new foods

[baddad]

i dont think an NT would starve themselves if they couldnt have access to their desired foods though?

Alexis

Some would, and I suspect percentage wise in similar numbers to those faddy eaters with autism who would.

One of the major differences, though, when autism is a factor is that it is assumed to be part of their autism and the responses differ accordingly.

It's really odd, but most parent's/autistic people/professionals etc are strong opponents of 'heirarchy of diagnosis' for things like verbal mannerisms, hyperactivity) etc and will spend years fighting to get these 'co-morbids' individually diagnosed and defined (tourettes/adhd), even though elements of these behaviours can be symptomatic of the 'official' ASD diagnostic criteria. But move away from those things into other areas that are regular observed in the NT population, (behavioural problems, psychological problems, anger management issues, violence, aggression, faddy eating etc etc) ans suddenly those same people will fight tooth and claw to defend 'heirarchy of diagnosis' and say - "oh, no, that's down to his/her autism that is" and demand a different sort of response entirely - usually some sort of accommodation that would be considered completely unreasonable for an NT displaying exactly the same behaviour...

Now me, I'm all for (as i've said, frequently) holistic assessment rather than assumptions. It is unreasonable, impractical, unhelpful and a denial to move the goalposts just because is suits us (the parent/autistic person/professional) to do so. The words 'cake' and 'eat it' come to mind - ironic, really, in a thread about faddy eating!

 

L&P

 

BD

 

PS: just to add - as I posted earlier in this thread (i think?) I do believe that it can be more problematic to eradicate problematic bahaviours in autistic children when they have been established, and it is reasonable to make some concessions and develop practical strategies on that basis. But fundamentally, the problem, in more cases than not, is the same as in NT's and the solutions fundamentally the same too. The OP has had two breakthroughs in a matter of days just by applying that kind of logic. Should we devalue her and her children's achievements by suggesting that her children's problems are not the same as the kids who haven't achieved those breakthroughs yet?

 

 

 

[Suze]

i dont think an NT would starve themselves if they couldnt have access to their desired foods though? Also to me SID is part of autism and also your kids could be part of the "broader autistic phenotype" ie have some traits but not enough for a diagnosis. i wrote a few pages on selective eating and why it was different in autism to NT kids. It was part of my final paper at university (literature review).

 

Alexis

 

 

I did, when I was a child, I regularly refused food ,particularly school dinners, and as I mentioned earlier on a school trip which lasted 5 days I ate virtually nothing at all , the sandwiches had tomatoes on and were covered in stork marg which I could smell a mile off so there was no way I,d eat them.They also gave us a slice of fruit cake aswell, so I ate nothing .......did,nt eat breakfast as it was full fat milk and that made me wretch , evening meals were a toss up .........

 

any how, I do believe that these problems are not exclusive to autism , my own kids are a good example of this as I am .I ,m of the opinion that SID can affect across NT/ASD and that all can have it in varying degrees.I myself have a very varied diet now and no longer sufffer from headache smells from food, wretching and sickness, I think I,ve learned to cope.As a child though food filled me with horror and dread, as my reactions to it were so extreme.My ASD son was/is the same , but like me as he gets older he is improving...........for me trying new foods /tastes was a nightmare as a child.

 

 

just wondered how you believe you can tell that the reason for selective eating in autism is different from that shown in NT kids.

 

[trekster]

Some would, and I suspect percentage wise in similar numbers to those faddy eaters with autism who would.

One of the major differences, though, when autism is a factor is that it is assumed to be part of their autism and the responses differ accordingly.

It's really odd, but most parent's/autistic people/professionals etc are strong opponents of 'hierarchy of diagnosis' for things like verbal mannerisms, hyperactivity) etc and will spend years fighting to get these 'co-morbids' individually diagnosed and defined (tourettes/adhd), even though elements of these behaviours can be symptomatic of the 'official' ASD diagnostic criteria. But move away from those things into other areas that are regular observed in the NT population, (behavioural problems, psychological problems, anger management issues, violence, aggression, faddy eating etc etc) ans suddenly those same people will fight tooth and claw to defend 'hierarchy of diagnosis' and say - "oh, no, that's down to his/her autism that is" and demand a different sort of response entirely - usually some sort of accommodation that would be considered completely unreasonable for an NT displaying exactly the same behaviour...

 

The DDA mentions reasonable adjustments "even if non disabled people miss out". Im only speaking from the experience ive had in talking with other parents, autistics and reading books about autism and x behaviour characteristic. i can see the irony (or should that be hypocrisy not sure of the right term here) of refusing to diagnose ADHD in a kid but then giving a challenging beh or other unhelpful term to that same kid.

 

According to many different texts on autism a different response is needed for certain behaviours in autistics. The asperger lens for example would describe why a kid took a screwdriver to school for example (he wanted to get the bullies that were teasing him), this was resolved by having someone escort the individual between classes. If that had been an NT attempts to deal with it could have been made.

Now me, I'm all for (as i've said, frequently) holistic assessment rather than assumptions. It is unreasonable, impractical, unhelpful and a denial to move the goalposts just because is suits us (the parent/autistic person/professional) to do so. The words 'cake' and 'eat it' come to mind - ironic, really, in a thread about faddy eating!

 

im not making assumptions though, im reading the literature ive been provided for my autism degree course to see if there is evidence of that behaviour in those books. If there weren't then i wouldn't be mentioning the differences between selective eating and faddy eating. Take selective silence as another example, a friend of mine has an asperger selective silent kid, methods to treat selective silence failed on her son. This was despite being treated by an expert in the field. i wouldnt dare move the goalposts out of convenience.

L&P

 

BD

 

PS: just to add - as I posted earlier in this thread (i think?) I do believe that it can be more problematic to eradicate problematic behaviours in autistic children when they have been established, and it is reasonable to make some concessions and develop practical strategies on that basis. But fundamentally, the problem, in more cases than not, is the same as in NT's and the solutions fundamentally the same too. The OP has had two breakthroughs in a matter of days just by applying that kind of logic. Should we devalue her and her children's achievements by suggesting that her children's problems are not the same as the kids who haven't achieved those breakthroughs yet?

 

 

Im with you on the practical strategies side of things. i often attempt to encourage independent thinking in the members of our social groups. A few members (no one on here i might add) phone or text me asking "whens the next social group". My response is always the x day of the month (2nd Tuesday for example) or between x date and y date each month. i often get asked silly questions about the newsletters i edit, eg "alexis wishes to eat at la tasca restaurant so she can get used to the surroundings" clearly indicated it was before the social group. i was still asked when it was despite it being on the newsletter. Also mentioned lunch as if i would get a 45min bus either way just to have lunch somewhere?

 

You seem to be saying that autism is a coincidence with many behaviours described on this forum? im not devaluing anyone's efforts or achievements just because OPs kid is overcoming their selective eating.

 

Alexis

 

[trekster]

I did, when I was a child, I regularly refused food, particularly school dinners, and as I mentioned earlier on a school trip which lasted 5 days I ate virtually nothing at all , the sandwiches had tomatoes on and were covered in stork marg which I could smell a mile off so there was no way I,d eat them.They also gave us a slice of fruit cake as well, so I ate nothing .......didn't eat breakfast as it was full fat milk and that made me wretch, evening meals were a toss up .........

 

You could be part of the "broader autistic phenotype" though (where you have some autistic traits but not enough for a diagnosis).

any how, I do believe that these problems are not exclusive to autism, my own kids are a good example of this as I am. I'm of the opinion that SID can affect across NT/ASD and that all can have it in varying degrees. I myself have a very varied diet now and no longer suffer from headache smells from food, wretching and sickness, I think I,ve learned to cope. As a child though food filled me with horror and dread, as my reactions to it were so extreme. My ASD son was/is the same, but like me as he gets older he is improving...........for me trying new foods /tastes was a nightmare as a child.

 

 

just wondered how you believe you can tell that the reason for selective eating in autism is different from that shown in NT kids.

 

A number of sources, many reports on gluten and dairy free diets and autism/adhd/aspergers. Do NT kids get a high from eating a slice of toast with dairy marge on it? (for example or something else containing gluten/milk).

 

"Cant eat wont eat" describes in detail how brenda legges sons selective eating is displayed in his autism. One night hes coughing so she rushes him some orange juice (only drink he will have) but because it's in the wrong cup he refuses it despite gasping for breath! The book continues to explain "it goes way beyond stubbornness or an unwillingness to conform. The fear of change, of accepting anything new or unfamiliar, is so great that it seems to defy all logic." page 11.

 

Alexis

 

[baddad]

Trekster - very quickly as i'm pushed for time and really think we're going round in circles now... i think we may need to 'agree to differ'...

Do any of your books have details of specific research that back up these theories? Have they ever taken 20 autistic and 20 non-autistic 'faddy' or 'selective' or 'sensitive' (whatever phrase you prefer) eaters and under controlled conditions exposed them to identical behavioural management routines for a prolonged duration? If they have, i'd be interested to read them. If not - no matter how pursuasive the books might be then they are based on speculation and theory!

The biggest 'different' factor, IMO, and one that is backed up by years of psychological investigation, is that the existence of a diagnosis creates a bias or set of assumptions in the way the behaviour is perceived and that, in turn, impacts on the responses offered. That is very, very basic 'actor and viewer' psychology - text book stuff. The 'interactional paradigm'.

There are books published that will tell you Homeopathy can cure autism. No matter how convicingly they are written, it does not make the claim 'fact'.

There are very, very powerful lobby groups taking thousand upon thousands of pounds from desperate parents telling them that various behavioural interventions can cure autism. They offer very convincing evidence, both written and online, to back up these claims, but it doesn't make those claims fact.

I could go on and on (and on and on... :lol) about interventions and 'cures' and theories that have been widely endorsed by leading professionals in their day (and currently) that just do not stand up under scrutiny - I remarked upon a very recent one a few days ago when discussing facilitated communication.

A few hundred years ago the best medical minds of their day would have suggested trepanning if I had gone to them with a headache and exorcism if i'd fetched up with AS or schizophrenia. They weren't necessarilly charlatans - some of them probably believed emphatically that they were doing the 'right' thing and had applied the logic of their times to convince themselves of that.

The Beatles' "Dr Robert" wasn't a charlatan - he believed emphatically in the culture of his times and applied it to his work.

Basically, that you read something in a book doesn't make it true. That a professional may agree with what's in that book doesn't make the book true (any more than a professional who doesn't agree with the contents of the book proves it false). What makes something acceptable as truth is evidence, and without clinical trials there is no evidence that the mechanism in autistic people with eating disorders/behaviours is inherently different to the mechanism in non-autistic people.

I can't for a second prove that I'm 'right' (which is why as far as cross posting on yourself on the subject this is my last post), but the basis of my 'theory' (human psychology) is far more established and widely ebdorsed and logical than the theory put forward in opposition to it.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

(Off now to consult with 'Dr Robert! )