Those sorts of comments tend to appear with another claim: persistent benefits. Which is something which the short-term solutions rarely offer. In that way, they're perfectly on-topic, and calling into question the use of the short-term solutions at all, especially when long-term benefits have not been shown (consistently, at all, take your pick).
Well, for starters, "reduce distractions" isn't very actionable advice in this context. It's equivalent to saying "cheer up" to people who have clinical depression.
I'd be glad to be shown data that better diet and exercise are effective in the treatment of adults with ADD (which is the topic of this subthread). Of course, good diet and exercise are good for you, but that's not the point.
You are correct. The point is that there's no data that shows that ADD medication has any lasting affects, aside from addiction. There's even data that it tends to work for only a few years, and then tapers off. This implies it isn't a solution, and we should be looking for alternatives rather than temporarily putting off the problem.
Here's one. It's anecdotal, but it won't hurt you to try, which can't really be said about the drugs. Then there's also the likelihood that it'll almost never be suggested, because there's little money in getting people to live better - who would fund the research? What studies could be done to show strong connections that wouldn't be easy to write off, when the very act of changing your lifestyle introduces countless variables?
More specifically, 'reduce distractions' is far more actionable than 'cheer up'. One advises a step to reduce the temptation to be distracted, the other advises you to achieve the goal with absolutely no directions.
It doesn't have to be either/or, too. A combination of both might make him even more productive than one or the other. However, if diet and exercise are proven to be effective, they will likely have better long term health benefits than consistent stimulant dosing.
