Context: I seem to be having a very strange reaction to concentrated doses of sugar, and while googling what is going on (Still haven't found anything about it which is annoying) I found this page.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022692.html

Issue: So I know too much sugar is bad for you cutting down on it etc.. trying to be healthy, but it's hard to take this stuff seriously when someone posts on the same list.

* Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children

and

* Sugar can cause hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children

It's hard to take the rest of the list seriously when most of it reads with "Can" increase/decrease/contribute/impair...

Also when it cites

According to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), a 5000 year-old wisdom of self-contained knowledge of healing, we all need sweetness in our life. We need six tastes: sweet, sour, salty, astringent, bitter and pungent to stimulate the taste buds on our tongue at main meals, in order to experience satiety.

I thought I would just share this weirdness.

It was on QI. The claim that sugar causes hyperactivity in children is apparently bullshit with no scientific evidence to back it up.

I think it's more the fact children get excited and being given the candy and just ride the natural high with their little crazy powerhouse bodies.

I'm With Stupid wrote:It was on QI. The claim that sugar causes hyperactivity in children is apparently bullshit with no scientific evidence to back it up.

I've heard this stated, but I'm here to tell you that the counter-claim is clearly bullshit in regards to my kids (and a number of other families kids that I know). There is zero doubt in my mind that my kids get a sugar rush and go mental after something particularly sweet.

The claim isn't that children never go powerhouse mad after sugar... they just say it's a false causal relationship.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbBAsMnEmJo[/youtube]

Perhaps the main negatives associated with sugar are...

a) its high calorie density.... i.e. relatively small volumes of sugar deliver plenty of calories.
b) sugar is opioidergic and dopaminergic.... i.e. significantly stimulates the pleasure-reward centres of the brain, hence the phenomenon of "sugar addiction".

a + b = elevated risk of obesity

Of course the above is a generalisation that doesn't take into account other factors.... genetics, level of physical activity, other dietary components, etc. But, for the most part, a high intake of sugar-rich foods will predispose a person to weight gain.
Complicating matters is the fact that sugar-rich foods don't always taste sweet. Sugar is frequently used to "balance out" spicy (capsaicin), sour or bitter tastes in processed foods.... e.g. sugar is frequently first* in the ingredients listing of ketchup, chilli sauce, etc.

(*) Labelling laws require that ingredients be listed in decreasing order of their contribution (by mass).

As for the (controversial, disputed) link between sugar and hyperactivity through its effect on blood sugar, adrenal stimulation, etc....
IF such a link exists in some individuals, then it may be possible to ameliorate it simply by ensuring that the sugar-rich food is not eaten on an empty stomach. The simultaneous presence of other macronutrients (proteins and fats) in the stomach tends to reduce the effective glycaemic index of a carbohydrate-rich food, because the proteins and fats slow the passage of stomach contents to the small intestine (where most of the absorption into the bloodstream occurs). So a dessert eaten after a proper meal will theoretically have a less pronounced effect on blood sugar than will a candy bar or fizzy drink consumed an hour-or-so before a meal.

All things considered, I'd still choose sugar (in moderation) over aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame K, cyclamate, etc.

Wuffy wrote:The claim isn't that children never go powerhouse mad after sugar... they just say it's a false causal relationship.

What's the alternative explanation?

rEvolutionist wrote:

Wuffy wrote:The claim isn't that children never go powerhouse mad after sugar... they just say it's a false causal relationship.

What's the alternative explanation?

It's been noted that many of the sugar-rich foods are also rich in caffeine (e.g. cola beverages) or theobromine (in chocolate). (The two alkaloids are similar and both are stimulants, although theobromine is less so than caffeine).
There's also Benjamin Feingold's hypothesis that assorted additives can have an effect. Alas, there's no absolute certainty there either....

To treat or prevent hyperactivity, Feingold suggested a diet that was free of salicylates, artificial colors, artificial flavors, BHA, and BHT. There has been much debate about the efficacy of the diet, with many mainstream medical practitioners denying that it is of any use, while many people living with ADHD, parents of children with ADHD, and a large number of medical practitioners claim that it is effective in the management of ADHD and a number of other conditions.

Edit: grammar

Well I thought most additives had been ruled out a long time ago. As for the caffeine, none for my kids. And it's not just chocolate they go mental on.

I thought that the effect of a blood sugar "high" followed by a "crash", with all attendant effects on behaviour (as well as putting ridiculous strain" on insulin production), was very well established?

rJD wrote:I thought that the effect of a blood sugar "high" followed by a "crash", with all attendant effects on behaviour (as well as putting ridiculous strain" on insulin production), was very well established?

Yes, I think the blood sugar fluctuations (amounting to reactive hypoglycaemia, in extreme cases) are well-established. It's whether or not those fluctuations contribute to hyperactive behaviour that's in dispute.

rEvolutionist wrote:Well I thought most additives had been ruled out a long time ago. As for the caffeine, none for my kids. And it's not just chocolate they go mental on.

My experience is the same. Not with kids (don't have any).... I mean my personal experience. I don't typically eat a lot of sugar-rich foods. But I recall a friend's get-together I attended last year. Some-or-other rugby match was being broadcast on TV and I was invited to the "rugby braai" (barbecue), which happened to coincide with the fourth birthday party of the friend's daughter. But there was no barbecue.... just a table laden with marshmallows, cupcakes, jam cookies, potato crisps and other crap. I ate quite a lot of it (as did the other adults in attendance), if only because no other food was on offer. I distinctly remember that I consumed no caffeine-containing beverages or alcohol (it was about 10am). I also remember that, I felt very "hyper" for at least two hours after that party.... agitated, restless, etc.
So, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, I'm still inclined to believe that there is an effect.

rEvolutionist wrote:Well I thought most additives had been ruled out a long time ago. As for the caffeine, none for my kids. And it's not just chocolate they go mental on.

When my boys were small, just feeding them (on proper food) had the same effect. It was particularly pronounced when the granddaughters (each three years younger than their uncles) were visiting, because we then had four little horrors who, on leaving the dinner table, would go on a mad rampage around the house. I think it is called 'playing'. It became common for us adults to roll our eyes and for one or the other of us to say 'Somebody fed the kids again, didn't they?'

A lot of what used to be considered 'normal' behaviour in children is now being judged as 'abnormal', and in need of intervention, which is ridiculous.

Mike_L wrote:

rJD wrote:I thought that the effect of a blood sugar "high" followed by a "crash", with all attendant effects on behaviour (as well as putting ridiculous strain" on insulin production), was very well established?

Yes, I think the blood sugar fluctuations (amounting to reactive hypoglycaemia, in extreme cases) are well-established. It's whether or not those fluctuations contribute to hyperactive behaviour that's in dispute.

Whether a kid with a blood-sugar rush is technically "hyperactive" might be questionable but surely the contrast in behaviours in a child whose blood-sugar spikes and crashes repeatedly is significant enough to warrant attention?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:Well I thought most additives had been ruled out a long time ago. As for the caffeine, none for my kids. And it's not just chocolate they go mental on.

When my boys were small, just feeding them (on proper food) had the same effect. It was particularly pronounced when the granddaughters (each three years younger than their uncles) were visiting, because we then had four little horrors who, on leaving the dinner table, would go on a mad rampage around the house. I think it is called 'playing'. It became common for us adults to roll our eyes and for one or the other of us to say 'Somebody fed the kids again, didn't they?'

A lot of what used to be considered 'normal' behaviour in children is now being judged as 'abnormal', and in need of intervention, which is ridiculous.

Good points. Makes me think of this essay.....

Excerpt:
If you show any sign of life when you’re young, they’ll put you on Ritalin. Then, when you get old enough to take a good look around, you’ll get depressed, so they’ll give you Prozac. If you’re a man, this will render you chemically impotent, so you’ll need Viagra to get it up. Meanwhile, your steady diet of trans-fat-laden food is guaranteed to give you high cholesterol, so you’ll get a prescription for Lipitor. Finally, at the end of the day, you’ll lay awake at night worrying about losing your health plan, so you’ll need Lunesta to go to sleep.

Let's not get carried away. I'm not medicating my kids, nor are any other families I know with irregularly hypo kids. And it's not standard play. After a normal meal with normal levels of unprocessed sugar, the kids go off and calmly play. Give them ice-cream or lollies or chocolate and they go mental.

Want to watch an interesting effect with young Kids. Tell them they get to have Ice cream in 15 mins. Watch as they suddenly become hyperactive. Overjoyed and happy and fairly hyperactive if in the stages of actually doing something.

No sugar has been administered yet and they still act 'hyper'.

And yes giving children lots of sugar will make them more active but same as with giving them a meal, it's basically giving them a bunch of energy that they are ready to use right now.

Wuffy wrote:Want to watch an interesting effect with young Kids. Tell them they get to have Ice cream in 15 mins. Watch as they suddenly become hyperactive. Overjoyed and happy and fairly hyperactive if in the stages of actually doing something.

No sugar has been administered yet and they still act 'hyper'.

Absolutely not in the case of my children. Remember, i'm not just some Joe Public. I'm an ultra-rational scientist. I'm not saying I have actually done any double-blind replicated trials on my kids, but I have observed them while (I) being loosely cognisant of the scientific method.

And yes giving children lots of sugar will make them more active but same as with giving them a meal, it's basically giving them a bunch of energy that they are ready to use right now.

As I said in my previous post, that's absolutely not the case with my kids. They are fine after an ordinary meal.

rJD wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

rJD wrote:I thought that the effect of a blood sugar "high" followed by a "crash", with all attendant effects on behaviour (as well as putting ridiculous strain" on insulin production), was very well established?

Yes, I think the blood sugar fluctuations (amounting to reactive hypoglycaemia, in extreme cases) are well-established. It's whether or not those fluctuations contribute to hyperactive behaviour that's in dispute.

Whether a kid with a blood-sugar rush is technically "hyperactive" might be questionable but surely the contrast in behaviours in a child whose blood-sugar spikes and crashes repeatedly is significant enough to warrant attention?

Some parents accept it as "normal". For example, the four-year old I mentioned (a few posts back) exhibits behaviour that many would consider "hyper", but her parents just shrug it off.
For the most part, though, I think that children (and their parents) would benefit from a diet in which sugar-rich junk food is limited (or at least eaten only after a proper meal).