What’s the difference between ADD and ADHD?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Around one in 20 people has attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It’s one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood and often continues into adulthood.
ADHD is diagnosed when people experience problems with inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity that negatively impacts them at school or work, in social settings and at home.
Some people call the condition attention-deficit disorder, or ADD. So what’s the difference?
In short, what was previously called ADD is now known as ADHD. So how did we get here?
Let’s start with some history
The first clinical description of children with inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity was in 1902. British paediatrician Professor George Still presented a series of lectures about his observations of 43 children who were defiant, aggressive, undisciplined and extremely emotional or passionate.
Since then, our understanding of the condition evolved and made its way into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the DSM. Clinicians use the DSM to diagnose mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions.
The first DSM, published in 1952, did not include a specific related child or adolescent category. But the second edition, published in 1968, included a section on behaviour disorders in young people. It referred to ADHD-type characteristics as “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood or adolescence”. This described the excessive, involuntary movement of children with the disorder.
In the early 1980s, the third DSM added a condition it called “attention deficit disorder”, listing two types: attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADDH) and attention deficit disorder as the subtype without the hyperactivity.
However, seven years later, a revised DSM (DSM-III-R) replaced ADD (and its two sub-types) with ADHD and three sub-types we have today:
- predominantly inattentive
- predominantly hyperactive-impulsive
- combined.
Why change ADD to ADHD?
ADHD replaced ADD in the DSM-III-R in 1987 for a number of reasons.
First was the controversy and debate over the presence or absence of hyperactivity: the “H” in ADHD. When ADD was initially named, little research had been done to determine the similarities and differences between the two sub-types.
The next issue was around the term “attention-deficit” and whether these deficits were similar or different across both sub-types. Questions also arose about the extent of these differences: if these sub-types were so different, were they actually different conditions?
Meanwhile, a new focus on inattention (an “attention deficit”) recognised that children with inattentive behaviours may not necessarily be disruptive and challenging but are more likely to be forgetful and daydreamers.
Why do some people use the term ADD?
There was a surge of diagnoses in the 1980s. So it’s understandable that some people still hold onto the term ADD.
Some may identify as having ADD because out of habit, because this is what they were originally diagnosed with or because they don’t have hyperactivity/impulsivity traits.
Others who don’t have ADHD may use the term they came across in the 80s or 90s, not knowing the terminology has changed.
How is ADHD currently diagnosed?
The three sub-types of ADHD, outlined in the DSM-5 are:
- predominantly inattentive. People with the inattentive sub-type have difficulty sustaining concentration, are easily distracted and forgetful, lose things frequently, and are unable to follow detailed instructions
- predominantly hyperactive-impulsive. Those with this sub-type find it hard to be still, need to move constantly in structured situations, frequently interrupt others, talk non-stop and struggle with self control
- combined. Those with the combined sub-type experience the characteristics of those who are inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive.
ADHD diagnoses continue to rise among children and adults. And while ADHD was commonly diagnosed in boys, more recently we have seen growing numbers of girls and women seeking diagnoses.
However, some international experts contest the expanded definition of ADHD, driven by clinical practice in the United States. They argue the challenges of unwanted behaviours and educational outcomes for young people with the condition are uniquely shaped by each country’s cultural, political and local factors.
Regardless of the name change to reflect what we know about the condition, ADHD continues to impact educational, social and life situations of many children, adolescents and adults.
Kathy Gibbs, Program Director for the Bachelor of Education, Griffith University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Beetroot vs Zucchini – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing beetroot to zucchini, we picked the beetroot.
Why?
Both have their strong virtues! But…
In terms of macros, beetroot has more fiber, carbs, and protein, winning in this round.
In the category of vitamins, beetroot has more vitamin B9, while zucchini has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, C, E, K, and choline, winning easily.
Looking at minerals; this imbalance gets flipped: beetroot has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while zucchini is not higher in any minerals; a total win here for beetroot.
In other considerations, beetroot has more polyphenols, especially quercetin, and beetroot’s other phytochemical benefits are so numerous we’ll not list them here, and just recommend checking out the link below!
Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for beetroot, but zucchini were much stronger in the vitamin category, so by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Beetroot For More Than Just Your Blood Pressure ← more beetroot benefits
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Slowing the Progression of Cataracts
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Understanding Cataracts
Cataracts are natural and impact everyone.
That’s a bit of a daunting opening line, but as Dr. Michele Lee, a board-certified ophthalmologist, explains, cataracts naturally develop with age, and can be accelerated by factors such as trauma, certain medications, and specific eye conditions.
We know how important your vision is to you (we’ve had great feedback about the book Vision for Life) as well as our articles on how glasses impact your eyesight and the effects of using eye drops.
While complete prevention isn’t possible, steps such as those mentioned below can be taken to slow their progression.
Here is an overview of the video’s first 3 takeaways. You can watch the whole video below.
Protect Your Eyes from Sunlight
Simply put, UV light damages lens proteins, which (significantly) contributes to cataracts. Wearing sunglasses can supposedly prevent up to 20% of cataracts caused by UV exposure.
Moderate Alcohol Consumption
We all, at some level, know that alcohol consumption doesn’t do us any good. Your eye health isn’t an exception to the rule; alcohol has been shown to contribute to cataract development.
If you’re looking at reducing your alcohol use, try reading this guide on lowering, or eradicating, alcohol consumption.
Avoid Smoking
Smokers are 2-3 times more likely to develop cataracts. Additionally, ensure good ventilation while cooking to avoid exposure to harmful indoor smoke.
See all 5 steps in the below video:
How was the video? If you’ve discovered any great videos yourself that you’d like to share with fellow 10almonds readers, then please do email them to us!
Share This Post
-
Can a child legally take puberty blockers? What if their parents disagree?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Young people’s access to gender-affirming medical care has been making headlines this week.
Today, federal Health Minister Mark Butler announced a review into health care for trans and gender-diverse children and adolescents. The National Health and Medical Research Council will conduct the review.
Yesterday, The Australian published an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calling for a federal inquiry, and a nationwide pause on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors.
This followed Queensland Health Minister Tim Nicholls earlier this week announcing an immediate pause on access to puberty blockers and hormone therapies for new patients under 18 in the state’s public health system, pending a review.
In the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week directing federal agencies to restrict access to gender-affirming care for anyone under 19.
This recent wave of political attention might imply gender-affirming care for young people is risky, controversial, perhaps even new.
But Australian courts have already extensively tested questions about its legitimacy, the conditions under which it can be provided, and the scope and limits of parental powers to authorise it.
MirasWonderland/Shutterstock What are puberty blockers?
Puberty blockers suppress the release of oestrogen and testosterone, which are primarily responsible for the physical changes associated with puberty. They are generally safe and used in paediatric medicine for various conditions, including precocious (early) puberty, hormone disorders and some hormone-sensitive cancers.
International and domestic standards of care state that puberty blockers are reversible, non-harmful, and can prevent young people from experiencing the distress of undergoing a puberty that does not align with their gender identity. They also give young people time to develop the maturity needed to make informed decisions about more permanent medical interventions further down the line.
Puberty blockers are one type of gender-affirming care. This care includes medical, psychological and social interventions to support transgender, gender-diverse and, in some cases, intersex people.
Young people in Australia need a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria to receive this care. Gender dysphoria is defined as the psychological distress that can arise when a person’s gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth. This diagnosis is only granted after an exhaustive and often onerous medical assessment.
After a diagnosis, treatment may involve hormones such as oestrogen or testosterone and/or puberty-blocking medications.
Hormone therapies involving oestrogen and testosterone are only prescribed in Australia once a young person has been deemed capable of giving informed consent, usually around the age of 16. For puberty blockers, parents can consent at a younger age.
Gender dysphoria comes with considerable psychological distress. slexp880/Shutterstock Can a child legally access puberty blockers?
Gender-affirming care has been the subject of extensive debate in the Family Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court).
Between 2004 and 2017, every minor who wanted to access gender-affirming care had to apply for a judge to approve it. However, medical professionals, human rights organisations and some judges condemned this process.
In research for my forthcoming book, I found the Family Court has heard at least 99 cases about a young person’s gender-affirming care since 2004. Across these cases, the court examined the potential risks of gender-affirming treatment and considered whether parents should have the authority to consent on their child’s behalf.
When determining whether parents can consent to a particular medical procedure for their child, the court must consider whether the treatment is “therapeutic” and whether there is a significant risk of a wrong decision being made.
However, in a landmark 2017 case, the court ruled that judicial oversight was not required because gender-affirming treatments meet the standards of normal medical care.
It reasoned that because these therapies address an internationally recognised medical condition, are supported by leading professional medical organisations, and are backed by robust clinical research, there is no justification for treating them differently from any other standard medical intervention. These principles still stand today.
What if parents disagree?
Sometimes parents disagree with decisions about gender-affirming care made by their child, or each other.
As with all forms of health care, under Australian law, parents and legal guardians are responsible for making medical decisions on behalf of their children. That responsibility usually shifts once those children reach a sufficient age and level of maturity to make their own decisions.
However, in another landmark case in 2020, the court ruled gender-affirming treatments cannot be given to minors without consent from both parents, even if the child is capable of providing their own consent. This means that if there is any disagreement among parents and the young person about either their capacity to consent or the legitimacy of the treatment, only a judge can authorise it.
In such instances, the court must assess whether the proposed treatment is in the child’s best interests and make a determination accordingly. Again, these principals apply today.
If a parent disagrees with their child, the matter can go to court. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Have the courts ever denied care?
Across the at least 99 cases the court has heard about gender-affirming care since 2004, 17 have involved a parent opposing the treatment and one has involved neither parent supporting it.
Regardless of parental support, in every case, the court has been responsible for determining whether gender-affirming treatment was in the child’s best interests. These decisions were based on medical evidence, expert testimony, and the specific circumstances of the young person involved.
In all cases bar one, the court has found overwhelming evidence to support gender-affirming care, and approved it.
Supporting transgender young people
The history of Australia’s legal debates about gender-affirming care shows it has already been the subject of intense legal and medical scrutiny.
Gender-affirming care is already difficult for young people to access, with many lacking the parental support required or facing other barriers to care.
Gender-affirming care is potentially life-saving, or at the very least life-affirming. It almost invariably leads to better social and emotional outcomes. Further restricting access is not the “protection” its opponents claim.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. For LGBTQIA+ peer support and resources, you can also contact Switchboard, QLife (call 1800 184 527), Queerspace, Transcend Australia (support for trans, gender-diverse, and non-binary young people and their families) or Minus18 (resources and community support for LGBTQIA+ young people).
Matthew Mitchell, Lecturer in Criminology, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Cut Back Pain Risk By 24% With This Norwegian Habit
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Back pain is quite a pain. However, a team of Norwegian researchers (Dr. Anne Nordstoga et al.) have investigated the effect of a popular Norwegian pastime:
Spasetur.
Or rusletur.
Or if you’re feeling extra casual about it, maybe slentrende rusler.
Or perhaps just simply vandring.
Or in plain English: walking!
Here be science
Lest that seem unduly built-up with dramatic tension for something so simple as walking, don’t worry, there is more to be said too, because the research shone light on what the most important aspect of walking is, when it comes not just to health in general, but also the reduction of back pain incidence specifically.
- Is it about distance?
- Time spent walking?
- Walking speed?
- Weight carried?
- Something else?
This study focused on amount and intensity, including taking both factors into account at once.
For example, perhaps one person walks quickly but for less time, while another takes longer to do the same walk. Whose walk was best for their back? The person who walked more briskly, or the one who walked for more time?
Dr. Nordstoga and her team found that walking more and at a higher average intensity both lowered the risk of developing chronic low back pain, but that the most impactful factor was time spent walking, even when adjustments were made for “metabolic equivalent time” (MET), i.e. taking into account that a person walking quickly enough to get attain a higher percentage of their maximum heartrate is doing the metabolic equivalent of walking for longer. Not even this could make walking more quickly compare positively to simply walking more.
Looking at data from 11,194 people participating in the Trøndelag Health Study, they found, category by category,
Walking volume: compared to people walking less than 78 minutes per day:
- 78–100 minutes daily: 13% lower risk
- 101–124 minutes daily: 23% lower risk
- 125+ minutes daily: 24% lower risk
Walking intensity: compared to people walking at less than 3.00 MET per minute (very easy pace):
- 3.00–3.11 MET/min: 15% lower risk
- 3.12–3.26 MET/min: 18% lower risk
- 3.27+ MET/min: 18% lower risk
Adjusted results: even when accounting for both volume and intensity together, walking volume remained strongly protective, while intensity mattered less
You can find the study itself, here: Volume and Intensity of Walking and Risk of Chronic Low Back Pain
You may be wondering: “I thought we were supposed to get 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week; who has time for 125+ minutes of walking per day?”
And the answer is: “moderate” exercise isn’t what’s being counted here, as (per the paper), what was counted was slow, moderate, or brisk walking. In other words, the “slow” counted too, and your accelerometer (i.e. the device measuring your walking habits) neither knows nor cares whether you were only walking around your house doing housework, it’ll add it to the total.
In summary: if you’d like to reduce your lower back pain risk by 24%, then not only should you get walking if you reasonably can, but also, when you do, it can be good to take your time strolling casually!
Want to learn more?
Some extra things you might want to bear in mind:
- How To Walk Away From Alzheimer’s
- Can “Light Activity” Really Help Against Osteoporosis?
- What Your Fitness Tracker Is Best & Worst At
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
How To Eat To Lose Belly Fat (3 Stages)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Belly fat is easier to gain than it is to lose, and it’s absolutely something that needs more attention in the kitchen than in the gym. Here’s one way of doing it:
By the numbers
First note: this video is by a man, and judging by the numbers mentioned, assumes that the viewer is also a man. An end goal of 10% body fat is a little on the low side for men, and would be dangerous for women. The magic 15% mark that he mentions as being a point where various metabolic things change, is more like 20% for women. All assuming normal hormones, of course, since it is hormones that direct this.
Healthy body fat percentages are (assuming normal hormones) in the range of 20–25% for women and 15–20% for men.
With that in mind…
The idea of this approach is to lose enough weight that your body gets rid of even the most awkward bits (e.g: visceral belly fat, which will often be the last to get used) before, if desired, then maintaining at a slightly higher body fat percentage.
- Stage 1: count calories (we don’t usually recommend this at 10almonds, but he does, so we’re reporting it here) and use your weight in pounds multiplied by 12 to give your daily calorie target. Make the majority of your diet foods that have a large volume:calorie ratio, such as fruits and vegetables, in order to feel full without overloading your metabolism. He has an interesting method of calculating a protein target; instead of the usual “1g/kg of body weight”, he says 1g per cm of height. Doing this consistently should get you to 15% body fat (so, 20%, for women).
- Stage 2: start counting fat intake too, and aim for 20–25% of your daily calories as fat. Continue, aside from that, with what you were doing in Stage 1. Doing this consistently should get you to 12% body fat (so, about 17%, for women). Being under the usual healthy level for a while should allow your body to start getting rid of visceral fat.
- Stage 3: track everything, levelling up your precision (no more “this little thing doesn’t count”), and planning ahead when it comes to social events etc. Doing this consistently should yet you to 10% body fat (so, about 15%, for women). This stage has a good chance of making most people miserable, so if that happens, consider the benefits of going back to the healthier 15% body fat (men) or 20% (women).
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Visceral Belly Fat & How To Lose It ← without calorie-counting! We prefer this 😉
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Parsley vs Watercress – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing parsley to watercress, we picked the parsley.
Why?
It wasn’t close:
In terms of macros, parsley has more than 6x the fiber, more than 4x the carbs, and slightly more protein, winning this round.
In the category of vitamins, parsley has much more of vitamins A, B3, B5, B7, B9, C, K, and choline, while watercress has slightly more of vitamins B2, B6, and E, making a compelling win for parsley.
Looking at minerals, parsley has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, potassium, and zinc, while watercress has more manganese and selenium, meaning another easy win for parsley.
In other considerations, parsley scores higher on polyphenols, winning this round too.
Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for parsley, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
