Slashdot Mirror
Soda Makes Five-Year-Olds Break Your Stuff, Science Finds
Daniel_Stuckey writes "Shakira F. Suglia and co-authors surveyed 2,929 mothers of five-year-olds (PDF) and found that 43 percent of the kids consumed at least one serving of soft drinks per day. About four percent of those children (or 110 of them), drank more than four soft drinks per day, and became 'more than twice as likely to destroy things belonging to others, get into fights, and physically attack people.' In the past, soda and its various strains have been related to depression, irritability, aggression, suicidal thoughts, and delusions of sweepstake-winning grandeur. Of course, this study didn't find out what types of soda the children had consumed."
Scientists finally discover sugar high, new at 11!
It could be that bad parenting causes both the soda and the bad behavior.
It could be the soda, though sugary foods have previously been studied in aggregate without finding any significant effect on children.
My suspicion? Bad parenting. Parents which don't care, which are handing their kids soda and an iPad instead of doing their jobs. Then the kids' behavior grows increasingly worse as they act out, attempting to draw the attention they need. In this case two sodas per meal (nobody drinks soda for breakfast) is a proxy that should be screaming "these are really bad parents."
Of course, this study didn't find out what types of soda the children had consumed.
Another study finds that living children are 100% more likely to "destroy things belonging to others, get into fights, and physically attack people" than dead children.
cheez.
There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
drank more than four soft drinks per day
Confusingly, in the title and elsewhere, the word 'soda' is used. A soft drink isn't necessarily a soda/carbonated/fizzy drink. In other words, a soft drink may be non-fizzy. That makes the summary at least somewhat ambiguous.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
This article is a troll for scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
The problem with the survey can be found in the results section of the Abstract. They oversampled males by +4, and 51% of the families were Black. This isn't a soda/soft drink issue; it's a parenting/cultural issue, which is mentioned, but essentially glossed over when you start delving into the "study". The families were already "in the system", as they were part of an ongoing study, which tells me that there were already parenting and cultural issues that go deeper than the family's diet.
Actually the existance of the sugar high has been hotly debated, and as far as I'm aware most of the scientific literature suggests that it doesn't exist.
Of course I think those observations are mostly about double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trails where neither the child nor the observer knows the child has gotten sugar. I don't know if the results of this survey-based cohort study are due to the placebo effect, spurious correlations, or actual new effect.
(Caveat: I don't know that much about biology/medicine, so take all that with a grain of salt.)
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
The first sentence of the article is preposterous:
When the US military tested PCP on volunteers in 1984, "some subjects became irritable, argumentative or negative under the conditions of social stress and demanding tasks." Now, a study published by researchers at Columbia, Harvard and the University of Vermont have found not-so-different results in children that do too much Dew.
So soda is just as bad as PCP? Certainly not. Such hyperbole is reason alone not to read any further.
I have an alternative theory: Parents who let their children drink soda have less self-control and discipline, and so do their children. Isn't that much more likely than the proposition that soda has the same side-effects as PCP? But that won't get hits.
Pop is somewhat unhealthy, so good parents will limit their kid's intake of it. Bad parents don't care, so they'll let their kids have it.
Is this accounted for in the study?
God spoke to me
who drink soda 4 times or more per day is that they are able to do so because of a lack of parental supervision (plus a few because of extreme dental ignorance on the part of the parents). I think that that same lack of supervision leads to bad behavior in little kids. I don't think I'd blame the soda for bad behavior, though caffeine may be contributing to the problem.
Couldn't the placebo effect be causing this? I bet if you told this to any doctor he'd be thinking that it was placebo in the back of his mind.
You wouldn't be wrong. Neuter them and take away their oxygen, and they will no longer break things.
A bigger problem with the study is that it is based on a survey of mothers. The study could have instead found: (1) mothers who give their kids soda are for some reason more sensitive to bad behavior, (2) mothers "know" that soda causes bad behavior and so they expect it and report their bias, (3) some third factor affects both soda drinking as well as actual or perceived behavior, (4) almost an infinite number of other things.
I'm glad that someone is examining this, but a study like this can only be used to point science in a direction - it by no means implicates soda as a behavior modifier all by itself, all it found was a correlation in a self-reported survey.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
One option would be that mothers who allow their kids the have so much sugar in their diet is failing in probably more ways than one. So not only is the child getting improper nutrition but also not being taught how to act & respect people or things
Do you have any information about the scientific quality of Mengele's studies? Of course his studies were highly immoral, but since there's no sign for any immorality in the study this article is about, that's irrelevant for your comparison.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
One option would be that mothers who allow their kids the have so much sugar in their diet is failing in probably more ways than one. So not only is the child getting improper nutrition but also not being taught how to act & respect people or things
The authors agree with you:
Many factors may affect both soda consumption and problem behaviors of children. Poor dietary behaviors, such as high soda consumption among young children, may be associated with other parenting practices, such as excessive TV viewing or high consumption of sweets in the child’s diet. Furthermore, parenting practices may be associated with social factors known to be associated with child behavior. In stressful home environments, for example, a child’s needs are likely to be unmet and unhealthy behavioral practices may be more prevalent. An extensive literature has documented a relationship between stressful home environments and child behavior. For example, children who are victims of violent acts or who witness violence have been found to have more externalizing and internalizing behavior problems, more aggression problems and to show signs of posttraumatic stress disorder [9-11]. Furthermore, caretaker mental health can be a strong contributor to both behavioral and developmental problems in children through its effects, in part, on parenting quality and overall home environment [12]. Children of depressed mothers have been shown to develop more social and emotional problems during childhood, including higher internalizing and externalizing problems [13]. Thus, it is possible that observed associations between behavior and soda consumption among adolescents can be attributed to unadjusted social risk factors.
New study shows that parents who lack parenting skills (and can't control their kids) admit to giving their kids more soda than parents who know better
However the scientific literature in this case is a crock of shit. Those studies were based upon calorie controlled meals ie take a full days calories appropriate for the test subject and divide that into say five calorie meals. Now supply the individual with exactly the calorie limit for that single meal in a high sugar ratio and not one calorie more and seriously is any one going to sugar high. Reality here, those studies are junk science funded by sugar industry Public relations Arse holes.
Children are not getting sugar highs on a calorie controlled limited meal ie half a chocolate bar but on unlimited calories as much sugar as they can eat meals. A high carbohydrate snack, plus a full chocolate bar, plus a bag of chips, plus a large soft drink, plus some candy ie sugar rush city the reality. Not some Public Relations junk science limited calorie ration being presented as a typical childs unlimited calorie, stomach capacity meal.
Now add further shenanigans, like calorie negative foods, where consumption of certain foods types actually consumes more calories in the digestive process, than those foods will actually release once digested. There are also many food types which will alter mood so hmm hot chocolate a whole lot of calories but it's going to chill you out more than speed you up. There are a whole range of herbs and spices with various metabolic activities that aren't going to be in the calorie count but will most definitely alter the results in any way that lying shit head Public Relations types want them to go.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen