×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Soda Makes Five-Year-Olds Break Your Stuff, Science Finds

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the just-like-alcohol-and-teenagers dept.

Medicine 287

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Shakira F. Suglia and co-authors surveyed 2,929 mothers of five-year-olds (PDF) and found that 43 percent of the kids consumed at least one serving of soft drinks per day. About four percent of those children (or 110 of them), drank more than four soft drinks per day, and became 'more than twice as likely to destroy things belonging to others, get into fights, and physically attack people.' In the past, soda and its various strains have been related to depression, irritability, aggression, suicidal thoughts, and delusions of sweepstake-winning grandeur. Of course, this study didn't find out what types of soda the children had consumed."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

287 comments

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593597)

1st

Correlation != Causality (1)

kelarius (947816) | about 8 months ago | (#44594335)

I ran another study and found that approximately 50% of the same respondents are male, the other 50% female, and 100% breathe oxygen on a regular basis. Therefore, I can only conclude that having a gender and breathing oxygen must make 5 year olds destructive, violent, sociopaths.

Scientists finally discover... (5, Funny)

sinij (911942) | about 8 months ago | (#44593617)

Scientists finally discover sugar high, new at 11!

Re:Scientists finally discover... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593689)

It's not the sugar; that's an old-wive's tale. It's the caffeine and certain colorings.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (1, Informative)

Xicor (2738029) | about 8 months ago | (#44593753)

sugar makes kids bounce off the walls too you know.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (4, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 8 months ago | (#44593793)

Actually, I don't know that. There was at least one study a few years ago that studied just that. It discovered that there was no difference in children's behavior after consuming a large dose of sugar. The researchers postulated that the myth about sugar resulting in kid's "bouncing off the walls", resulted from the fact that kids tend to consume large amounts of sugar in settings which cause them to be more active.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (5, Informative)

Nutria (679911) | about 8 months ago | (#44594411)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8747098 [nih.gov]

However, anecdotal observations of this kind need to be tested scientifically before conclusions can be drawn, and criteria for interpreting diet behavior studies must be rigorous. ... Although sugar is widely believed by the public to cause hyperactive behavior, this has not been scientifically substantiated. Twelve double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of sugar challenges failed to provide any evidence that sugar ingestion leads to untoward behavior in children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or in normal children.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 8 months ago | (#44593809)

Nope. Tests have shown that sugar has very little effect on kids.

All the "bouncing off walls" is just anecdote.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 8 months ago | (#44593845)

Agreed. As a treat I'll get the kids a cinnamon role and there is no difference in their behavior afterwards, with the exception that I can guilt them into doing more chores.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593923)

So, which Cinnamon role does your kid play? The one from Adventure Time, or the old-west female gunslinger?

Re:Scientists finally discover... (1)

Walzmyn (913748) | about 8 months ago | (#44594379)

Cinnamon actually slows the body's uptake of sugar. We put it in cake icing and it keeps down that sugar rush us old fogies can't quite handle any more.

For my kids we won't let 'em have sugar deserts after supper and they are MUCH more well behaved getting to bed. I'm not sure they are any less "bouncing off the walls" but they do go to sleep much easier.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594303)

All the "bouncing off walls" is just anecdote.

Tell me about it. It turns out that they splatter instead.

And then the parents get all huffy about it.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593759)

Actually, no.

http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/

In 1982, the National Institute of Health announced that no link between sugar and hyperactivity had been scientifically proven. Why, then, does this myth still persist? It may be mostly psychological. As previously stated, experimentation has shown that parents who believe in a link between sugar and hyperactivity see one, even though others do not. Another possibility is that children tend to be more excited at events like birthday and Halloween parties where sugary foods are usually served . People may have confused proximity with correlation although the environment is probably more to blame than the food.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594099)

The myth persist because kids hardly ever eat pure sugar. They eat sugary stuff mixed with color, chocoloate, preservatives and taste-affecting chemicals. Soemthing in that mix may very well make them hyper - and this keeps the myth going. Because sugar is always present - kids never eat color & food preservative in pure form.

But give them sugary water as an experiment, and see that they don't get more hyper than usual.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (3, Informative)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 8 months ago | (#44593765)

The notion of a "sugar high" was a propaganda technique [dukehealth.org] used to manipulate the masses into reducing their sugar consumption during WW2. It doesn't exist. Kids that get hyperactive after consuming sugar do so because they have been trained by an adult into thinking they can act up with impunity because the "sugar" makes them do it.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (2)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 8 months ago | (#44593817)

The "sugar high" may well be propaganda, but sugar toxicity is not. [youtube.com] (Or if you prefer print over video, this is a pretty good summary.) [nytimes.com]

Re:Scientists finally discover... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594329)

Fructose toxicity, there I fixed that for you. (Yes, I know table sugar is half fructose. High fructose corn syrup is anywhere between like 60 to 80 percent fructose. Mmmmmm... Soda death.)

Re:Scientists finally discover... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593899)

This. I mean, come on - Anyone who grew up in the 'old days' (even in the eighties in Britain, as I did) can see that child-rearing culture plays a vastly greater role than environmental / chemical factors.

When I was a child, parents _told_ children how it was. Nowadays, my thirty-something friends with kids _ask_ their young children if they'd like to brush their teeth or eat their greens. There's often little to no scolding in case the child misbehaves, either..

Re:Scientists finally discover... (2)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about 8 months ago | (#44594151)

So you can see what kind of parents kids who are scolded turn out to be. Wishy washy, namby pamby parents, I tell ya!

coloring (1)

nten (709128) | about 8 months ago | (#44593967)

I found that even diet drinks make me unable to concentrate after a few days of regular consumption. As an experiment I switched from diet cola colored drinks to a diet clear drink that had even more caffeine. The problem went away. Whatever the chemical is, chai tea (diffuser in water, not the starbucks crap) does the same thing to me after a few days, while black and green tea do not.

Re:coloring (2)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about 8 months ago | (#44594179)

Couldn't the placebo effect be causing this? I bet if you told this to any doctor he'd be thinking that it was placebo in the back of his mind.

Re:coloring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594193)

I don't know what crap you've been having disguised as "chai tea" (which itself is like saying pin number or atm machine, since chai means literally "tea"), but chai is nothing more than black tea brewed with spices and or milk.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 8 months ago | (#44594197)

So, my two-year-old niece, who is normally a delight, only gets atypically pissy, stubborn and reckless when she's consumed sugar in excess because she possesses the cognizance to know she can excuse it based on supposedly false psychological conceptions?

Sure, OK, I guess I should tell my sister that her daughter is some sort of prodigy.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 8 months ago | (#44594405)

i know i get very irritable if i have too much sugar. they've also done tests in UK prisons where they have removed sugar and they find that the inmates are a lot more calm.

Sugar High? No such thing. (4, Informative)

internic (453511) | about 8 months ago | (#44593825)

Actually the existance of the sugar high has been hotly debated, and as far as I'm aware most of the scientific literature [scientificamerican.com] suggests [yalescientific.org] that it doesn't exist [straightdope.com] .

Of course I think those observations are mostly about double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trails where neither the child nor the observer knows the child has gotten sugar. I don't know if the results of this survey-based cohort study are due to the placebo effect, spurious correlations, or actual new effect.

(Caveat: I don't know that much about biology/medicine, so take all that with a grain of salt.)

Re:Scientists finally discover... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593867)

...right after accepting that correlation equals causation.

Re:Scientists finally discover... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594243)

know doubt. But I find the results of this bogus research suspect. Any parent that lets their kids drink 4+ sodas in a day must not care or even know what their kids are up to. So lets fix this:

Research: Parents that don't give a shit what their kids do shows that Five-Year-Olds Break Your Stuff.

Correlation does not imply causation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593623)

It could be that bad parenting causes both the soda and the bad behavior.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 8 months ago | (#44593671)

Bad parenting causes soda? There must be some seriously bad parenting going on in soda factories; I've seen truckloads of that stuff being hauled out of there.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593739)

Bad parenting ALLOWS the soda to be drank.

You know, this brutal literalism only makes you look like an idiot. Oh, snap, we're on /. Throw a rock, hit one.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (3, Insightful)

killkillkill (884238) | about 8 months ago | (#44593799)

Chuckle at the bad joke and move on. Don't let spite grow out of a lighthearted criticism. Also, if you only manage to hit one idiot with a rock here, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 8 months ago | (#44594123)

Also, if you only manage to hit one idiot with a rock here, you're doing it wrong.

The quest for idiot proof rocks leads to hard places at every fork in the road. Trying to kill two idiots with one stone only provides evidence of rock proof idiots.

In other words: Idiots that live in glass houses, are worth two in the bush.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594211)

I see. So a controllable idiot is more valuable then multiple wild idiots.

Re: Correlation does not imply causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593831)

Ouch

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593979)

No... Billy likes to drink soda. Duh!

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 8 months ago | (#44594029)

People who kark on someone's humorous post as being too literal should understand tense when they write their own.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (1)

killkillkill (884238) | about 8 months ago | (#44593735)

TFP is not quite as conclusive as TFS

Many factors may affect both soda consumption and problem behaviors of children. Poor dietary behaviors, such as high soda consumption among young children, may be associated with other parenting practices, such as excessive TV viewing or high consumption of sweets in the child’s diet. Furthermore, parenting practices may be associated with social factors known to be associated with child behavior.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593777)

Write a conclusive conclusion and risk the wrath of food industry? Not on this planet.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (1)

killkillkill (884238) | about 8 months ago | (#44593815)

Write a conclusive conclusion without good science to back it up, you deserve such wrath.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (5, Insightful)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about 8 months ago | (#44593911)

I agree with you. This study doesn't prove anything and is complete failure. It doesn't deserve to make its way on /. unless it is to discuss how bad studies can lead media to make false conclusions from thin data and no clue.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | about 8 months ago | (#44594061)

Well, it's not a failure, it just isn't enough data to draw conclusions from.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (2)

pellik (193063) | about 8 months ago | (#44594241)

I disagree. I don't think we have sufficient data about the amount of data to draw such a conclusion yet.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | about 8 months ago | (#44594095)

I was going to post this, but Anonymous got here first. Those guys are everywhere these days!

Anyway, I agree. It seems highly likely that the soda consumption we're seeing here is a symptom of other parental and social factors rather than a cause in its own right.

Correlation, causation and all that (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593627)

It could be the soda, though sugary foods have previously been studied in aggregate without finding any significant effect on children.

My suspicion? Bad parenting. Parents which don't care, which are handing their kids soda and an iPad instead of doing their jobs. Then the kids' behavior grows increasingly worse as they act out, attempting to draw the attention they need. In this case two sodas per meal (nobody drinks soda for breakfast) is a proxy that should be screaming "these are really bad parents."

Re: Correlation, causation and all that (1)

peragrin (659227) | about 8 months ago | (#44593781)

So sugar doesn't affect the kids. Maybe it is carbonation. American beer has loads of carbonation and causes anger issues. European beer has less carbonation (and more flavour) causes less anger issues.

Let's ban carbonated drinks. /sarcasm}

Re: Correlation, causation and all that (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 8 months ago | (#44593835)

American beer has loads of carbonation and causes anger issues. European beer has less carbonation (and more flavour) causes less anger issues.

Clearly, you have never been to a European football/soccer game.

Re: Correlation, causation and all that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594107)

Huh? Soccer fans can be angry and violent - but it is caused by the soccer fanatism, not really the beer. You can relax with some nice beers, when there is no soccer going on.

Great (5, Funny)

Longjmp (632577) | about 8 months ago | (#44593631)

Of course, this study didn't find out what types of soda the children had consumed.

Another study finds that living children are 100% more likely to "destroy things belonging to others, get into fights, and physically attack people" than dead children.

cheez.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593811)

No fucking kidding. This is why NO ONE trusts anything "scientists" have to say any more. All they do is spend OUR TAX DOLLARS on *idiot* studies that confuse correlation with causation, or they contradict everything they said in previous studies, or they try to push hoaxes like evolution [godandbrain.com] and global warming [canadafreepress.com] on the rest of us.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594349)

Some scientists don't know what the hell they are doing - therefor a god exists? Ahahahahh. Thanks, I needed a good joke this morning.

Re:Great (1)

MyHair (589485) | about 8 months ago | (#44594305)

Of course, this study didn't find out what types of soda the children had consumed.

Another study finds that living children are 100% more likely to "destroy things belonging to others, get into fights, and physically attack people" than dead children..

My study shows that kids and parents who lie about their soda consumption also lie about their destructive and aggressive behavior.

Correlation does not equal causation. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593639)

Maybe people who allow their children to drink 4 or more sodas a day are simply bad parents who do not teach their children any discipline or self control.

soft drinks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593665)

"43 percent of the kids consumed at least one serving of soft drinks per day"

and the rest drink only booze?

sugar marketed toward the poor and children (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593673)

if the marketing were honest it would go like this

"you can get pleasure without risk or effort by purchasing this sugary drink. your brain is evolved to give you pleasure when you consume sweet foods because those indicate a high calorie density. this behavior was useful during hunter/gatherer days but is not longer needed in our modern age of relative plenty. we as marketers take advantage of the fact that your life probably sucks so lets face it, eating crappy food that triggers these sensations is going to be the best part of your day. your long-term health deterioration is an externality for us. your money pays our obscene executive compensation to pay for their oligarch decadence and trophy wives and is distributed amongst parasitic shareholders most of whose only accomplishment is being born into a rich family.

so buy coke/pepsi!"

For clarification - soda versus soft drink (3, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | about 8 months ago | (#44593685)

drank more than four soft drinks per day

Confusingly, in the title and elsewhere, the word 'soda' is used. A soft drink isn't necessarily a soda/carbonated/fizzy drink. In other words, a soft drink may be non-fizzy. That makes the summary at least somewhat ambiguous.

Re: For clarification - soda versus soft drink (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593853)

The study paper itself makes it clear that they are talking about "soda" -- specifically carbonated heavily sweetened beverages.

Re:For clarification - soda versus soft drink (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 8 months ago | (#44593863)

If you look at the linked pdf, you discover that they used the term "soft drink" in the title of the paper, but then make it clear later in the paper that they studied sodas. The fact of the matter is that in most usage, "soft drink" and "soda" are synonyms. The problem is that both words are somewhat ambiguous. "Soft drink" originally meant any non-alcoholic drink (probably excepting milk and water, but I am not sure on that as I was not alive when this usage was common). "Soda" (as a reference to a beverage) originally meant a beverage containing high levels of sodium bicarbonate (usually carbonated).

Re: For clarification - soda versus soft drink (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593889)

Soft drinks are always carbonated, at least in my country. (Not the US)

Maybe they should have used the term "temperance beverage"?

regionalism (1)

nten (709128) | about 8 months ago | (#44593931)

Some areas use the term "soft drink" or "cold drink" to describe what any sensible person would refer to as a "coke". Because these beverages bubbliness has nothing to do with any alkaline with sodium in it, I would argue that soda is no more appropriate than those three terms or "pop". Carbonated drink, or fizzy drink both seem quite reasonable.

Re:regionalism (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#44594091)

coke. noun -
1) a rocky carbon-rich fuel used in high-temperature furnaces such as for iron-working
2) slang for cocaine
3) a trademarked line of carbonated beverages produced by the Coca-Cola corporation

Only (3) is at all relevant to the discussion, and you'd better believe you'd be inviting no end of trouble if you use it in a generic fashion, especially if you're using it in a potential criticism of the consumption of such beverages.

Certainly the "carnonated/fizzy drink" might be accurate, but would also apply to tonic water, beer, etc. Soda has largely become a synonym for "sweet, non-alchoholic, carbonated drink" in the common vernacular, regardless of the origins of the term. Living languages create all manner of such nonsense. Pop has acquired a similar meaning, but I can't think of the last time I actually heard it used, and can you really see it being used in a scientific article?

Re:regionalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594207)

In Georgia it's common to use "coke" as a generic term for all sodas, including things like 7up or Sprite. Pop is used quite a bit on the west coast (where I grew up).

Based on personal experience, I'd have to guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593709)

Olde English 800 soda. It's the charcoal filtering. I don't know anyone who hasn't ended up in a fight after drinking this stuff.

Science - The 21st Century Confidence Tricksters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593747)

More proof that the ability to write a research grant application is the most important skill a modern scientist can have...

Maybe someone should write a grant designed to document and validate all the old 'wives tales' that document these types of things, and have passed into 'common sense' and 'obvious'...

In other news... (1)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 8 months ago | (#44593749)

In a related study, it was found that 97% of mass murderers had consumed bread within 24 hours of having committed their rampage.

Re:In other news... (1)

xenobyte (446878) | about 8 months ago | (#44594005)

In a related study, it was found that 97% of mass murderers had consumed bread within 24 hours of having committed their rampage.

Actually - and this is significant - all of them had been inhaling Oxygen in a somewhat diluted form through the process known as breathing. There's no question that there is a connection as it is also a fact that people that don't breathe don't murder anyone, let alone more than one. We have to ban Oxygen and forbid all forms of breathing. That will solve all problems with mass murders - guaranteed.

Re:In other news... (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 8 months ago | (#44594345)

Not just Oxygen, but they were also ingesting Dihydrogen Monoxide, which is a chemical known to be favored by virtually all serial killers in the history of man!

Perhaps not the most methodologically sound study. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593769)

I have some concerns about the study. The population sample is overwhelmingly skewed towards racial minorities (51% African American versus 14% national average; 28% Hispanic versus 17% national average). The survey did not control for a number of factors that IMHO should have been controlled for, e.g. family income, or median income in area of residence. On the whole, I'd be hesitant to draw any conclusion from this due to these factors.

The real reason (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 8 months ago | (#44593775)

It's those cheapass parents who bought storebrand sodapops, which taste like santorum. The kids understandably went ballistic 'cause they wanted a drink with some reasonable taste quality.

that could be true for just about any kidsbeverage (1)

ClassicASP (1791116) | about 8 months ago | (#44593779)

they should re-do the study and compare soda to equal quantities of other things, such as chocolate milk, orange juice, punch, or anything else really. i bet the results would be similar

It isn't the soda. It's the survey. (5, Interesting)

Smokey Behr (2940937) | about 8 months ago | (#44593803)

The problem with the survey can be found in the results section of the Abstract. They oversampled males by +4, and 51% of the families were Black. This isn't a soda/soft drink issue; it's a parenting/cultural issue, which is mentioned, but essentially glossed over when you start delving into the "study". The families were already "in the system", as they were part of an ongoing study, which tells me that there were already parenting and cultural issues that go deeper than the family's diet.

Re:It isn't the soda. It's the survey. (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 8 months ago | (#44594277)

Political Correctness implicitly states that culture and race are the same thing. Of course, that's not really true, but the cowardly among PC types still stands stedfast to conflate the two. So, if you mention black culture, you will be chastised as a racist!

In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593805)

Meanwhile scientists discover that poor parents tend to give their children more sodas and/or soft drinks.

Doubtful that soda is the cause... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44593849)

It's more likely just correlation... parents that allow their children to drink copious amounts of soda tend to be generally poor parents in all regards. Nothing shocking there at all.

Worst. Study. Ever. (1)

russotto (537200) | about 8 months ago | (#44593857)

"We have no information on what type of soft drinks were consumed, particularly whether they were regular or diet, sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened, cola or noncola, and caffeinated or noncaffeinated,"

Seriously? You have a bunch of factors which might be relevant, and you don't even fscking MEASURE them?

(OK, "worst study ever" might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's pretty bad as studies that don't smack of Mengele go)

Pure sensationalism (2)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 8 months ago | (#44593859)

The first sentence of the article is preposterous:

When the US military tested PCP on volunteers in 1984, "some subjects became irritable, argumentative or negative under the conditions of social stress and demanding tasks." Now, a study published by researchers at Columbia, Harvard and the University of Vermont have found not-so-different results in children that do too much Dew.

So soda is just as bad as PCP? Certainly not. Such hyperbole is reason alone not to read any further.

I have an alternative theory: Parents who let their children drink soda have less self-control and discipline, and so do their children. Isn't that much more likely than the proposition that soda has the same side-effects as PCP? But that won't get hits.

Bad parents let their kids drink more pop. (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 8 months ago | (#44593941)

Pop is somewhat unhealthy, so good parents will limit their kid's intake of it. Bad parents don't care, so they'll let their kids have it.

Is this accounted for in the study?

As a dentist, my experience with 5 YO patients (3, Interesting)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 8 months ago | (#44593945)

who drink soda 4 times or more per day is that they are able to do so because of a lack of parental supervision (plus a few because of extreme dental ignorance on the part of the parents). I think that that same lack of supervision leads to bad behavior in little kids. I don't think I'd blame the soda for bad behavior, though caffeine may be contributing to the problem.

WHAT?! (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#44593959)

"this study didn't find out what types of soda the children had consumed"
WHAT?! What a pointless, useless study. Blame the sugar? Caffeine? Bubbles? Preservatives? The can or bottle?

Parenting, not biochemistry (1)

goodmanj (234846) | about 8 months ago | (#44593961)

Parents who aggressively control their kids' consumption of fizzy drinks will probably control the kid's misbehavior too.

Research money well spent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594003)

Wait, large amounts of caffeine and sugar made a handful of the thousands of kids studied use all that excess energy to hit and smash things? We needed a study for that? Ok, then, how about tossing me some grant money to see how many of those kids started running around in circles at top speed. I could find a link between soda and an increased desire to exercise in children.

I call Junk Science (1)

TrentTheThief (118302) | about 8 months ago | (#44594085)

I've been a heavy drinker for 50 years. I never went around attacking people or getting into arguments or randomly destroying shit just for kicks.

I enjoy a few liters of diet coke every day. When I was younger, I drank a few 12-16 oz bottles of sugared pepsi, root beer, ginger ale, or cream soda just about ever day. Maybe a couple more in the summer time.

IMHO, they're just poking at shit to see what the gullible will accept so that they can wring out some grant money from politicians pandering to their mindless constituents.

Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594097)

Parents who let their children drink unhealthy amounts of an unhealthy beverage fail to raise their children properly in other ways. I know a family with a soda-addicted child, and whenever the parents try to curb the habit, the child just screams, attacks, and breaks things until they get their way. It's not the soda's fault, though the effects and addictiveness of caffeine obviously isn't helping.

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594129)

Or... that study was funded by the crack-pot NYC mayor still angry about his large soft-drinks ban was defeated by the courts.
Or... something else pissed-off the kids before going on a rant (I've seen that happen).
Or.. Just another day and another bull-shit study.

Sounds like poor parenting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594215)

So there's a correlation between soda consumption and aggression?

Does the soda cause the aggression (as implied) or does the aggression cause the consumption?

Or is it just possible that bad parenting of the "path-of-least-resistance" school cause both?

What a stupid study. The results are based on survey (which is the lowest form of evidence) and there are no controls.

Enter Wolfgang Pauli (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594235)

This headline isn't right. It's not even wrong (registered trademark of "Not Even Wrong Industries, Inc.").

Suger doesn't cause hyperactivity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44594273)

Many studies have shown that the difference isn't the children - it's all in the parents heads.

"In my favorite of these studies, children were divided into two groups. All of them were given a sugar-free beverage to drink. But half the parents were told that their child had just had a drink with sugar. Then, all of the parents were told to grade their children’s behavior. Not surprisingly, the parents of children who thought their children had drunk a ton of sugar rated their children as significantly more hyperactive. This myth is entirely in parents’ heads. We see it because we believe it."
ctrl+v from http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/11/sugar-doesnt-cause-hyperactivity.html

Crap Study (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 8 months ago | (#44594387)

Because it couldn't be that parents with bad habits (ie giving their kids crap soda to drink) wouldn't teach their kids other bad habits (like breaking stuff).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...