Biomedical Engineering

This seems really familiar to the MSG controversy. It is quite amazing how just the thought of a bad effect of a certain food could result in misinterpreted perceptions. The study is both hilarious and infuriating. It is funny due to the mismatched perceptions, but it is infuriating that a study like this could cause such a popular myth. It is annoying that these parents couldn't unbias themselves for one minute to critically evaluate their kids. They had the tie between extra-sugar and their kids hyperactivity emblazoned in their minds and couldn't consider any other possibilities. I don't suppose they gave a reason as to why the test subjects were all males?

I agree with you. My first thought in reading this is where is the sugar???? This is truly a one sided test. In my opinion holds no credence. The thought that the "happy" environment is the only cause of over excitement is crazy. I have 4 kids and I can most certainly tell when they had an over abundant intake of the sweet stuff. Christ I can tell if I have had too much.

The test demonstrated that the concept of sugar causing their children to be hyperactive was in the mother's head rather then in the child's behavior itself.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Ok, Mum was predisposed to think there was hyperactive behaviour, but that doesn't prove that sugar wouldn't have really produced such behaviour.

The Mother's response could be Pavlovian...she's seen the kids go loopy so often she's anticipating the behaviour.
I'm not pre-judging it either way, just agreeing it's not a good study.

After all you can show that people will act drunk without alcohol in a party atmosphere if they think they are drinking alcohol....that doesn't prove that 'alcohol doesn't get you drunk'.

Del

I think that the conclusions drawn from this specific study were stretched beyond the limits that the experiment proved. Did this study show that a mothers perception of her son's hyperactivity is not accurate? Yes. Did this study prove that sugar does not contribute to a kids hyperactivity? No. Perhaps the wrong conclusion was derived from this article that with further research could have been prevented. I believe that the author of this blog took information from an article that twisted the results and drew crazy assumptions from the study.

I agree that further studies and research would be necessary to draw more conclusive results between kids and sugar. The behavior studiers should not be their mothers, however, and should be professionals that are unbiased and more knowledgable in the area of hyperactivity.

How about Catnip?? Does it make you loopy or does it make you feel like you just ate 12 spoons of sugar??

Well said!

But when parents go nuts because a can of Coke has supposedly made their kids uncontrollable, it's more likely they're just seeing the behavior they expect to see.

Bad example! May I suggest that the effects of Coke (and other like beverages) on kids (and non-kids) may result from the stimulative effects of caffein in addition to the many tablespoons of sugar contained therein.

Yep, good point!

I am afraid that some may be misinformed by this blog entry.

For one, this article only tested parent's beliefs on their perception of their child's behaviour. It did not test the activity level of the children, so as such does not disprove the idea that sugar causes hyperactivity.

Having type 1 diabetes, i am somewhat of an expert on the effects of sugar and how it affects ones body. Sugar, being readily and rapidly absorbed by the body is absorbed into the blood stream peaking at about 15-20 minutes after ingesting. This energy (when insulin is in the blood stream) is absorbed into the muscles of the body, providing the body with excess energy.

Now, quantity is the issue! The sugar in a can of coke, or a 500mL bottle of juice has approximately the same amount of energy as in half a bowl of rice; however the energy in a bowl of rice typically is absorbed in about 60 mins, comparing this to 15 mins for the drink. This means that effectively 4 times the power is available for the body at this time.

It makes sense then that sugar could be associated with hyperactivity!

(Hyper)-activity=(excessive/over) activity

I take issue with this article, suggesting that diet has such a minimal effect on hyperactivity.

Sugar has a noted effect on behavior by providing excess energy, it is not as bad as the dyes that they put in so many of our processed foods, though.

I know from my own personal experience. As a suffer of severe ADHD, when I was younger, I had bad reactions to Ritalin and my parents found that changing my diet was the only thing that worked. Reducing sugar as much as possible as well as my consumption of many of the dye heavy processed foods had a marked effect on reducing the symtoms of my ADHD.

Even though I have become better at controlling my thoughts, and bevavior, in the last 25 years or so, I still find that after I eat certain dye heavy or sugary foods, I still tend to have increased difficulty concentrating. So don't tell me that sugar and diet has so little effect.

I suspect the article writer probably works for the sugar industry.

I did my own case study on my youngest son.

Background: child sitting quietly in Sunday School at church. Teacher gives the kids two glazed doughnuts each and a big cup of orange juice. 15 minutes later the quiet little boy cannot sit still nor be quiet. No change in the environment.

I'm sure the article writer would say the effects I noted on my son was due to his system being energized while digesting the high caloric foods he injested and not the extremely high amount of suger he just consumed.

Is this just more bad science?
Del

It isn't science at all. It is disinformation that will be used in the future to justify more abuses by the food industry. This is war, and this is only one weapon used. The sugar industry clearly is fostering confusion amongst the enemy (us) and the result will be more sugar consumption. As the sugar companies are interlocked with other members of the processed food and pharmaceutical cartel, you won't know from which way the attacks are coming. We are faced with a continuous barrage of products that are designed to keep us dumb, confused, dying, and otherwise controllable. The author is clearly in the enemy camp. It makes me sick... literally.

guest99

Got any sources, guest99? The blogger has provided a list of resources, but those who dismiss the argument that "sugar doesn't make kids hyper" aren't as forthcoming. Anecedotal evidence is great, but I would like to see proof myself of a "conspiracy".

I only have 25 years of experience as a parent.. guess that doesn't qualify.

I'm surprised the FDA hasn't labelled sugar as a vitamin... call it vitamin B^s

guest99

With all due respect to you Moose, my argument is with the food and drug industry, which has shown themselves many times over to be corrupt. It isn't a conspiracy if it is true. The conspiracy here is the false data that they continue to foist on us, in the hopes of creating enough confusion in the minds of consumers, to prolong their program.

I am an individual. I don't hire or grant scientific research, except with my tax dollars. The onus is on these corporations and institutions to prove to me that their science is solid. I am the customer. I only buy, or not buy. Just between me, you and the lamp post, I don't believe these statements, or this science. It isn't convincing. At best, it merely is confusing to some. I don't expect or need to convince anyone. I am simply voicing my opinion as a consumer.

I feel confident that if any Real science was done, with proper design, transparency, peer review, and unbiased raw publication of the results, that the data would show a significant departure from what is being presented in the OP's references. Why doesn't the food and drug industry want to do such research? because it isn't aligned with their goals. Why doesn't the government want to do such research. They won't bite the hand that feeds them. What other answers are there? The FDA is even more corrupt that the politicians, so they are NOT a valid source of scientific data.

Suppose your child is diagnosed with a brain tumour, and the sugar industry tells you that sugar cures cancer. Will you run out and buy a pound or two as medicine?

I know that the behavioural aspect of sugar has several variables, but I will never agreee that there is no effect.

guest99

Thanks for coming back, guest99. I hope you'll register with the site so that our paths might cross again.

I'm just looking for evidence that "the truth is out there". My problem with conspiracy theories in general is that they make some otherwise inefficient institutions seem omnipotent. The CIA missed the fall of the Soviet Union and, supposedly, 9/11. Even the spooks are fallible.

Best,

Moose

Dear Moose,

I am a registered user. I just prefer to conduct this conversation anonymously. I don't doubt that I am overzealous in the rhetoric, and underwhelming on evidence, but that is the nature of the subject. According to Sun Tzu, in the Art Of War:

"All warfare is based on deception."

"Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."

"Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

"He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared."

"He who only sees the obvious, wins his battles with difficulty; he who looks below the surface of things, wins with ease."

Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."

"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."

I am proposing that we are fighting an unseen opponent, who has power and opportunity to subdue us, and if we think about our situation, we can see many motives, such as greed, power, and control. In simple terms, we humans can be farmed, and led to believe we are free.

guest99

Dear guest anonimus,in my part of the world..sugar prices are going to zoom I had some feeling so made a little money on the market..was happy till I saw tons made by others..I donot take sugar,nor I buy it and today I donot hold any sugar stocks

You aren't being paranoid. They really are out to get you.

I understand this is a controversial topic - which is why I included all of my resource links at the bottom of my blog. I apologize if I did not make these scientific points as clear as my resource articles did. Please feel free to review my resource articles. If you find scientific evidence on the internet that proves sugar makes kids hyper, please send me the data - I definitely want to be educated on this subject.

And by the way - I do not work for the sugar industry. I am a sugar junkie myself. :-)

Two things

i) An English study showed that some children were sensitive to colours, preservatives, additives, etc. in food ... these children became hyper when they consumed processed meals ... it is possible that sugar alone does not affect a child's behaviour ... Kool-Aid had a colour that could have stimulated some children to become overly active ... my sons' teacher always commented how grateful she was that I was not giving my boys anything sweet with lunch ... she knew that some children mis-behaved because they ate the wrong food.

ii) Mothers who believed that their sons were in the "extra-sugary" group might have been a bit high strung expecting mis-behaviour from their children ... when you expect the things to go wrong they surely go wrong.

Double blind study means that the participants do not know what they were given ... since the mothers were told what groups they belonged to their attitude was shaped by this information ... not a valid experiment.

My family (myself and 3 sisters) found that several dyes used a lot in candy affected all of our offspring, not sugar. Yellow #5 and yellow #6 definitely made them hyper. Red 4 made my sister's children upset and mean. Nine children and twenty years convince me this is a fact. I suspect maybe it's genetic. My family doc was the only doctor that believed this for a long time. I understand how many wives tales exist in the world, but it bothers me sometimes that most doctors refuse to even consider the possibility that anything other that what is taught in med school exists.

it bothers me sometimes that most doctors refuse to even consider the possibility that anything other that what is taught in med school exists.

especially if it's being proposed by a Woman.

Del_{(Mind they don't believe I'm a cat either)}

Generalizations like this are ludicrous. Each individual reacts differently to a stimulus. And suggesting that an intake of sugar, and it's related insulin and hormone level changes, doesn't change behaviour is not sensible.

A child with a typical diet of slow calorie absorption foods will react totally different than a kid that typically eats fast calorie absorption foods (like sugar).

If a study is to be done then it should control diet months in advance to bring insulin levels to a strict level.

Quite an interesting article. Related is the way food colorings and additives such as preservatives affect the behavior of children. A doctor by the name of Feingold in the 70's proposed this hypothesis, and many canadian and european agencies have started to take warning. Some believe that the mixture of the preservative sodium benzoate and food colorings such as "red 40" (to simply name one) can cause a temporary aggrevation of children diagnosed with ADHD. While this is a temporary effect, the long term use of these products can cause much worse symptoms typically associated with ADHD.

Here is a quick review of the Feingold Study:

http://www.healingwithnutrition.com/adisease/add-adhd/feingoldstudy.html

Here is an actual review of a study done by the European Union's Food Standards Agency:

http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/chemsafe/additivesbranch/colours/hyper/