Good point!
The experiment in question could not have shown that sugar doesn’t make children hyperactive, since none of the children in the study were given sugar.
Yes, I’d like to see a study more along the lines of Little Nemo’s idea. That just proves that mothers have pre conceived ideas and biases about how their kids react. It doesn’t mean that their kids aren’t hyper when there is sugar. I don’t think that sugar does cause hyper-ness, but I think it would be good to have a study that really proves it.
I would rather see a study on hyperactivity and low carb diets for children because I know my daughter on a low carb diet had significant changes in behavior and excitability.
Actually, that appears to have been exactly the point. The title of the paper in question is Effects of sugar ingestion expectancies on mother-child interactions.
Researchers at Yale School of Medicine found a link between sugar ingestion in children and a resulting massive dose of adrenaline entering the bloodstream. The same effect was not observed in adults. Adrenaline, incidentally, causes shakiness and excitement.
However, from your link,
Yeah, but what do they mean by that? That the study isn’t conclusive proof, or that the study actually demonstrates that sugar doesn’t cause hyperactivity?
It would seem that they mean that the effects of increased adrenalin are not the same as those seen in hyperactive kids. That is, a kid exhibiting “shakiness, anxiety, excitement and concentration problems” is not necessarily “hyperactive”.
Further,
It sounds to me like the kids in the study were more “twitchy” than “hyperactive”.
I believe that sugar causes hyperactivity in children.
You know why? Because if I eat a ton of really sugary foods in a short space of time, I can actually feel it working on my mind. I can feel my mind changing, like a mini-high or something.
“Hyperactivity problems” seems to me to refer to a disorder of hyperactivity. people are confusing two questions: Does sugar cause hyperactivity disorders? (No) and Does sugar make kids charged with energy for a short amount of time (Yes).
Sugar could make kids without hyperactivity problems kinda energetic for 20 minutes (in layman’s terms “kinda hyper”) without any contradiction by that study.
Nice username/post combo.
I’ve seen references to these studies claiming that sugar doesn’t make children hyperactive, but I’m having difficulty getting over the following chain of logic.
- Sugar is a simple carbohydrate
- Simple carbohydrates provide fast-acting energy
- Children, generally speaking, do not have the necessary impulse control to restrain themselves when inundated with fast-acting energy, resulting in hyperactive behavior
- Sugar results in hyperactive behavior.
How do the studies address the above?
They don’t dress it because it isn’t true. Sugar *can *provide fast acting energy, if a rapid source of energy is required. If energy isn’t required the sugar gets converted into glycogen or fat as required. Sugar doesn’t actually force the body to use energy, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
How about this: if running around screaming is your default behaviour, but you’re feeling fatigued so you drop below your baseline activity level, then you feel all awake again thanks to a quick energy ingestion, so you resume your default behaviour again.
I have no idea, but it seems as though every parent in the world still believes this. It’s about 75% confirmation bias, in my opinion.
I have given my children sugar close to bedtime countless times, without noticing any difficulty getting them to sleep. I’ve watched them bounce off the walls prior to bedtime without giving them a grain of sugar.
I also think some of the “Oh, thanks for loading my kid up with sugar prior to bedtime, har har!” is just parents mimicking behavior they’ve seen from other parents for years and years. Once people have their own kids, they tend to try to act the way they’ve seen other parents act in the past.
Perhaps it is this: kids find getting sugary treats outside the normal (parental) course of meals, from grandparents and friends, tremendously fun and exciting. This gets them excited, not the actual sugar content; they go on to act excited. Hence the (false) conclusion that it is the sugar content that is doing the exciting.
This would account for the actual observations many have, without the necessity of claiming it is mostly confirmation bias.
This was addressed up thread, and I agree that it is part what is going on. I just think it is a much smaller part. I’ve seen parents get all worked up about the fact that their kids are having a drink out of daddy’s Sprite, even though the kid isn’t all that excited about getting said drink.
ETA: Most of the time a child wants a piece of candy, elation doesn’t follow. It’s usually like this (In my experience):
Kid: “Mom, can I have a piece of chocolate?”
Mom: “Sure, alright.”
Kid: “Thanks!”
Kid walks away with a smile on his face.
The problem with this is that non-sugary foods would be far worse than sugar.
Sugar, as you note, provides a rapid energy boost, which might prompt a malnourished child to become active for a 15 minutes or so, and then decline. In contrast a slice of bread would cause the child to act hyper for at least a couple of hours as it slowly releases sugar into the bloodstream.
Of course it doesn’t make much sense anyway, unless the child is actually malnourished.
Well, yeah, obviously some folks get excessively worked up on the subject and claim any hint of sugary treat is bound to lead to clinical hyperactivity. That sort of thing is observably untrue.
The more general issue is whether there is something “real” that is the cause or basis for the general concern that, admittedly, some people are taking to absurd extremes, or whether it is a myth pure and simple.
Here is where one gets into dueling anecdotes. Suffice it to say that the reaction of kids to getting treats varies by kid and by age, and by circumstance (is this a normal desert, or something really special like easter eggs or halloween candy? How frequent/infrequent are treats given? etc.)