Studies about sugar and kids

[TravelingChris]

I can't find the poster who wanted the studies but her is what I found in a quick glance at the internet.

 

JAMA Nov 22, 1995 a look at a number of studies on the effects of sugar on children's behavior. All the studies involved rigorous scientific testing including know quantities of sugar, use of sugar vs placebo, and conducting a double-blind study. Result sugar had no effect on behavior.

 

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology Aug 1994 This one studied parental evaluation of children's behavior if they were told the kids were given sugar. Found that it was the parental expectation that colored their interpretation since whether the child actually had sugar or not wasn't the difference but rather whether the parent had been told correctly or incorrectly.

[msjones]

These seem to be the studies I've heard of, too. Anyone know of anything more recent?

[secular_mom]

Are there any about food dyes/additives?

[Greta]

use of sugar vs placebo

 

Do you know what the placebo was? When you say "sugar" I'm guessing cane sugar. But what if the placebo was something else that causes an insulin response?

[smrtmama]

The placebo would have to be inactive/inert for the purpose of the experiment.

[CalicoKat]

I can't find the poster who wanted the studies but her is what I found in a quick glance at the internet.

 

JAMA Nov 22, 1995 a look at a number of studies on the effects of sugar on children's behavior. All the studies involved rigorous scientific testing including know quantities of sugar, use of sugar vs placebo, and conducting a double-blind study. Result sugar had no effect on behavior.

 

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology Aug 1994 This one studied parental evaluation of children's behavior if they were told the kids were given sugar. Found that it was the parental expectation that colored their interpretation since whether the child actually had sugar or not wasn't the difference but rather whether the parent had been told correctly or incorrectly.

I'd be interested to know of a study like this with HFCS instead. Personally, in our experience, sugar isn't behaviour problem causing. It's the corn syrup and HFCS & food dyes we avoid.

[secular_mom]

My child can eat oranges and has no problems, but if he has orange JUICE he has serious impulse control issues. (he has impulse control issues anyway, but it's 10x worse if he has had OJ). I have no idea what it is about OJ that causes this. I have not 'taught' him that we expect him to act crazy if he has OJ, I have just noticed the remarkable difference in behavior and I now avoid it. We tend to avoid juice in general, because I don't think it's very healthy- I think it's healthier to drink water and eat whole fruit instead.

I do try giving him some every now and then to see if this has changed. It does seem to be improving, but there is still a difference in his behavior.

[Stacy in NJ]

Thanks for posting this, Christina. Good information.

[Sputterduck]

The placebo would have to be inactive/inert for the purpose of the experiment.

 

 

Fake sugar would have had to have been used then, right? Whatever they fed them would have had to have tasted sweet but had no effect on blood sugar levels. Sugar substitutes are also commonly blamed for behavioral changes, so that would render the studies pretty much useless.

[Greta]

Fake sugar would have had to have been used then, right? Whatever they fed them would have had to have tasted sweet but had no effect on blood sugar levels. Sugar substitutes are also commonly blamed for behavioral changes, so that would render the studies pretty much useless.

 

That's exactly what I was wondering about. I've heard (and have no evidence to back this up, I'm just pondering here) that sugar substitutes cause an insulin response as does real sugar. So, IF that is true, I'm wondering what kind of placebo they could use that could possibly make this study valid.

[Kathleen in VA]

My child can eat oranges and has no problems, but if he has orange JUICE he has serious impulse control issues. (he has impulse control issues anyway, but it's 10x worse if he has had OJ). I have no idea what it is about OJ that causes this. I have not 'taught' him that we expect him to act crazy if he has OJ, I have just noticed the remarkable difference in behavior and I now avoid it. We tend to avoid juice in general, because I don't think it's very healthy- I think it's healthier to drink water and eat whole fruit instead.

I do try giving him some every now and then to see if this has changed. It does seem to be improving, but there is still a difference in his behavior.

 

Someone posted this link yesterday but I can't find the thread. It will help answer your question about why drinking juice is much different than eating the fruit:

 

 

 

It is fairly long, but I just finished watching it and am very, very glad I took the time - a real eye-opener!!

 

The main point of the presentation is that fructose is a poison - a chronic toxin. When eaten with fiber (in its natural state, such as in an orange or apple) the fiber will keep it from harming you. When eaten without the fiber (such as in juice and as hfcs in sodas, etc.) it will eventually kill you. That's a huge over-simplification, but that's the gist.:)

[usetoschool]

Posted something like this on the other thread but here is another recap of the one of the studies done that indicate it isn't the sugar that causes the problem but the adrenaline response to the rebound when the blood sugar gets low afterward. In adults the adrenaline doesn't kick in until blood sugar is very low but in children the adrenaline kicks in at a level that would be considered normal blood sugar in an adult. But as this recap points out, the response only happens when kids are given sugar on an empty stomach - no fiber or protein with it.

 

http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/5/2-c

 

As I was researching this awhile ago, the only results I could find were from the mid-90's.

[Corraleno]

The study most frequently cited as "proof" that there is no connection between sugar was conducted by Mark Wolraich at Vanderbilt and it involved a whopping sample size of 48 children. They were given diets that included either sugar, aspartame, or saccarhine, spending one week on each diet. Researchers concluded there was not a noticeable difference in behavior when they were on the different diets. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/03/us/sweeteners-hyperactivity-link-is-discounted.html

 

Of course, replacing sucrose with aspartame will not show a difference in behavior if a child is sensitive to both. If the "aspartame week" diet is just as high in refined white flour (which also spikes blood sugar) and other sugars, like fructose and corn syrup, then there may also not be much of a difference, either.

 

According to this article, the sum total of ALL children used in the studies purporting to show no link between sugar and behavior is approximately 500 children:

Sugar consumption does not significantly affect the way most children act or think, researchers concluded after reviewing studies involving more than 500 youngsters, mostly younger than 15 years old http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/22/garden/study-disputes-link-of-sugar-to-hyperactivity.html

 

One of the major flaws of these kinds of studies is pointed out at the end of the same article:

Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit group that explores nutrition issues, said the analysis may fail to reflect the fact that some children are slowed by sugar and some are speeded up.

 

"My concern is that in many of these studies, what the studies do is look at the average effect of sugar on a child's behavior," Dr. Jacobson, a biochemist, said from Washington. "You have to look at every child as a separate experiment to determine if some children are sensitive."

 

If you took 10 children, all of whom had observable, objectively confirmed behavioral reactions to sugary foods, and put them in a controlled, double-blind study, you might find that that one child had a fructose intolerance, another had an insulin reaction that led to inattention and irritability, another had an adrenalin reaction that led to manic hyperactivity, and yet another reacted to the combination of sugar/flour/artificial dyes. If you "averaged" the results, you could say there was "no consistent correlation between sugar and behavior," and yet for each individual child there clearly is a correlation.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

Here are some studies covering much larger samples (these are statistical studies, not double-blind studies) in Europe, which DO show a correlation between sugar and behavior:

 

Norwegian study of 5,000 teens showing "a clear and direct association between soft drink intake and hyperactivity, and a more complex link with other mental and behavioural disorders":

http://www.smh.com.au/news/childrens-health/sugar-linked-with-mental-problems/2006/10/05/1159641445721.html

 

Finnish study of nearly 15,000 people showing a "powerful and statistically significant" correlation between insulin sensitivity and suicide:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T84-46YGGW2-5&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2002&_alid=459033254&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5076&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b394439d3911175d580fc72a1b564803

 

British study of approximately 5000 women showing a link between insulin sensitivity and depression:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7428/1383?ijkey=b3995951f837c8f986550ad249c9912819767fe4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

British study showing that "A higher national dietary intake of refined sugar and diary products predicted a worse 2-year outcome for schizophrenia":

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/184/5/404?ijkey=51dcb3d30b839d298292dac38f5160985ccc214b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

Princeton University study on rats suggesting that bingeing on sugar may cause "lasting alteration to the dopamine system":

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0F-49SFDNY-F&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1062174075&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=54ad0d68bd696423afe1ed8702ca1fc5

(The relevance to ADHD is that people with ADHD have much lower than normal levels of dopamine.)

 

I'll post about dyes/additives separately...

 

Jackie

[Mommyof4ks]

My middle son has trouble with dyes, but we could feed them cane sugar all day with no effect. My other kids have no trouble with any foods. Things effect different people differently.

[Sputterduck]

Very nice Corraleno!

[Corraleno]

Regarding additives and preservatives, this is from the British Journal of Medicine:

Whether preservatives and colourings cause or exacerbate hyperactive behaviours is an important question for many paediatricians and parents. A recent randomised placebo controlled trial in 297 children aged 3-9 years provides evidence of increased hyperactive behaviour after they ate a mixture of food colourings and a preservative (sodium benzoate). In contrast to many previous studies, the children were from the general population and did not have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The trial found an adverse effect of the mixture on behaviour as measured by a global hyperactivity aggregate score. The daily dose approximated that found in two 56 g bags of sweets.http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/336/7654/1144

 

And this:

Last February, editors of the American Academy of Pediatrics publication AAP Grand Rounds cited the same study as evidence that it is time to revisit the issue.

 

"The overall findings of the study are clear and require that even we skeptics, who have long doubted parental claims of the effects of various foods on the behavior of their children, admit we might have been wrong," the editors wrote.

 

Seattle Children's Hospital associate medical director Edgar Marcuse, MD, says the new study is more rigorous than any research that has been done before, even though it was not limited to children with ADHD.

 

As an editor of AAP Grand Rounds, Marcuse co-wrote the editorial calling on clinicians to be more open-minded about a possible role for dietary restrictions in the treatment of hyperactivity.

 

"This was not a huge study, but the overall findings were rather compelling," Marcuse tells WebMD. "We don't know what this means for any individual child at this point, but I think it reopens a book that has been closed."

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=89728

 

Jackie

[Nicole M]

Never mind.

[Greta]

Here are some studies covering much larger samples (these are statistical studies, not double-blind studies) in Europe, which DO show a correlation between sugar and behavior...

 

Thank you Jackie, this is good info to have.

[Sputterduck]

Someone posted this link yesterday but I can't find the thread. It will help answer your question about why drinking juice is much different than eating the fruit:

 

 

 

It is fairly long, but I just finished watching it and am very, very glad I took the time - a real eye-opener!!

 

The main point of the presentation is that fructose is a poison - a chronic toxin. When eaten with fiber (in its natural state, such as in an orange or apple) the fiber will keep it from harming you. When eaten without the fiber (such as in juice and as hfcs in sodas, etc.) it will eventually kill you. That's a huge over-simplification, but that's the gist.:)

 

 

Wow! That was a *very* good video. Totally worth watching.

[ElizabethB]

But as this recap points out, the response only happens when kids are given sugar on an empty stomach - no fiber or protein with it.

 

 

We tell everyone that we monitor the protein/sugar ratio around here.

 

My parents think we're nuts! But, we see a big difference when good protein/sugar ratios are maintained.

[Miss Sherry]

I believe there are studies on both sides of this issue. Regardless of what a specific study result is, a particular parent should not be dismissed just because their personal conclusion as to what is going on with their own child does not fit into a certain study does not mean that they are incompetent in their observations of their own children. There are all kinds of studies with various results.

 

Several years ago I was diagnosed with shingles. At the time I was first diagnosed I said that I believed that each time I was exposed to chicken pox at the clinic I worked at that it triggered me coming down with shingles. I was told by a couple of doctors that there was not a connection. At that time they did not know of a study that "proved" exposure to chicken pox caused shingles outbreaks. They have since changed their minds and it is now believed that exposure to chicken pox can cause shingles outbreaks.

I've known all along my outbreaks were caused by exposure to chicken pox. It happened to me too many times for it to be a conincidence. I didn't need a study to tell me.

[Lovedtodeath]

I believe there are studies on both sides of this issue. Regardless of what a specific study result is, a particular parent should not be dismissed just because their personal conclusion as to what is going on with their own child does not fit into a certain study does not mean that they are incompetent in their observations of their own children. There are all kinds of studies with various results.

 

Several years ago I was diagnosed with shingles. At the time I was first diagnosed I said that I believed that each time I was exposed to chicken pox at the clinic I worked at that it triggered me coming down with shingles. I was told by a couple of doctors that there was not a connection. At that time they did not know of a study that "proved" exposure to chicken pox caused shingles outbreaks. They have since changed their minds and it is now believed that exposure to chicken pox can cause shingles outbreaks.

I've known all along my outbreaks were caused by exposure to chicken pox. It happened to me too many times for it to be a conincidence. I didn't need a study to tell me.

:thumbup1:

[LibraryLover]

My kids only have only ever had issues with sugar (cupcakes etc) if that's all they eat. I always tank up littles with cheese and such before parties. No issues then.

 

Any kind of sugar on an empty stomach is the kiss of death, ime. Any study needs to inculde protein intake prior to the sugar intake.. If they don't, I am so "Duh, no kidding Dick Tracey".

[kalanamak]

 

The main point of the presentation is that fructose is a poison - a chronic toxin. :)

 

https://www.naturalcandystore.com

 

FYI, carries no candy with HFCS. I tasted their gum recently. Anyone have any more extensive reviews?

[CalicoKat]

https://www.naturalcandystore.com

 

FYI, carries no candy with HFCS. I tasted their gum recently. Anyone have any more extensive reviews?

The Squirrel's next also has candy that's more natural http://www.squirrels-nest.com/index.cfm?action=cat.catalog It's been a while since I ordered from them, but I remember having to be careful because some of it does contain CS.

 

I prefer Kalanamak's recommendation. Good candy. We've gotten their halloween package. Love their rootbeer barrels. :) Cinamon hard candy is a bit strong for my kids. I like their peppermint patties made with honey but my kids don't. Their gummy bears and worm are wonderful. My kids like the new gimme probiotic candy coated chocolate's. They liked the chocolate coated sunflower seeds too.

[asta]

Several years ago I was diagnosed with shingles. At the time I was first diagnosed I said that I believed that each time I was exposed to chicken pox at the clinic I worked at that it triggered me coming down with shingles. I was told by a couple of doctors that there was not a connection. At that time they did not know of a study that "proved" exposure to chicken pox caused shingles outbreaks. They have since changed their minds and it is now believed that exposure to chicken pox can cause shingles outbreaks.

 

Not to spin out the thread or anything...

 

I had an awful case of CP in kindergarten - I still remember it, and have a bad scar on my face from it.

 

Fast forward to my own kid in kindergarten. He got a bad case. I got it AGAIN! At first, they tried to tell me I'd gotten shingles, and then they saw me. Nope. Shingles always follows a nerve path (as you know). I was covered head to toe: Chicken pox.

 

So much for the "you can't get it twice" study... and it hurts and itches a lot more the second time, even with anti-virals and heavy sedation.

 

 

a

[Sputterduck]

https://www.naturalcandystore.com

 

FYI, carries no candy with HFCS. I tasted their gum recently. Anyone have any more extensive reviews?

 

 

Well, it's still all refined sugar. One of the doctor's main points in the video was that where God made a toxin, he packaged it with the antidote. When you take sugar away from the fiber it is naturally packed with, you get just the toxin, no antidote. Even "natural" sugar is still sugar, and candy made from it is still candy and still really really bad for you.

[kalanamak]

When you take sugar away from the fiber it is naturally packed with, you get just the toxin, no antidote. Even "natural" sugar is still sugar, and candy made from it is still candy and still really really bad for you.

 

"Really, really bad"? Since I only consider smoking "really bad" for one, I suspect, to get two reallys, I'd require something with alcohol and firearms or heavy machinery.

 

My dad had a sweet tooth. It was a daily habit. He lived to be 97. My mother was an icecreamoholic. Died a month short of 90. However, she shook her fists at saccharine and margarine and white bread and soda pop. Never had any of it in the house.

[secular_mom]

Well, it's still all refined sugar. One of the doctor's main points in the video was that where God made a toxin, he packaged it with the antidote. When you take sugar away from the fiber it is naturally packed with, you get just the toxin, no antidote. Even "natural" sugar is still sugar, and candy made from it is still candy and still really really bad for you.

What I got from the video was:

Fructose is really bad for you, has the same toxic effects on your body as alcohol, minus the effects on your brain. Sucrose is not bad for you, so long as you also consume fiber when you consume sucrose. But I could be totally wrong. I say, sucrose in moderation- mostly consumed in the form of whole foods, but occasional candy isn't really really bad. A steady diet of processed foods that contain sucrose is really bad for you. But most of us probably already know that on some level.

[Sputterduck]

What I got from the video was:

Fructose is really bad for you, has the same toxic effects on your body as alcohol, minus the effects on your brain. Sucrose is not bad for you, so long as you also consume fiber when you consume sucrose. But I could be totally wrong. I say, sucrose in moderation- mostly consumed in the form of whole foods, but occasional candy isn't really really bad. A steady diet of processed foods that contain sucrose is really bad for you. But most of us probably already know that on some level.

 

 

Sucrose is half fructose.

[secular_mom]

Sucrose is half fructose.

Ahhh, so it's not just the 'pure' fructose that is evil then. :(

Darn it. Oh well, I guess I can just remove expensive candy from my shopping list :lol:

[Tam101]

Any idea where honey falls? Is it sucrose too? Therefore half fructose. I'm an hour into that video and am finding it fascinating! I do have to admit that the bio-chem parts are mostly going over my head, but I get enough of it.

 

Anyway, my favorite whole-wheat bagels are made with honey and NO sugar. I'm hoping that is good, because I love my bagels! LOL I'm going to purge my house of sugar, the bread I buy has to go. Maybe I can talk dh into getting me a bread machine for Christmas!! ;)

 

My dh is making some Campbells tomato soup. Loaded with sugar and salt! I knew the salt part, but never paid attention to the sugar. He just pointed it out to me. I'm going to have to change the way I shop!

[Lovedtodeath]

My naturopath only allows pure maple syrup and xylitol for those of us on a cancer diet. She says maple syrup has many beneficial properties. I eat a ton of it without a problem. If I cheat a little and have sugar, it really does me in.

[Miss Sherry]

Not to spin out the thread or anything...

 

I had an awful case of CP in kindergarten - I still remember it, and have a bad scar on my face from it.

 

Fast forward to my own kid in kindergarten. He got a bad case. I got it AGAIN! At first, they tried to tell me I'd gotten shingles, and then they saw me. Nope. Shingles always follows a nerve path (as you know). I was covered head to toe: Chicken pox.

 

So much for the "you can't get it twice" study... and it hurts and itches a lot more the second time, even with anti-virals and heavy sedation.

 

 

a

 

Wow ! That must have been miserable. In general, most people will not get chicken pox if they have already had it. I hope you never get cp again or shingles.

[Sputterduck]

Any idea where honey falls? Is it sucrose too? Therefore half fructose. I'm an hour into that video and am finding it fascinating! I do have to admit that the bio-chem parts are mostly going over my head, but I get enough of it.

 

Anyway, my favorite whole-wheat bagels are made with honey and NO sugar. I'm hoping that is good, because I love my bagels! LOL I'm going to purge my house of sugar, the bread I buy has to go. Maybe I can talk dh into getting me a bread machine for Christmas!! ;)

 

My dh is making some Campbells tomato soup. Loaded with sugar and salt! I knew the salt part, but never paid attention to the sugar. He just pointed it out to me. I'm going to have to change the way I shop!

 

"With respect to carbohydrates, honey is mainly fructose (about 38.5%) and glucose (about 31.0%)"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey

[Seeker]

My naturopath only allows pure maple syrup and xylitol for those of us on a cancer diet. She says maple syrup has many beneficial properties. I eat a ton of it without a problem. If I cheat a little and have sugar, it really does me in.

 

I write research and write articles on health-related issues, which is to say I am not an expert but a continual student. If on a cancer diet, I understand the necessity to avoid sugar and connection between sugar and cancer, but xylitol? That I do not get. I would prefer to eat natural sweeteners in a natural ratio/combination. If there is anything that the history of nature has proven it is this: When we take any one part of even a natural substance and use it in quantities or in combinations never found in nature, that is when we create new health issues.

 

Sugar alcohols have not been used, as the additive in foods are being used today, long enough to recognize any long term effects they may have and I am rather skeptical due to the short term side effects. While some do not have much of the short term effects, my family does within 30 minutes of eating it. Maybe it is because we have been eating mostly organic, less process foods for so long our bodies recognize when something is really out of proportion and responds quickly...?

 

A woman from Belgium once told me that when she came to the U.S. she could not believe how sweet all the food was. She kept her native diet because of it. I think, for the most part, people need to back off all added sweeteners and I also have seen the effects of sugar with my daughter. No study is going to convince me that the difference I have witnessed in her is all in my head.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Seeker
typo

[Kathleen in VA]

"With respect to carbohydrates, honey is mainly fructose (about 38.5%) and glucose (about 31.0%)"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey

 

Please correct me if I am wrong (I watched the video several days ago), but my understanding is that fructose is fine if it is eaten in fruit form (such as an apple or orange) because the fiber in the fruit helps your body digest it without the harmful effects. The presenter even when so far as to say that God combined fructose and fiber when he made fruit and that's the way it was intended to be eaten.

 

Sooooo, that makes me think that eating honey in bread that was made with whole wheat is ok because whole wheat has lots of fiber - especially freshly ground whole wheat. Anyone know what the fiber content of freshly ground whole wheat is? I just made four loaves of the same kind of honey/whole wheat bread with freshly ground grain a friend gave me.

[Kathleen in VA]

After some searching, I was able to find this chart comparing whole wheat flour with white flour. It is on a website that sells grain mills, but I double checked the source (U.S.D.A. Nutrient Database) and it is accurate:

 

http://www.healthbanquet.com/whole-wheat-nutrition.html

 

Looks like whole wheat has about 5-6X as much fiber as regular flour.

[Tam101]

"With respect to carbohydrates, honey is mainly fructose (about 38.5%) and glucose (about 31.0%)"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey

 

Thanks!

[PollyOR]

Thank you for the link. My first reaction to the title, Sugar: The Bitter Truth, was also "quack science" like someone tagged this thread with. I just spent an hour-and-a-half watching it, and quack science is the opposite of this university lecture.

[Lovedtodeath]

Please correct me if I am wrong (I watched the video several days ago), but my understanding is that fructose is fine if it is eaten in fruit form (such as an apple or orange) because the fiber in the fruit helps your body digest it without the harmful effects. The presenter even when so far as to say that God combined fructose and fiber when he made fruit and that's the way it was intended to be eaten.

 

Sooooo, that makes me think that eating honey in bread that was made with whole wheat is ok because whole wheat has lots of fiber - especially freshly ground whole wheat. Anyone know what the fiber content of freshly ground whole wheat is? I just made four loaves of the same kind of honey/whole wheat bread with freshly ground grain a friend gave me.

I would be okay with eating small amounts of honey or molasses in whole wheat bread. Taking sugar, which is highly processed and thinking it is okay to eat it with enough fiber I would not agree with. Enjoy your bread. It sounds delicious.

[Sputterduck]

Thank you for the link. My first reaction to the title, Sugar: The Bitter Truth, was also "quack science" like someone tagged this thread with. I just spent an hour-and-a-half watching it, and quack science is the opposite of this university lecture.

 

Whoever tagged it with that didn't actually watch the video I bet.

[kalanamak]

Thank you for the link. My first reaction to the title, Sugar: The Bitter Truth, was also "quack science" like someone tagged this thread with. I just spent an hour-and-a-half watching it, and quack science is the opposite of this university lecture.

 

This is not like any university lecture I've ever been to. Using the word poison over and over, leaning out at the viewer and saying "have I convinced you yet" in a vaguely aggressive manner, etc. He is singing my "tune" about fiber and fast food, etc, but not with "the orchestration and arrangement" I like. His talk seemed geared to getting on YouTube, not a university lecture. And yes, I watched the whole thing.

 

It reminds me of Paul Goodman's thoughts on the pacifistic literature or movies inciting the audience to chest thumping opposition. (I don't know how many of you have seen Hearts and Minds, but the audience I saw it with rose to their feet and cheered when the American bomber went down.)

[jazzyfizzle]

That's exactly what I was wondering about. I've heard (and have no evidence to back this up, I'm just pondering here) that sugar substitutes cause an insulin response as does real sugar. So, IF that is true, I'm wondering what kind of placebo they could use that could possibly make this study valid.

 

 

Just in my own experience as a type 1, sugar substitutes have absolutely no effect ever on my blood sugar levels.

[Greta]

Just in my own experience as a type 1, sugar substitutes have absolutely no effect ever on my blood sugar levels.

 

Ah, thanks for sharing. If I may ask, does caffeine affect your blood sugar levels?

[jazzyfizzle]

Hi Greta, no, thankfully it does not. (I have to have my coffee :D )

[MBM]

Linus Pauling's opinion about sugar from his book How to Live Longer and Feel Better:

 

"In fact, as to eating and drinking there is in this book only one real don't; that is sugar. Like the cigarette, the sugar sucrose is a novelty of industrial civilization. Together, they have brought pandemics of cancer and cardiovascular disease to the otherwise fortunate populations of the developed countries. Sugar in breakfast foods (as much, sometimes, as the cereal) is especially harmful to infants and children, and the problem of a good beverage, free of sugar or of the chemical sweeteners that are substituted for it, remains to be solved. The cigarette hazard can be eleminated by quitting the smoking habit. Sucrose cannot be avoided, but a large decrease in the intake of this sugar is essential."

 

The YouTube video is interesting. Thanks for the link.