fast, there's a recovery period. And when you're already at least 10 pounds underweight, then your recovery period is going to be longer. The prospect is daunting and a long recovery period can be likened to chronic illness, the stress of long periods of not feeling well coupled with a sense of "when is this going to hit again" would take a toll on anyone.
So, there it is. I'm not lying in bed letting the depression overtake me, I'm reading and learning more. Now, if only the medical personnel weren't trained to look at all the symptoms, shrug and say with a confident, sympathetic smile..."Hon, I think you're just under too much stress."
Sure, stress is a piece of the puzzle. But it isn't the only one.
Now, for the actual blog entry. The reason I've decided to leave my earlier ramble up is so that I can refer back to it; also so that others who deal with reactions can possibly relate. Any kind of GI trouble is so socially taboo that it feels isolating, it's not something we talk about. And when we feel better; we try not to think about it. Don't know about you, but I try really hard not to relive moments of physical pain.
Through the e-mails and message boards I frequent, I've been given a lot to consider regarding the relationship between depression and reactions; though I'm not a doctor and I haven't put it all together yet I'd like to start listing it here. I'm not writing at my best, so you'll have to bear with me.
First, and foremost, it's depressing not to feel well. It's even more frustrating when you feel as if you go above and beyond to isolate yourself, to be "different" and still you end up getting sick. Why not give in, live cheap and easy? You're just going to get sick anyways.
This is an "in-your-head" type reaction, but it's human and a valid response. I'm past the isolation, mostly. While I miss the idea of restaurants, I don't miss eating out because I did make the connection that they "hurt" me. And I think that a daily grind would drain me, even if it didn't make me collapse. But it is depressing to spend twice as much on food than a "normal" variation and then have trouble keeping it down.
On the physical level, it's worth noting that the gut is responsible for the production of seratonin. Seratonin is a hormone that affects mood. Most antidepressants work by increasing seratonin levels in the body.
GI reactions cause inflammation in the lining of the gut. In the case of celiac disease, actual physical damage is caused when the immune system kicks in and attacks the lining of the small intestine. Theoretically, this damage could (and would) affect the production of seratonin. Lowered levels of seratonin=depression.
Also of note, researchers recently found that people who are under a lot of stress at the onslaught of a reaction typically have longer or re-curring symptoms which do not respond effectively to medication (antihistamines). These reactions may be caused by increased levels of cytokines like IL-6 or stress hormones called catecholamines. This study was limited to participants experiencing typical environmental allergies---runny nose, watery eyes etc. However, since mild food allergies are treated with anti-histamines as well, one would think the theory should cross into the realm of food allergies.
This supports the frustrating fact that I, at least, find myself reacting worst when it's least convenient. (Like I volunteered to do yard duty or drive the carpool.) The incidents when I end up berating myself because it must be in my head may actually be in my cytokines. :P
I found more discussion on the connection between allergies and depression in an article from Ron Hoggan, MA and James Braly MD here:
...celiac disease would probably be found in a relatively small, but significant percentage, of those afflicted. The prior two conditions of enzyme deficiency and intestinal permeability are abundantly found when sought, and it is these features which, we suspect, dominate the segment of the population which is chronically depressed.Enzyme deficiency would cause insufficient digestion of cereal grains, which then convert to morphine-like substances that can then pass through the permeable intestinal wall. Causing depression and other side effects.
Then there is the theory put forth by Dr. Theron Randolph; that some food induced reactions can cause "brain allergy". Dr. Abram Hoffer reports that depression and allergy often co-exist in his patients.
Lastly, but not least, a GI reaction causes inflammation. This inflammation affects the functioning of the GI tract, possibly for a long time after the original antibodies have subsided. As I was one told...If you scrape your knee, it doesn't matter what kind of knee-socks you wear. The fabric rubbing over it is going to keep the scrape raw. And it's difficult to rest your digestive tract. And if you do choose to fast, there's a recovery period. And when you're already at least 10 pounds underweight, then your recovery period is going to be longer. The prospect is daunting and a long recovery period can be likened to chronic illness, the stress of long periods of not feeling well coupled with a sense of "when is this going to hit again" would take a toll on anyone.
So, there it is. I'm not lying in bed letting the depression overtake me, I'm reading and learning more. Now, if only the medical personnel weren't trained to look at all the symptoms, shrug and say with a confident, sympathetic smile..."Hon, I think you're just under too much stress."
Sure, stress is a piece of the puzzle. But it isn't the only one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)