I think pediatricians these days know that it's a myth: sugar doesn't actually cause hyperactivity.

It can cause skin irritation though.

I think the bigger culprits for hyper activity are probably the food colourings that tend to be found in a lot of confectionary (hence the term 'kiddi-crack' for smarties :P)

Yes, you just can't take away those things they really like, because, you know, they really like them. Discipline is just mean, y'all. This doctor is a tool.

Well, as long as it only indirectly affects their behavior, that's totally different. Nothing you can do about that. :rolleyes: You know what? When I'm sick, I'm bitchy. The fastest way to stop me being bitchy is to get well. Does the flu have a neurological component? No. Does it still make me bitchy? Yes.


Edit to add: Sorry, I'm more irritated than I thought and have more to say on this subject. So 5% of ADHD kids got better on the Feingold diet--how many got better in the control group? Was it zero? I bet the parents of those 5% don't give a shit that the other 95% need additional things to help them, they're pretty fucking happy that their kid is in the 5% that got better. You know what else has a success rate of anywhere from 2%-7%? Chemotherapy.

Yeah, and meth addicts really like meth.

Yeah, and meth addicts are only knife-fighting with hallucinations of giant spiders because they haven't slept in sixteen days. So, when you think about it, meth isn't actually bad for you. And since they like it so much, can we really tell them they shouldn't be doing it?

My doctor wants me to do something for my heart, but I don't want to give up taste.
Face it, it's hard to be healthy.
Retards.

what's up with your heart?

I was quoting the shit I hear on food commercials... just strikes me as ridiculous things to say, similar to the tool doctor above.

"Our diet has changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000"

oh right, sorry. The only commercials I ever hear are on an alternative rock radio station, where the closest they get to food commercials is beer and drinks with more caffiene than Starbucks ....and combinations thereof :lol:

As a bare fact I believe this is true. But I am shouted down by parents who KNOW their children get hyperactive sugar highs.

The article is wrong. It takes an example of one type of food myth and applies it across the board. Children are more hyped up by parties than sugar? Yes. Therefore, no food causes behavioural differences. Err, no.

Lazy, lazy journalism.

It's also part of the underlying attitude that children are bad. They are no longer properly controlled. Our parents would have walloped us if we behaved like that. Damned liberals and their food-based excuses - just bring back the birch.

In this country the right wing press like that line. YMMV.

All other health issues aside, I believe that children do eat too much sugar and mothers have become more lazy about their children's diets. I'm going on what I see day to day, what I know about nutrition from 20 years of dieting. And I mentally applaud the mothers I see who feed their children rice cakes and carrot sticks. But they are in the minority.

The above does not apply for children in Minifob's situation - this thread is an eye-opener. It's made me check myself when judging the screaming kid who is ruining the one meal out I've treated myself to in a month. It does not change my mind about the two year old in a buggy eating a "share-size" pack of Wotsits at 11 o' clock in the morning.

I've seen some studies that indicate the flu does directly afect the brain. The investigation started after some apparent sleep-walking-suicides of people (esp children) taking certain antiviral medications; the final results are not yet in.


Thank goodness for all the hardworking fathers that take care of their kid's diets, then. :right:
Sorry, just a pet peeve coming out there. Bad parenting is usually blamed on the mother, but when you look, the father is usually either worse or completely absent. /rant.

Those parents have been tested in blind studies. The parents go away, half the kids get sugar, the other half get sweetener. The parents come back. And they can't tell whether their kid has had the sugar.

OK let me point out that the second quote on that page has turned out to be exactly incorrect since the statement was made (25 years ago), and the third quote directly contradicts the first one... why are they spoon feeding you this bullshit, and why the fuck are you eating it?

I mean, if you believe that, are you buying the shit they're selling, the whole point of the rest of the site? $89.95 colon cleansing powder! Better buy it... a dirty colon is bad for your health! How do they know it works? Not through unreliable "science" -- just try some and see if you don't feel energized! If so be sure to invest $138.95 for their whole-body cleansing kit.

Cancer mortality has been cut right in half in the last 30 years. Life expectancy doubled in the last 150 years. Not through bullshit websites. Science.

SCIENCE!

I dunno, I just wanted to say that.

I have to say that as far as sugar goes, Aden clearly gets 'hypo' when he drinks softdrink. His behaviour changes almost immediately, and then he gets grumpy when he's coming down off that high. Simple solution for us is to water down his softdrink or simply not allow him to have it. We've also been working on getting him to be aware of his changes in behaviour so that he can regulate his own behaviour now that he's getting a bit too old to just say he can't have it (or will be soon anyway).

We pretty much don't have softdrink in the house though, and when we do, the kids mostly are only allowed to have it in the mornings. Never after 4pm or so.

Of course, it could be the preservatives and/or colouring they put in it too, but either way, softdrinks are frowned on here.

As for kids being allowed to get away with bad behaviour simply because they're hypo from sugar (if that's what their parents blame it on), then bring back the birch for the parents. They should a. not allow the child to have the food that they blame, and b. they should still be disciplining their child. Otherwise it's like saying, "Oh he likes playing with fire. We can't stop him even though we know he'll get burnt or possibly burn someone else" Duh! Yes you can stop him. You're his parents! It's your job!!!

Hang on a second. They compared sugar to artificial sweeteners, another substance that is widely suspected to cause behavior problems? Did they ever compare sugar to nothing, or artificial sweeteners to nothing? For crying out loud, when most parents say "sugar" makes their kid hyper they're really talking about artificial sweeteners to begin with. How many shelf products (cake mixes, cans of frosting, sodas, candy bars) are made with real sugar anymore?

Not according to the American Cancer Society, who say that rates didn't even start going down until the early 1990s, and since then they have dropped 18.4% in men and 10.5% in women. And the majority of that drop is due to prevention (i.e. smoking rates are down and breast cancer screenings are becoming more common and more advanced,) not improvements in chemotherapy.

But whatever, cancer is not the point. I only brought it up to illustrate that there are many drugs out there with similar rates that are considered "effective." It was an especially bad choice because there are a wide variety of chemo drugs with varying effectiveness, and most of the time its only goal is to extend life a few more years, not cure the disease.

And yet, the rates of a crapton of other things are inexplicably rising at an alarming rate, including but not limited to autism, Celiac disease, life-threatening allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, type 1 diabetes, and all types of thyroid disease. Science works very hard, no doubt, but it's not the God you want it to be.