Thread: Social Anxiety
View Single Post
  #108 (permalink)  
Old 19th May 2002, 01:34 AM
bwv11 bwv11 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 1,020
bwv11
Post

Hi Tom.

Sorry its taken so long for me to get back to you, but time is scarce, and sometimes so is brain power. But in any case, I am encouraged by your statement that you don’t do anything without a good reason, because as it happens that parallels one of my cardinal principles of clinical practice: explain what you mean so it is clear, even if that means going into detail about abstract theoretical principles. The more you explain, at least if you can be clear about it, the better chance your patient has of understanding and using your input. But be forewarned: one consequence of this posture is that I can be rather longwinded, and also enjoy following every tangential thought that comes my way. I will try to stay on task however, but forgive me if this gets too long.

By way of introduction: 1) I am speaking of dairy products as a whole, not just eggs; 2) in addictions, and also in ‘allergies,’ as I understand it, those things one craves the most are likely to be the things that do the most damage; 3) consuming mother’s milk (eggs are mother’s milk to baby chickens) into adulthood is unnatural, not found in any species but our own, much less consuming mother’s milk from another species (this is completely true of milk; there are a few exceptions in the form of nest robbers when it comes to eggs); 4) like all animal products, dairy is associated with high fat content and cholesterol and so forth, which are linked to a host of physical illnesses—the fact that they are not clearly linked to emotional disorders is due mainly to a lack of research; 5) the multi-million dollar lactaid industry didn’t get that big with only a few hypersensitive people in the marketplace; 6) anything that can’t be eaten raw can’t be eaten in a state of nature (i.e., before fire), which I think should be the ultimate test for whether a food item should be included in our diets. See the Fit for Life books by the Diamonds for more information. I’m happy to spend more of your space talking about these issues if there’s an interest.

Anyway, one thing I don’t do, when talking about diet, is argue from the point of view of nutritional value. For one thing, I’m a behavioral scientist, not a physician nor a nutritionist, and I’m not licensed for that. But more important, I really don’t know a carbohydrate from a protein from a calorie. My argument, in brief, is based on clinical observation couched within what I hope is a reasonable theory. My comments today draw primarily on clinical observation, with only a couple little side trips into theory. Briefly, I came upon this treatment intervention accidentally, several years ago, in speaking with a mother about a fire setting incident with her 3 year old son. It came out in the interview that an hour or two before he set the fire, the child had had a chocolate sundae. I put this fact together with my knowledge of his history, which included sensitivity to dairy products as an infant. Because his behavior was so destructive, and because nothing else had helped, I felt that an ‘experiment’ with an unusual and untried intervention—eliminating dairy—was worth a try. As it happens, it worked, and over the years I gradually applied this intervention to an increasing variety of cases, often with success.

Which brings us to you: let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that eggs are definitely bad for you and should be eliminated from your diet entirely. Even so, there are other factors to consider. For example, if you are, as I have suggested, “addicted” (I use the term somewhat loosely) to eggs, then that indicates there may be withdrawal symptoms, or something like withdrawal, and this in turn suggests that perhaps a gradual weaning off the eggs may be desirable. In actual practice, some people do fine eliminating dairy products in one fell swoop, while others have to cut back bit by bit. It is best to do it all at once if at all possible (and please note, I am in fact talking about milk and eggs and everything made from them, not just eggs). Even after establishing a dairy-free diet, there may be times, even years later, when cravings become so strong that one ‘relapses.’ It is good if these impulses can be resisted, but it is not a tragedy if you cave in to desire, unless you persist in satisfying these cravings to such a degree that old symptoms return. Truthfully, those people that show the most dramatic improvement on this diet are very unlikely to relapse; and if they do, they are likely to get back on the wagon very quickly: the improvement in well-being from resisting dairy foods is that much greater than the gratification that comes from fulfilling your cravings!

Further, one should not be surprised if eating these ‘harmful’ substances actually makes you feel better. This apparent contradiction is resolved if we remember that eggs, or other dairy products, are in fact foods and do in fact have ‘nutritional value’. They may have even more nutritional value in some respects than ‘natural’ foods, such as fruit. More protein, for example. But this can be a mixed blessing, contributing, for example, to both extra strength and high blood pressure. Of course, there are so many ‘facts’ we are always assured of complications and counterarguments: for example, remember that some of the largest and most powerful of primates are fruitarians. They too require protein, and get its building blocks from fruit, more efficiently, in fact, than we get ours when we get it from meat: the whole protein of meats needs to be broken down by our systems before its constituent parts are reconstituted in a form that can be utilized by our bodies.

The essential kernel of my argument, though, is very simple: many people in my practice have shown striking and lasting symptomatic improvement after eliminating dairy from their diets. That’s it.

Building on this, I move to a practical matter, namely, that trying a dairy free diet is easy, inexpensive, and quick: at most, you need to stick with it for a month or so to know whether it will have any immediate benefit. People who respond very quickly and very dramatically tend to be those who experience serious problems with temper, whether children or adults. Problems with depression and anxiety tend to react more gradually. I would certainly stay with the diet for a full month before making a decision. At the end of the month, if you don’t notice a difference, carefully ‘re-take’ your case, to borrow a term from our homeopathic colleagues. Frequently, in talking to a patient, they will state that there really hasn’t been any change, but during the course of the hour, they will mention in passing 2 or 3 things that have happened recently, minor things, barely noticed, that reflect a new attitude or a somewhat different response to recurring situations. These subtle indicators usually reflect that the diet is having an effect and should be given a lengthier trial.

But the range of responses to this diet is wide: from dramatic change literally within a day, to moderate or mild improvement over the course of a week to a month, to no change whatsoever. If there is no change, people usually give up the diet, though some adopt it in modified form because it seems ‘healthier.’ If there is a mild to moderate improvement, then the choices people make are varied: some stick with it, at least to a degree, but don’t give it a whole-hearted endorsement, others just drop it, feeling that its not worth it to sacrifice what is for them a very satisfying part of their diet.

That’s essentially it. The main point is simple: some people are helped by the diet. Why not try it? (Standard disclaimer, which has merits aside from being standard: check with your doctor before making any such change. Ordinarily there is no problem, but I have had situations in which existing health concerns impacted my recommendation due to the interaction of specific nutritional factors in a concurrent ‘illness;’ thus, though this usually turns out to be a perfunctory recommendation, it still should not be taken lightly.)

Hope this helps. Please feel free to press for details.
__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


Reply With Quote