Toxic metals, inadequate nutrition & autism

Is there a link between toxic metal exposure, the typical modern diet (which is nutritionally deficient), and autism?

This year, toxicologists from Hersbruck, Germany published a research study evaluating hair samples from 44 children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The researchers compared the levels of toxic metals and essential (beneficial) elements such as iron, magnesium and zinc, to levels found children without autism:

By comparing hair concentration of autistic vs nonautistic children, elevated hair concentrations were noted for aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, antimony, nickel, lead, and vanadium. Hair levels of calcium, iron, iodine, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, zinc, and selenium were considered deficient. There was a significant positive correlation between lead & verbal communication (p = 0.020) and general impression (p = 0.008). In addition, there was a significant negative correlation between zinc & fear and nervousness (p = 0.022). Conclusion: Our data supports the historic evidence that heavy metals play a role in the development of ASD. In combination with an inadequate nutritional status the toxic effect of metals increase along with the severity of symptoms. (emphasis added)

Maedica (Buchar). 2012 Jan;7(1):38-48.
Toxic Metals and Essential Elements in Hair and Severity of Symptoms among Children with Autism.
Blaurock-Busch E, Amin OR, Dessoki HH, Rabah T.
Lecturer and Advisor, International Board of Clinical Metal Toxicology & German Medical Association of Clinical Metal Toxicology, Hersbruck, Germany.

Getting fatter on the typical Western diet

Image: Newsweek magazineGary Taubes, an Investigator in Health Policy Research at the Berkley School of Public Health, has been battling conventional wisdom regarding nutrition for years. He has delivered his message in many forums including the 2007 book, Good Calories, Bad Calories and the 2011 book, Why We Get Fat.

His most recent contribution is an article in the May 14 print issue of Newsweek: The New Obesity Campaigns Have It All Wrong. Taubes notes that conventional wisdom regarding the cause of obesity is based on the concept of “energy balance”:

At its heart is a simple “energy balance” idea: we get fat because we consume too many calories and expend too few. If we could just control our impulses – or at least control our environment, thereby removing temptation – and push ourselves to exercise, we’d be fine. This logic is everywhere…”

Unfortunately, the "energy balance" concept is failing us: 42% of American will be fat by 2030. Even NIH Director Francis Collins has difficulty explaining the failure - “We are struggling to figure this out.” Taubes has another view:

There is an alternative theory, one that has also been around for decades but that the establishment has largely ignored. This theory implicates specific foods – refined sugars and grains – because of their effect on the hormone insulin, which regulates fat accumulation. If this hormonal-defect hypothesis is true, not all calories are created equal, as the conventional wisdom holds. And if it is true, the problem is not only controlling our impulses, but also changing the entire American food economy and rewriting our beliefs about what constitutes a healthy diet. (emphasis added)

Related Posts

• Did we start loosing willpower in the late 1970's?
• Paleolithic Nutrition: Diet and Modern Disease
• The Standard or Average American Diet
• Are mainstream nutritionists beginning to recognize the value of Paleolithic nutrition?