Sugar is the New Tobacco

[Cyclone]

Does sugar cause hyperactivity in children?

The relationship between sugar and hyperactivity has been studied many times, but research has never proven cause and effect in normal children.

 

Some reasons the myth exists

A few reasons:

 

In 1980, the New York Times published an article called “Sugar causes hyperactivity in children.” The article was based on a study that monitored kids in a playroom to see how sugar affected their play. There was a major flaw in the study though: the children were given sugary foods one week after their play was observed. No sugar was given before observation. So the “results” were not reliable. Unfortunately, the New York Times article appeared only a few days after the study came out, so readers had already been influenced by the headline.

Sugary sodas and sweet treats are often given to kids in large, unstructured environments like birthday parties, Halloween parties, or on holidays when kids are already highly excited. Removing sugar from these environments does not tend to reduce the high energy play.

Most parents cite soda as the item that makes their kids the most hyperactive. Many of the most common sodas have caffeine, which can cause hyperactivity in children.

Hyperactive kids may be more likely to consume sugary foods, according to research. This could definitely influence adult expectations that some kids will be more hyper after eating sugar.

Some research has shown that food additives like food colorings do increase hyperactivity in children. Many sugary foods — candy, soda, birthday cake, frosted cookies, even ice cream — also contain food colorings which could affect behavior.

http://eating-made-easy.com/2012/02/18/does-sugar-really-cause-hyperactivity-in-children/

 

Great! Let's see this 'better evidence,' then. So far neither you nor anyone else on this forum has been able to produce any.

 

You're still going to pretend the earlier link had nothing valuable or useful in it?

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2014 at 11:15 ----------

 

I wouldn't claim that this one is unbiased...

http://www.sugarnutrition.org.uk/Hyperactivity.aspx

 

But this one appears to be a bit more credible.

Stanford university (a blog though)

http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2012/10/31/debunking-a-halloween-myth-sugar-and-hyperactivity/

A large body of scientific evidence debunks the notion of a cause-and-effect relationship between sugar consumption and children’s hyperactivity. - See more at: http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2012/10/31/debunking-a-halloween-myth-sugar-and-hyperactivity/#sthash.0v6iw4Jc.dpuf

Still, you're probably not convinced, because you've seen it happen.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7963081

 

Here is the study that was actually mentioned earlier.

 

And here is a meta analysis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7474248

 

So, how much more do I need to read and link? I'm happy that my current opinion (which has changed since the thread started) is now supported by the strongest evidence that is available. If you wish to continue to believe the opposite, then be my guest, but you can stop pretending that there is no evidence to contradict what you believe.

[aliceBB]

At last.

 

Thank you.

 

Food for thought!

[salsafan]

You seem to be under the illusion that there is such a thing as 'the evidence' which is the one, indisputable truth about an issue. Even mathematicians and physicists do not claim that; there is always more than one set of research findings/statistical analysis which (depending on context) can be used to 'disprove' something which has been 'proven' by someone else using equally valid methods. All we can do is look at all the evidence which surfaces and try to evaluate how likely it is to hold the key/be useful (if we can). This is especially true of human physiology and biochemistry, perhaps because however big your sample, there is more variation between individuals (for whatever reasons) for results to be seen as 100% conclusive or applicable to all humans......

Absolutely well said AliceBB.

 

A lot of research uses statistical modelling to derive at the answer even though it is not an extreme and foolproof set of answers which is applicable to all. However, some people will apply this to be so, and this is whereby we have a gap of true understanding of an issue. As the biases will exist.

 

At the same time, I have come to believe as human nature does, we have a set of Body of Knowledge internalised and such that, it is hard for anyone to be more open-minded and accept new information, or to integrate new information into their model of knowledge in a sympathetic way.

[aliceBB]

Having watched tonight's 'Horizon' which suggested that it is neither fat not sugar alone but the combination of the two in the same foodstuff which is unhealthy and leads to obesity, I am now officially a bit confused.

 

It also said that since this combination is never found in nature, the danger foods are processed items such as doughnuts and cheesecake and ice-cream.

 

But I though milk (a naturally occurring food) contains both sugar (lactose) and fat?

[Cyclone]

Most foods contain some of both, but few natural foods would contain high levels of both.

 

Milk BTW is only a natural food for growing young animals, humans wouldn't 'naturally' consume it after infancy.

[aliceBB]

Most foods contain some of both, but few natural foods would contain high levels of both.

Which ones were you thinking of? I agree that most meals probably contain something from each food group (fats, carbs, protein), but milk was the only foodstuff I could think of which had all three in it. As you say below, it is designed for maximum growth but for a limited period.

 

Actually, I think what the experiment on Horizon suggested was that it was the combination of added sugar to fat which is dangerous and leads to poor health and weight gain (although they didn't distinguish very clearly between complex carbs and refined sugar in terms of how much we should/ are likely to eat of either). Otherwise, anyone who regularly ate a dinner of a small portion of lean meat or fish with boiled spuds or rice and lots of green veg would be piling on the weight as well, which generally they don't. (Unless they are snacking on confectionery in between).

 

They did however admit that despite using identical twins, it was a small sample.

 

Milk BTW is only a natural food for growing young animals, humans wouldn't 'naturally' consume it after infancy

I agree. I don't think any mammal would, actually.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

One source of confusion is the word 'fat'.

It means 'lipids', in the context of categorising foodstuffs.

Lipids don't make you 'fat' (overweight); but they may clog-up your arteries.

Carbohydrates- or at least an excess of them- do make you fat; but they're not 'fats'.

 

So why not stop using the ambiguous word 'fat'? Instead, say:

a. lipids; or

b. overweight/bulk,

(whichever it is that you mean).

[Cyclone]

There's nothing ambiguous about fat in your diet. Or about eating fat.

 

There's nothing ambiguous about being fat.

 

Eating too much fat may well make you fat, it has a higher energy density than carbohydrates. Eating carbs can do the same thing.

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 07:35 ----------

 

Which ones were you thinking of? I agree that most meals probably contain something from each food group (fats, carbs, protein), but milk was the only foodstuff I could think of which had all three in it. As you say below, it is designed for maximum growth but for a limited period.

Both being fat and carbs, not protein. Nuts is another one I think, although probably lower levels of carbs. I'm sure if we look hard there are a few more. Few though, which is what I said.

[aliceBB]

One source of confusion is the word 'fat'.

It means 'lipids', in the context of categorising foodstuffs.

Lipids don't make you 'fat' (overweight); but they may clog-up your arteries.

Carbohydrates- or at least an excess of them- do make you fat; but they're not 'fats'.

 

So why not stop using the ambiguous word 'fat'? Instead, say:

a. lipids; or

b. overweight/bulk,

(whichever it is that you mean).

 

I do not think anyone misunderstands the word 'fat' when it is used appropriately in context.

[onewheeldave]

 

Eating too much fat may well make you fat, it has a higher energy density than carbohydrates. Eating carbs can do the same thing.

 

 

If the carbs are unprocessed ones, they will not make you fat. I've been getting the majority of my daily colorie requirements from fruit for the past few months.

 

In that time I've never gone hungry, and, my weight dropped from an unhealthy 13 stone, to a very healthy 11 stone.

 

Also cured several issues with tendon immflamation (tennis elbow etc).

 

Many others have done the same. Unprocessed carbs in the form of fruit, leaves etc cannot make you fat- the ultra low calorie density of fruit means that it can actually be a challenge to maintain bodyweight.

 

If I start to feel hungry, or suspect that I'm hungry, or are in any doubt, I eat. I've eaten 27 bananas in a day and tend to average 16-20. I know for a fact that I can eat as much fruit as I feel the need for and will not put on weight.

 

On of the fruitarians on youtube is currently offering a prize of, I believe, 20,000 dollars to anyone who can find a documented case of a long-term fruitarian who is anything but lean.