Sugar is the New Tobacco

[Dromedary]

So how do they account for changes in behaviour of children who consume large quantities of sugar-rich foods when these changes occur within 10-20 minutes of eating such foods?

 

But who is stating that the children's behaviour changes?

[aliceBB]

Do you believe that they are different?

 

Only - but crucially - in the quantities you are likely to consume (a) by eating an apple or orange or other piece of whole, fresh unprocessed fresh fruit and (b) in something like a cereal bar, 'pure fruit bar', sachet of fruit puree or concentrated fruit juice where the levels of added fructose are much higher. Even 'pure' fruit juice is not ideal, as you can easily and quickly ingest the equivalent in fruit sugar of about 7 oranges in one large glass (but without the fibre). You would not normally eat 7 oranges at one go, still less 21, although some people regularly have 3 glasses of juice daily. But it is advertised as a healthy drink and some people (teenager sons for one) will happily consume a whole carton of such juice per day, if allowed. (Then they put it back in the fridge, empty:rolleyes:).

 

As Cyclone stated,the fruit sugar in both foodstuffs (fresh fruit and processed products) is converted to glucose in the body but the body only needs so much glucose and it stores any excess as fat, ultimately. Plus, regularly consuming excessive amounts of sugar in any form (as many people routinely do) knackers your insulin production system and leads to Type 2 diabetes. However, it is virtually impossible to 'overdose' on sugar by eating fresh vegetables or fruit (the quantities needed make it unrealistic) whereas it is very easy to overconsume processed products with added sugar.

 

---------- Post added 18-01-2014 at 10:42 ----------

 

But who is stating that the children's behaviour changes?

 

Ask any paediatrician, Playgroup Leader, nursery teacher or teaching assistant, primary teacher, secondary teacher, head teacher of any school, school dinner supervisor, Scouting Leader, nanny, or anyone who spends several hours at a time in the company of children (their own, or someone else's). Not to mention many parents who have observed the phenomenon first hand on repeated occasions. I am not saying all children are as susceptible as others, but I do believe the overconsumption of sugar and caffeine ( and possibly the combination of the two?) is implicated, simply because it is demonstrably possible to eliminate such behaviour by altering the diet.

 

Did you see the experiment documented on BBC2 a few years ago where they put one classful of Year 4s and their families on the diet people had in wartime Britain, and (as a control group) the other year 4 class in the same school carried on eating their usual high fat, high sugar diets? Even after only 3 weeks, the results were thought-provoking, to say the least. After an initial 3 days of hell where the kids were vile-tempered and badly-behaved, exhibiting all the symptoms of 'cold-turkey' withdrawal from hard drugs - interesting! Sugar and fat not addictive, eh?!), behaviour improved at home and at school, concentration span increased and they slept for longer, lost weight and grew taller - even in three weeks). The other factor in that experiment was that the 'wartime diet' families were not allowed TV or computers, so played out much more on bikes, runnning around in playgrounds etc. It has been suggested by doctors that it is the combination of a poor, sugar-rich diet and physical inactivity which leads to the problems with insulin and Type 2 diabetes - which makes sense. Behaviour problems in kids are less acute (I noticed) with kids who rush around the playground all breaktime than in ones who sit around chatting (and drinking pop). That said, the latter often decide to be physically 'active' in the classroom soon afterwards, running around, getting up and down, unable to sit still! My daughter (who is medically qualified) tells me the 'exercise benefit' is also connected with adrenalin, but I am not a biochemist, so I won't speculate further on that one.

 

I would be interested to know how you explain such behaviour changes. Do you deny they occur at all or do you think there is another explanation for them unconnected with food?

[Cyclone]

Or perhaps they have the sense to know when someone is claiming that a phenomenon does not exist when they have seen it in their children and experienced it themselves. I certainly have. However it's possible we're arguing about semantics here.

Did you read that link, it explains how parents "see" the behaviour. It's because they have an expectation about seeing the behaviour. In blind tests when told that their children had had sugar (they hadn't) they reported that they were seeing this kind of behaviour.

 

Please explain the surge of energy manifested (sometimes to the point of hyperactivity) by people (whether adults or children) who have gone for a while on an empty stomach, then eaten something very highly glycaemic such as a Mars Bar (or three!). If they ate apples, or something of a similar weight but with less sugar in it, they would still feel less hungry than before eating, but there would be no surge of energy evident in their behaviour and the effects of the apple would last longer. It's my understanding (although I'm happy to be proved wrong) that this is about blood sugar and how some foods (low glycaemic index foods such as complex carbs and non-fatty protein choices) help stabilise it and promote a sense of wellbeing through the day, whilst others send it spiking, only to come down again quickly resulting in hunger pangs and no real stabilisation of blood glucose levels.

You can believe what you like, I'm going to believe the scientific evidence though if that's okay with you.

 

---------- Post added 18-01-2014 at 11:07 ----------

 

Do you mean fructose (fruit sugar) added to processed foods, or in its naturally occurring state in fruit?

 

It might actually refer to high fructose corn syrup.

[aliceBB]

Did you read that link, it explains how parents "see" the behaviour. It's because they have an expectation about seeing the behaviour. In blind tests when told that their children had had sugar (they hadn't) they reported that they were seeing this kind of behaviour.

You can believe what you like, I'm going to believe the scientific evidence though if that's okay with you.

 

Of course it's ok with me. You can believe what you like. And if it were just parents who see this behaviour in their kids after feeding them high-sugar snacks, then I could see why they may want to see it. But it isn't. Teachers up and down the land will tell you that when you modify what kids are allowed to eat during the school day (ie to reduce or eliminate added sugar), the kids are calmer and their concentration improves. I'm willing to accept that the mechanism for this may be different from what I think it is, but only if someone can produce some tested evidence, which nobody has on this forum so far.

 

I read the link, which seems to consist only of a thread on some other forum in which various people who could be anyone, chew over the idea that high sugar foods make kids behave badly. It is not a scientific study - unless I am missing something?

 

If you don't have to look after large numbers of other people's children every day for a living, you can probably afford to dismiss it as a myth. But it has been demonstrated that a concentrated input of sugar leads to a spike in blood glucose levels levels soon after, and this is associated with increased energy output in the eater. Or are you disputing that as well?

[Dromedary]

But it has been demonstrated that a concentrated input of sugar leads to a spike in blood glucose levels levels soon after, and this is associated with increased energy output in the eater. Or are you disputing that as well?

 

A diabetic would probably disagree with that assumption, and they should know how quickly blood glucose levels increase and also drop. It also can have the opposite effect in non diabetics of making people feel tired or sleepy.

 

Although the post was addressed to Cyclone I will dispute what you wrote.

[yellowperil]

I think the problem youre having is this,

For every true case of a hyper kid after eating too much sugar there are lots more bad parents using the excuse falsely for their kids bad behaviour, that changes peoples perception of if its a real issue or not.

Its the same with adhd and the like,although some cases do exist there are thousands that are just little sods.

In my own opinion these things are either taken on board by bad parents so they dont have to bother trying to control their kids anymore or are overdiagnosed in the first place.

Im sure there are people too who just cant be bothered to learn to spell and punctuate and therefore arent dyslexic,as they claim to be.

They do a great injustice to real sufferers of real conditions.

[aliceBB]

Im sure there are people too who just cant be bothered to learn to spell and punctuate and therefore arent dyslexic,as they claim to be.

They do a great injustice to real sufferers of real conditions.

 

I agree, but we are talking about all children (and adults) and what happens to them biochemically and often behaviourally when they eat a large amount of sugar at one go.

 

Surely, if a parent observes that their child becomes hyperactive after eating junk, the obvious thing to do is to give them something different to eat? If they just wring their hands and say 'My kid's got a condition which makes him hyper, he's allergic to sugar, but what can you do? You can't stop him eating it', patently that would be nonsense and the parent would need re-educating.

 

I understand the parallel you are drawing, but the difference is that it has been demonstrated over and over again by schools who ban high-sugar foods, that behaviour improves. There is a rational, proven, biological explanation for that which so far nobody has disproved.

 

Not quite sure what the agenda could be of anyone who claims high quantities of sugar do not affect human biochemistry.

 

---------- Post added 18-01-2014 at 16:26 ----------

 

A diabetic would probably disagree with that assumption, and they should know how quickly blood glucose levels increase and also drop. It also can have the opposite effect in non diabetics of making people feel tired or sleepy.

 

Although the post was addressed to Cyclone I will dispute what you wrote.

 

But diabetics are different because their bodies have lost the ability to regulate blood sugar in the way that non-diabetics' bodies do (or try to do).

 

In your second sentence what exactly do you mean by 'it'?

[yellowperil]

Re-educating is a good word, you can only re-educate someone whos educated in the first place though.

Too many revel in the box theyve been placed in and see it as an excuse to no longor try or care.

 

---------- Post added 18-01-2014 at 16:35 ----------

 

Youve got to also bear in mind that sugar is a commodity like oil or gas!

The ones who control these commodities will protect their interests i would think.

[aliceBB]

Re-educating is a good word, you can only re-educate someone whos educated in the first place though.

Too many revel in the box theyve been placed in and see it as an excuse to no longor try or care.

 

---------- Post added 18-01-2014 at 16:35 ----------

 

Youve got to also bear in mind that sugar is a commodity like oil or gas!

The ones who control these commodities will protect their interests i would think.

 

I cannot disagree with any of that and although I think ensuring that your child grows up happy and healthy is in some ways an uphill struggle these days (compared with, say, the 1960s), it is not a reason for being fatalistic.

 

And you are right about the commodity controllers! It's because high sugar, high-fat food is so cheap these days that people are drawn to eat more of it instead of healthier options, which are generally more expensive. They still need to exercise self-control...but self-control is made harder when the things that are bad for you are constantly in your face.

[SpikeMac]

Only - but crucially - in the quantities you are likely to consume (a) by eating an apple or orange or other piece of whole, fresh unprocessed fresh fruit and (b) in something like a cereal bar, 'pure fruit bar', sachet of fruit puree or concentrated fruit juice where the levels of added fructose are much higher.

 

But... and this is a very important but, fructose is much sweeter than sucrose. So much less needs to be added. That is why it is often used in low calorie slimming foods.