Reality Check: Does candy turn kids into monsters?
Trying to rein in the amount of sugar kids eat is hard enough. Having a plastic pumpkin full of candy in the house sure doesn't make it any easier.
There are plenty of compelling reasons to limit kids' intake of sugar. Candy is a source of empty calories that can displace more nutritious foods, lead to weight gain, and wreak havoc with insulin metabolism. (Type 2 diabetes used to be called Adult Onset Diabetes, but no more.)
But many parents are also convinced that sugar turns kids into little monsters--making them hyper-active, aggressive, or otherwise unmanageable. Yet the research fails to bear this out.
Is it all in parents' heads?
Controlled studies have measured the effects of sugar consumption on behavior and cognitive performance and failed to find any connection. See for example this meta-analysis. There have even been interesting studies where parents were asked to observe kids behavior. When the parents thought the kids had eaten sugar, they reported changes in behavior--even when the kids had actually been given a placebo. See this article for more on the sugar-hyperactivity myth.
Just last month, there was an interesting new twist on this: Researchers found that kids who ate candy every day were more likely to be arrested as adults for crimes involving violence, as reported by AP News. The researchers hastened to add that the association is probably more complex than it sounds. It may be, for example, that individuals with poor impulse control eat more candy as kids and then commit more crimes as adults.
What's a responsible parent to do?
Most parents settle for damage containment and try to strike a balance between nutrition concerns and letting kids enjoy this once-a-year festival. Rather than banning all Halloween candy (now who's the monster?), try to limit the amount that is collected and then dole it out slowly. One small treat after a healthy meal isn't going to turn your kids into monsters. Getting your kids up and moving--whether it's to rake leaves, play touch football, or even some Wii tennis--is also an effective way to mitigate the effects of a little extra sugar.
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Common sense prevails: Froot Loops not a "Smart Choice" | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Strange Science: Meat consumption increases risk of Type 2 diabetes |
Posted by: mcdonaldnutrition | Nov 9, 2009 4:16:08 AM
Thanks. I visited to your provided site and really its very good and perfect conclusion of research on Nutrition.Its really helpful for parents regarding their children foods.
Posted by: Curious reader | Oct 31, 2009 11:15:38 AM
@Dan
Well you certainly noticed in my post the British study cited the Lancet study below.
It does lend credence to those that say additives are involved.
As a plus, it was a "randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial", the so called "Gold Standard" that overly scientific sceptics who defend the "status quo" always want.
And sceptics who defend the "status quo" also say they want these studies published in respected, prestigious journals with high "Thomson Reuters ISI Impact Factor".
This study also filled that requirement, being published in "The Lancet", a high "Thomson Reuters ISI Impact Factor" medical journal.
McCann D, Barrett A, Cooper A, Crumpler D, Dalen L, Grimshaw K, et al. Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 1560–7
P.S.:But don't say nutritiondata is getting that bad yet, wait a bit more ok?
Posted by: Dan | Oct 31, 2009 10:49:24 AM
I've lost all respect for these NutritionData research columns. They always omit the KEY facts.
It's the ADDITIVES (coloring agents, preservatives and other chemicals) that are linked with hyperactivity.
This article is just as bad as the previous one that stated that mercury in fish isn't all that bad for us, while they omit the KEY facts that the fishing industry is devastating to the environment and that fish are a very polluted food source.
Don't give your kids Halloween candy. It's irresponsible and DOES create problems in the body.
Posted by: Curious reader | Oct 30, 2009 2:50:03 AM
@Dave
Also, for your curiosity, they cite this interesting article, which implicates the omega 6 oil linoleic acid in increased violence.
Hibbeln JR, Nieminen LRG, Lands WEM. Increasing homicide rates and linoleic acid consumption among five western countries, 1961–2000. Lipids 2004; 39: 1207–13
Posted by: Curious reader | Oct 30, 2009 2:30:49 AM
@Dave
Here is the full text PDF for the latest study.
"Confectionery consumption in childhood and adult violence"
The British Journal of Psychiatry (2009) 195: 366-367. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.061820
http://www.sendspace.com/file/rrbov0
http://www.filefactory.com/file/a075h28
http://www.mediafire.com/?jmkne4wdm5u
In the "Discussion" section of the article the authors say that
"Furthermore, childhood confectionery consumption may nurture a taste that is maintained into adulthood, exposing adults to the effects of additives often found in sweetened food, the consumption of which may also contribute towards adult aggression."
in which they cite this article to support this hypothesis:
McCann D, Barrett A, Cooper A, Crumpler D, Dalen L, Grimshaw K, et al. Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 1560–7
and also
"One plausible mechanism is that persistently using confectionery to control childhood behaviour might prevent children from learning to defer gratification, in turn biasing decision processes towards more impulsive behaviour, biases that are strongly associated with delinquency."
in which they cite:
Fairchild G, Goozen SH, Stollery SJ, Aitken MR, Savage J, Moore SC, et al. Decision-making and executive function in male adolescents with early-onset or adolescence-onset conduct disorder and control subjects. Biol Psychiatry 2009; 66: 162–8
Posted by: Dave | Oct 29, 2009 2:03:24 PM
I wonder if you could post a bit more info on how these studies were done, e.g. what did the control group eat?
Posted by: Maureen | Oct 29, 2009 12:48:07 PM
Don't throw away Halloween candy! Your kids are saving like misers to make the candy last all year, controlling their impulses. Throwing away the candy, or eating it yourself, discourages kids from being savers and planners. (Or it makes them plan to hide candy, which is Not A Good Idea.)
As a candy saver, I assure you that most varieties of Halloween candy do stay good for a year. It's Christmas candy that goes bad quickly.
Posted by: Norm | Oct 29, 2009 10:27:09 AM
Reading this article prompted this comment. Two countries, the U.K. and Australia, are moving to ban products containing synthetic food & beverage dyes from their shelves, thought to cause health problems in children, including symptoms of ADHD. One U.S. company, a Minnesota-based firm, has developed an all-natural, non-GM alternative to these petroleum-based dyes.
High in antioxidants, this new product, now catching the eye of large U.S. food/beverage manufacturers, is derived from a specially developed 'purple' corn hybrid. Once the natural dyes are extracted, the starches, proteins and oils in the corn are sustained for continued use along the food chain. To learn more, go to www.suntava.com.
Norm
Posted by: Matt | Oct 28, 2009 7:03:43 PM
Ahhh... the candy debate. Being a 15 year old kid, I probably am closer to the subject. From what I noticed, we used to collect pillowcases full of candy and probably eat half of that in one night. The difference with us was we then ran around for 3+ hours. Many of my friend's siblings will down the same amount of candy, but then go sit on the couch, making them irritable and annoying. If your kid eats a Snickers before a soccer game, whatever. But if your kid is eating a Snickers bar then watching TV, then you have a problem. But remember,it really depends on the kid. I could eat a years worth of candy and not effect my attitude, while my friend has a Coke and is bouncing off walls. The parents in the situation have to know what candy does to their kids and enforce a reasonable limit.
Posted by: CC Rimac | Oct 28, 2009 3:42:05 PM
This is HILARIOUS!!! Follow the money trail on those "conclusive" studies and you will find the Sugar Lobby at the other end.
Posted by: RB | Oct 28, 2009 3:08:33 PM
Great post.
I completely believe the research that concludes the sugar-hyperactivity connection is a myth. But, as the parents of a kid who seems to be ADHD (either that or he's SIGNIFICANTLY more fidgety and active than our other two), we swear that sugar seems to drive aggressive/hyperactive behavior. I'm convinced that it's all in our heads, but it's hard to be analytical when faced with the behavior of a supposedly ADHD behavior. We absolutely refuse to do the Ritalin thing and instead rely on a number of dietary and homeopathic remedies, which seem to be working, if his school performance and teacher reports are any indication. Maybe he's growing out of it. Regardless, there are other benefits to limiting candy (as you noted), so I don't see the harm in doing so, regardless of whether it causes hyperactivity.
But, we limit candy to all the kids and they seem fine with it. We donate half the collected candy and save the rest for consumption. Yet, we end up throwing away half the remaining candy because it sits uneaten for months. We've found that limiting without depriving has been a good choice for us.
