Over time, and with more research, it became apparent that the hyperactive state was a recurring, yet temporary condition that increased with sugar, caffiene, and fatigue, and decreased with exercise, low-glucose diets, adequate sleep, and certain medications. Since it was a common symptom found in varying behaviors the 'experts' decided that ADD was sufficient to describe the condition many people have.
My question is, since we are still exploring the ADD moniker for accuracy, perhaps we could look at the word "disorder" to see if it is truly fitting and fair. A few synonomous terms for disorder are: affliction, ailment, complaint, disease, infirmity, malady, and sickness. In actuality, many people with ADD function at a much higher state of mental acuity than "normal" people. To say they have a malady or ailment is to label them inaccurately.
I do agree people with ADD, myself included, do operate differently in life, and that giving them a label helps to identify their inconsistencies in a way that explains and defines such differences. I just believe we can do better than ADD. The term deficit is also misleading, because many times ADDers have excessive attention. A more accurate description would point toward the inconsistent attention transitions that occur. Sometimes there is too much focus on something other than the group's consensus, too much time taken to shift attention to a new focus, or too many changes in prioritization and importance, thereby changing the application of attention between competing subjects. The issue isn't a deficit. It's governance and inconsistency.
So, I did some digging around and came up with this term that I think better fits the condition. AATC. It stands for Atypical Attention Transition Capacity. After all, why should those of us with ADD have to bear the burden of condescending and disparaging terminology chosen by 'experts' who don't really have a handle on it now, and had no clue what it was when they first named it?