Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/16/soda-contributes-to-behavior-problems-among-young-children/?hpt=hp_t3


TL : DR - Children behave "more badly" if they are consume more sugary drinks than their "sugarless drink drinking" peers.












This thread is more about the research itself and the conclusion made than the result. I hold the opinion that study amounts to little more than "junk science" that was intended to garner attention...making it pop-science which, for me, is almost interchangeable with "junk-science."


If you agree with the results, explain why. If you disagree with the study, please explain why.

If the data is accurate, it still doesn't mean that sugary water is necessarily the cause. A simple, other explanation (surely one of many) would be that if children are not allowed to drink certain drinks, it means the parents take more of an interest in managing their children. You could then say that perhaps stricter parents lead to more "well behaved" kids.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the data is accurate, it still doesn't mean that sugary water is necessarily the cause. A simple, other explanation (surely one of many) would be that if children are not allowed to drink certain drinks, it means the parents take more of an interest in managing their children. You could then say that perhaps stricter parents lead to more "well behaved" kids.

That's the same thing I stated on anothersite when reading over the study. It just seems so glaringly obvious that some children have better behavioral influences.


Oh, and the caffeine. Yeah, that. But who are we to question "science", right? I mean, where is our evidence that our skepticism is correct? lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's the same thing I stated on anothersite when reading over the study. It just seems so glaringly obvious that some children have better behavioral influences.

it says the study did what it could to control for such things

I imagine the research itself is upfront about its own limitations and suggests more be done to look at the actual causal mechanisms at work, rather than the media publication with a clear agenda.

a perfect study doesn't exist, ya?

A lot of this sort of thing is psychological. It is culturally expected that children become hyperactive on sugar, even if that makes little scientific sense. Such an expectation can be very powerful- children can pick up on the idea, parents explain away bad behaviour on that basis, and it becomes 'allowed' to act in a certain way when eating sugar, and then when you grow up it becomes an inbuilt response that you in turn pass onto your own kids.

Similarly, I understand there is a set of studies showing that the effects of alcohol are heavily influenced by what your culture thinks alcohol does to people.

in the case of sugar, cause might actually work in the other direction. people with attentional and behavioural issues are known to seek sensory arousal, and may simply ask for soda more than those without.

There are plenty of explanations for why the research came out the way it did, however, exclaiming it is rubbish as if the researchers made an imperfect study out of malice or ignorance is also sort of uncalled for.

Originally posted by Oliver North
in the case of sugar, cause might actually work in the other direction. people with attentional and behavioural issues are known to seek sensory arousal, and may simply ask for soda more than those without.

There are plenty of explanations for why the research came out the way it did, however, exclaiming it is rubbish as if the researchers made an imperfect study out of malice or ignorance is also sort of uncalled for.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A lot of this sort of thing is psychological. It is culturally expected that children become hyperactive on sugar, even if that makes little scientific sense. Such an expectation can be very powerful- children can pick up on the idea, parents explain away bad behaviour on that basis, and it becomes 'allowed' to act in a certain way when eating sugar, and then when you grow up it becomes an inbuilt response that you in turn pass onto your own kids.

Similarly, I understand there is a set of studies showing that the effects of alcohol are heavily influenced by what your culture thinks alcohol does to people.

I didn't actually read the study...but, couldn't they control these factors with a placebo group?

Originally posted by Oliver North
it says the study did what it could to control for such things

It does but I don't think controlling for (my memory may be failing me) parental depression and the limited controls they would have had over diet would be enough. I would like to know how they attempted to "control for diet".

Originally posted by Oliver North
I imagine the research itself is upfront about its own limitations and suggests more be done to look at the actual causal mechanisms at work, rather than the media publication with a clear agenda.

a perfect study doesn't exist, ya?

I didn't read anything about them being upfront about their limitations but in the news article, the writer does bring up other valid points like caffeine being involved.



This study just smacks of way too many uncontrollable variables. No perfect study exists but this one could have been done quite a bit better (but, during the planning phase of the study, they could have uncovered that they research they were doing was probably going to be futile and even contradicted by existing research...don't researchers have a best-practice methodology for conducting research?). This is why I think it was just an attention-getting study rather than a highly controlled and well-thought-out study.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A lot of this sort of thing is psychological. It is culturally expected that children become hyperactive on sugar, even if that makes little scientific sense. Such an expectation can be very powerful- children can pick up on the idea, parents explain away bad behaviour on that basis, and it becomes 'allowed' to act in a certain way when eating sugar, and then when you grow up it becomes an inbuilt response that you in turn pass onto your own kids.

Similarly, I understand there is a set of studies showing that the effects of alcohol are heavily influenced by what your culture thinks alcohol does to people.

hmm

That makes a lot of sense. I think this study shows more about the parents (and as you said, the culture), than the children, themselves. I have a difficult time imagining it showing anything else.


Originally posted by Oliver North
There are plenty of explanations for why the research came out the way it did, however, exclaiming it is rubbish as if the researchers made an imperfect study out of malice or ignorance is also sort of uncalled for.

I hope I did not make it seem like I thought they did this research out of malice. Not even remotely what I was doing. But out of funding and attention...with the hopes of getting to do other projects.

But it does seem like there was some ignorance since there are other studies that would be directly related to what they are doing that should have stopped them from actually proceeding with the primary portion of the research itself.

For me, that's the red flag that they were just churning out stuff rather than looking for meaningful science that could help make a difference with parenting children.

Originally posted by Oliver North
in the case of sugar, cause might actually work in the other direction. people with attentional and behavioural issues are known to seek sensory arousal, and may simply ask for soda more than those without.

There are plenty of explanations for why the research came out the way it did, however, exclaiming it is rubbish as if the researchers made an imperfect study out of malice or ignorance is also sort of uncalled for.

I never knew you were paid off by the eco-health and pure, spring water industrial complex...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I never knew you were paid off by the eco-health and pure, spring water industrial complex...


He's not being paid by them. His motives are due to not having any Equal.

Originally posted by Master Han
I didn't actually read the study...but, couldn't they control these factors with a placebo group?

they tried to, but in all studies like this, one of the greatest limiting factors is the ability to get participants. The more strict the controls, the more specifically matched individuals in the control group must be with experimental group. Not to mention, the more invasive the experiment is into the personality and lives of the participants (ie: you are monitoring more things). In some cases, getting 100 couples can be very difficult if you are doing more than getting them to self-report on a questionnaire. Additionally, things like "parenting style" aren't easy to nail down empirically in the first place, so it is hard to know what variables would need to be controlled for.

In this case, if something that contributed to both childhood behaviour and soda consumption wasn't controlled for in the experimental methods, the control group would do nothing to protect the results from being impacted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It does but I don't think controlling for (my memory may be failing me) parental depression and the limited controls they would have had over diet would be enough. I would like to know how they attempted to "control for diet".



I didn't read anything about them being upfront about their limitations but in the news article, the writer does bring up other valid points like caffeine being involved.



This study just smacks of way too many uncontrollable variables. No perfect study exists but this one could have been done quite a bit better (but, during the planning phase of the study, they could have uncovered that they research they were doing was probably going to be futile and even contradicted by existing research...don't researchers have a best-practice methodology for conducting research?). This is why I think it was just an attention-getting study rather than a highly controlled and well-thought-out study.

---------------------------------------------------------


I hope I did not make it seem like I thought they did this research out of malice. Not even remotely what I was doing. But out of funding and attention...with the hopes of getting to do other projects.

But it does seem like there was some ignorance since there are other studies that would be directly related to what they are doing that should have stopped them from actually proceeding with the primary portion of the research itself.

For me, that's the red flag that they were just churning out stuff rather than looking for meaningful science that could help make a difference with parenting children.

wait, so you haven't read the actual study?

I might look it up then...

Originally posted by Oliver North
they tried to, but in all studies like this, one of the greatest limiting factors is the ability to get participants. The more strict the controls, the more specifically matched individuals in the control group must be with experimental group. Not to mention, the more invasive the experiment is into the personality and lives of the participants (ie: you are monitoring more things). In some cases, getting 100 couples can be very difficult if you are doing more than getting them to self-report on a questionnaire. Additionally, things like "parenting style" aren't easy to nail down empirically in the first place, so it is hard to know what variables would need to be controlled for.

In this case, if something that contributed to both childhood behaviour and soda consumption wasn't controlled for in the experimental methods, the control group would do nothing to protect the results from being impacted.

I went as far as to say it would be unethical to really do proper controlling for a study like this...just to be that guy. The ugliness of this research probably has more to do with a budget than it does them being dishonest snake-oil salesmen, if we are being honest.

Originally posted by Oliver North
wait, so you haven't read the actual study?

I might look it up then...

Nope. Just the news article. Edit - I had a difficult time putting anything relevant to a real study because of the lack of a citation or researchers' names. Maybe you know a better method of locating the study?

I call bullshit on this one.

As a father, I limit my daughter's daily intake of sugar not because she behaves "more badly", but because of health reasons. Sugar or no sugar, she behaves just as she is expected to.

On certain occasions like birthday parties or carnivals when she eats cake, ice cream, soda, cotton candy, etc, she, of course, is on a sugar rush and acts in a more eccentric manner than she would normally, but the rearing that she has received for her behavior has always been constantly maintained.

Parents who don't monitor or restrict the sugar/caffeine intake of their kids are most definitely going to have hyper active little snot goblins who are prone to more outlandish behavior, but as long as those parents maintain a disciplinary attitude then I don't see why there would be any kind of problem.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I went as far as to say it would be unethical to really do proper controlling for a study like this...just to be that guy. The ugliness of this research probably has more to do with a budget than it does them being dishonest snake-oil salesmen, if we are being honest.

---------------------------------------------------

Nope. Just the news article. Edit - I had a difficult time putting anything relevant to a real study because of the lack of a citation or researchers' names. Maybe you know a better method of locating the study?

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00736-1/fulltext

I tend to be more concerned about the fact it is self reported more than anything, there is a huge section in the Methods that describe a good number of familial, dietary and socio-economic/dynamic factors that were controlled for, which seem pretty reasonable, and the authors admit straight out that their results might not be generalizable to the public and that there is no established direction of causation (at least they did to Reuters, I'm still looking through the document; http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57598832/soda-may-make-children-more-likely-to-destroy-things-attack-others/). Media sites like what you posted tend to do a terrible job reporting science. The pains most researchers go to in order to not sound biased or pushing an agenda is notable.

Originally posted by Impediment
Parents who don't monitor or restrict the sugar/caffeine intake of their kids are most definitely going to have hyper active little snot goblins who are prone to more outlandish behavior, but as long as those parents maintain a disciplinary attitude then I don't see why there would be any kind of problem.

What if...the consumption of those beverages was ritualized where the consumption is solemnly undertaken?


I think the study wants to find a natural or "raw" behavior for the children while "under the influence." That would be absurdly difficult to control.

lol, so I'm going to post this to support my assertions about the intellectual honesty of the authors. A "Discussion" section in a scientific article is usually the last or second to last section where the thrust of the argument is made. It is where someone would make the strongest and most direct points about the study and their results.

This is the entire discussion section from the article in question, notice how much of it is composed of the author's qualifying the results and aknowledging the limitations of their results. SCIENCE!



as with many previous instances, this might be more of a thread about how the media is ill-equipped to report on science, or just does a bad, self serving job.

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00736-1/fulltext#sec3 (discussion section of article)

Originally posted by Impediment
I call bullshit on this one.

just remember though, you are calling bullshit on how the study was reported, not the researchers, who aren't making the claim you are critical of.

If these researchers were trustworthy they would have pursued a respectable profession...like car salesman, for example.

Originally posted by Oliver North
lol, so I'm going to post this to support my assertions about the intellectual honesty of the authors. A "Discussion" section in a scientific article is usually the last or second to last section where the thrust of the argument is made. It is where someone would make the strongest and most direct points about the study and their results.

This is the entire discussion section from the article in question, notice how much of it is composed of the author's qualifying the results and aknowledging the limitations of their results. SCIENCE!

Yup, the authors did a pretty good job of acknowledging the weakness of their work.









Originally posted by Oliver North
as with many previous instances, this might be more of a thread about how the media is ill-equipped to report on science, or just does a bad, self serving job.


The news-writer acknowledged the weakness and seemed to have a more in-depth discussion about caffeine than the researchers, actually. In fact, the writer of that article seemed more up front about the weaknesses than the researchers. That last bit of the conclusion statement is what is rustling my jimmies.





Edit - And I would like to note that some researchers use scales to obfuscate their work and distort their results. I am not saying that is what they did but they did use scales to put all of those factors into one lump. How did they weight them? Were they weighted equally? If so, why? If not, why? (I believe they mentioned that the scales were established by another organization and they were well understood making my point pretty much moot).

Juice spikes blood sugar, cold beverage and sugar rush triggers thermogenic and metabolic responses. Dopamine ergo reward. When the chemical reward has run its course there is an immediate drop to normal or below normal levels. So, obviously it worsens behavior.

http://yoursupernanny.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/soda_ad.jpg

Well, if The Soda Pop Board of America thinks so hmm

Well they wouldn't lie, would they?

Originally posted by jaden101
http://yoursupernanny.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/soda_ad.jpg Back then coke had coke in it.

ugh. western societies love to blame behavior on everything else but the individual. is it any wonder why we have such a high crime rate?

Originally posted by Raisen
ugh. western societies love to blame behavior on everything else but the individual. is it any wonder why we have such a high crime rate?

by high crime rates you, of course, mean lowest in living memory or since reliable statistics on such things have been recorded, yes?

Originally posted by Oliver North
by high crime rates you, of course, mean lowest in living memory or since reliable statistics on such things have been recorded, yes?

Per capita and comparable to non western societies. Even taking into consideration variables such as over legislation, corruption, and lack of enforcement of certain laws. Even taking into consideration that on average 5% of incarcerated persons are innocent and the even higher percentage of those arrested but did not commit the crime(FBI study). western societies still have significantly higher crime rates.

Originally posted by Dolos
Back then Coke had coke in it.
Which further increased the likelihood of the "fitting in" business readily addressed in the study.

Originally posted by Raisen
Even taking into consideration variables such as over legislation, corruption, and lack of enforcement of certain laws.

source?

Originally posted by Astner
Which further increased the likelihood of the "fitting in" business readily addressed in the study. Well that's to be expected, of course.

Cocaine has a way of making a person more extroverted. Without feeling larger than life I am aware. I can tell that when someone is kind to me that it is truly fake, they must know who I am. It's like they've trained themselves to converse with me the exact same mother****ing way. It's creepy, it's as if the whole world has had a meeting concerning how to act around me. Like when I leave a room they all gather round and are like "He's gonna burn." I even had a History teacher use me for the example of being the subject of a Ghost Dance like American Imperialists were.

Originally posted by Oliver North
source?

why do you address me every time I post?

Originally posted by Raisen
Per capita and comparable to non western societies. Even taking into consideration variables such as over legislation, corruption, and lack of enforcement of certain laws. Even taking into consideration that on average 5% of incarcerated persons are innocent and the even higher percentage of those arrested but did not commit the crime(FBI study). western societies still have significantly higher crime rates.

What non-Western societies report detailed crime statistics?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What non-Western societies report detailed crime statistics?

Probably all the modern ones, I'd think.

Here's a good question: do you lump "Russia" in with "Western Societies"?

India is a good example of a non-Western country that has a frightening crime rate despite it being understood that a large percentage of crimes are unofficially unreported.
Originally posted by Raisen
Per capita and comparable to non western societies. Even taking into consideration variables such as over legislation, corruption, and lack of enforcement of certain laws. Even taking into consideration that on average 5% of incarcerated persons are innocent and the even higher percentage of those arrested but did not commit the crime(FBI study). western societies still have significantly higher crime rates.
Of course it has nothing to do with "Western" societies having more efficient systems of reporting and recording crimes than "Non-Western" societies.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What non-Western societies report detailed crime statistics?

I believe he is including non-geographically or ethnically "western" societies like Japan and South Korea, which are themselves democratic-capitalist societies, making the "west/non-west" distinction kind of moot.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's a good question: do you lump "Russia" in with "Western Societies"?

it depends on what you take "western" to mean

geographically, no, they aren't really
ethnically, sure, I don't see why not
ideologically, they are moving away from it

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Of course it has nothing to do with "Western" societies having more efficient systems of reporting and recording crimes than "Non-Western" societies.

his point is even more absurd than that, however

he is saying even if you controlled for things like differences in reporting or enforcement, the west is worse.

basically, he is suggesting that if America and Japan had the exact same laws and enforcement policies regarding guns, Japan would still have a lower gun crime rate. This is why I wanted the source of his claim, because I can't begin to fathom how you would come up with such a statistic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Probably all the modern ones, I'd think.

Are you using Western in a purely geographic sense?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's a good question: do you lump "Russia" in with "Western Societies"?

Yes. I'd put Japan, Australia, and South Africa as essentially western due to cultural and political exports.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you using Western in a purely geographic sense?

I don't know, anymore, really. I thought I meant geographically.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. I'd put Japan, Australia, and South Africa as essentially western due to cultural and political exports.

A sociologist would probably agree with you.

Future anthropologists will probably agree with you, too.



Originally posted by Oliver North
it depends on what you take "western" to mean

geographically, no, they aren't really
ethnically, sure, I don't see why not
ideologically, they are moving away from it


Thanks for this explanation. I do have a question: on that last one, do you have the time to expand on that with some detail?

I have a vague idea of what you're talking about, there, but I don't really know what you mean. I don't think anyone would care that it is off-topic.

I would say that Japan is much more "Western" than Russia at this point in terms of standard of living, worldview, and political culture, which are the biggest criteria for deciding whether a nation is "Western" or "Non-Western," not geography or ethnicity.

As ON said, Russia is drifting away from the Western European/American model and becoming more like China by the day. Putin realizes that if he were to embrace European ideals and come together with the EU it would mean the eventual end of Russia as a world power. Russia is basically a country-version of Vegeta from DBZ--butthurt that he's no longer top dog so even though he's technically a frenemy now he's going to be standoffish and hope that he doesn't end up chaperoning his half-human daughter while she shops at the mall.

Two borderline cases would be Turkey and India. In the first case there's a wishy-washy spirit of Europeanism and they have a democratic constitution and a high HDI, but it's also sliding toward Islamism and turning away from the EU (though their membership talks have restarted). In the second case it's a country that for many centuries along with China and Japan epitomized the Western concept of "The East," but it has a relatively (compared to its neighbors) healthy democratic system and at least on paper values many of the same ideals that Western nations do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for this explanation. I do have a question: on that last one, do you have the time to expand on that with some detail?

I have a vague idea of what you're talking about, there, but I don't really know what you mean. I don't think anyone would care that it is off-topic.

Sure, I'm glad to take the time to expand my opinions to anyone who isn't Dolos...

anyways, to me at least, what should be called "Western" (and to be frank, I hate the term without any real idea of what should replace it), is a basic acceptance of capitalism mixed with the classical liberal messages of the enlightenment. Essentially, an acceptance that the state, or nation state, or whatever, has no right to infringe on the individual in some matters, and that this freedom extends to the economy.

Now, the obvious argument might be about the disparity in policy between America and Japan, but that same disparity exists between Canada and Germany, depending on the issue, and we don't label them as being "western vs non-western".

To me, having a generally democratic process of determining leadership and an economy that is open to all people (ie: capitalism) makes a nation "western", regardless of the policies that sort of attenuate those position. For instance, Canada require "Canadian content" on the radio, however, play a Brain Adams song and you have essential free speech on all other issues (I'm not saying I agree with the policy, but I'm saying such a small alteration to unbridled free speech doesn't actually constitute calling something "non-western".

Russia, has in previous years, been restricting free speech, free demonstration and democratic rights, moving them away from what I would call "western" political values.

Again, like I said, it seems to be an issue of what we mean by "western", and given that Raisen decided to question why I would challenge him, I can't anticipate us getting much we disagree on.

haha, another example of ON + booze + internet = nonsense

That is at least comprehensible though, but lol, go me...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I would say that Japan is much more "Western" than Russia at this point in terms of standard of living, worldview, and political culture, which are the biggest criteria for deciding whether a nation is "Western" or "Non-Western," not geography or ethnicity.

As ON said, Russia is drifting away from the Western European/American model and becoming more like China by the day. Putin realizes that if he were to embrace European ideals and come together with the EU it would mean the eventual end of Russia as a world power. Russia is basically a country-version of Vegeta from DBZ--butthurt that he's no longer top dog so even though he's technically a frenemy now he's going to be standoffish and hope that he doesn't end up chaperoning his half-human daughter while she shops at the mall.

Two borderline cases would be Turkey and India. In the first case there's a wishy-washy spirit of Europeanism and they have a democratic constitution and a high HDI, but it's also sliding toward Islamism and turning away from the EU (though their membership talks have restarted). In the second case it's a country that for many centuries along with China and Japan epitomized the Western concept of "The East," but it has a relatively (compared to its neighbors) healthy democratic system and at least on paper values many of the same ideals that Western nations do.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Sure, I'm glad to take the time to expand my opinions to anyone who isn't Dolos...

anyways, to me at least, what should be called "Western" (and to be frank, I hate the term without any real idea of what should replace it), is a basic acceptance of capitalism mixed with the classical liberal messages of the enlightenment. Essentially, an acceptance that the state, or nation state, or whatever, has no right to infringe on the individual in some matters, and that this freedom extends to the economy.

Now, the obvious argument might be about the disparity in policy between America and Japan, but that same disparity exists between Canada and Germany, depending on the issue, and we don't label them as being "western vs non-western".

To me, having a generally democratic process of determining leadership and an economy that is open to all people (ie: capitalism) makes a nation "western", regardless of the policies that sort of attenuate those position. For instance, Canada require "Canadian content" on the radio, however, play a Brain Adams song and you have essential free speech on all other issues (I'm not saying I agree with the policy, but I'm saying such a small alteration to unbridled free speech doesn't actually constitute calling something "non-western".

Russia, has in previous years, been restricting free speech, free demonstration and democratic rights, moving them away from what I would call "western" political values.

Again, like I said, it seems to be an issue of what we mean by "western", and given that Raisen decided to question why I would challenge him, I can't anticipate us getting much we disagree on.

Thank you both for the in depth replies. I will respond to them, later. I was busy getting trolled in another place.


But, yes, there are a few things I would like to talk about. Do you want another thread or is this place just fine?

I really don't think anyone cares at this point, you are the OP as well aren't you?

If you wanted to attract others to the specific topic you could make a thread, but I don't think anyone would actually mind.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I really don't think anyone cares at this point, you are the OP as well aren't you?

If you wanted to attract others to the specific topic you could make a thread, but I don't think anyone would actually mind.

Good, I'll keep it here.