Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Children and Sugar

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Recently I was talking with a parent about diet as it is related to children. They said that there is too much fear of sugar these days, and that sugar actually calms their child. Anyone notice the same observations?

-P




posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
My son gets all pumped up.
Sugar has never had a calming effect upon my son.

Dunno about others though.........


[edit on 23-3-2005 by theRiverGoddess]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Ummm. I can see any real value to refined sugar. I would keep the refined sugar intake low.

Troy



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Typo on my part, I meant to say I "can't" see any real value in refined sugar. To my knowlege refined sugar can flush nutrients out of the body, which doesn't seem good.

Troy



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Refined sugar is definitely bad....and an abundance of sugar is bad. But, anything in moderation is okay. I don't know how anyone can say sugar would calm a child down....maybe after they come down off of the high they will crash, but seems like cutting off your foot to save your toe.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Sugar is highly addictive and excessive consumption leads to weight gain and diabetes. In moderation, fair enough, but drinking sugary drinks like Coke every day will invariably have a bad effect on health.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I have three kids. Sugar really doesn't affect two of them but the other is another story. He is already very hyper and sugar almost makes him uncontrollable. I would guess it does affect different kidos in different ways. (wow that was profound)



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by postings
Recently I was talking with a parent about diet as it is related to children. They said that there is too much fear of sugar these days, and that sugar actually calms their child. Anyone notice the same observations?

-P


Irrespective of whether or not the sugar 'calms' someone's child is not the real issue. It has been known for years that sugar reduces high density lipoproteins, sugar leads to deficiencies in chromium, copper, and zinc, at least. Sugar interferes with calcium and magnesium absorption. Because of this, it's thought that sugar can contribute to osteoporosis. In addition to this, there is evidence suggesting that sugar can influence the formation of gall stones, heart disease, appendicitis, hemmorhoids, varicose veins, dental caries, multiple sclerosis. This is just a small sampling of the various health maladies that can be linked to sugar. Refined sugar is garbage... no two ways about it.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
To your body, sugar = glucose = energy. It doesnt matter if its refined, if it's from honey, juice, candy, or spooned into the mouth. Sugar is simply fuel. Refined sugar won't make your child any more berzerk than any other form of energy eaten.

That being said, why does refined sugar have such a bad rap? Because it has zero nutritional value other than energy alone. Refined sugar has empty calories. Glucose for glucose/pound for pound, just about any other food that tastes sweet but has no refined sugar will be much better for your body. Juices have vitamins and antioxidants; fruit has vitamins, antioxidants, fiber; milk has calcuim and vitamins also; vegetables have nutrients all that fruit has with more bang for your buck. (Yes vegetables have sugar in one form or another).

Refined sugar also goes hand in hand with processed foods which tend to be higher in calories and lower in nutritive value. Bad bad.

Is sugar addictive? Uhh no. Sugar = glucose = fuel. Everything we eat is converted to glucose at one point or another, and excess glucose is stored as fat. Sugar is addictive to the same point that food is addictive. Now, certain TYPES of food are more rewarding than others. When your body is stressed, your body wants food it can convert easily into that precious glucose. We start to crave starchy fatty foods - comfort foods. We do this because thousands of years ago, stress usually meant you were starving or resources were low. We evolved to want to keep all the edible resources we can get to with our bodies for survival. Too bad we have plenty of food now and don't NEED the tray of Mac N Cheese to survive. Quick sugar also makes us feel goooooood. It gives us quick energy, and the body likes that and craves that if its what it is used to, but it's not an addiction. It also gives us a quick crash. Foods that are turned more slowly into glucose by the body are preferable. You can get an idea for speed and this concept by looking at a foods glycemic index - refined anything is quickly put to glucose, while other foods take their time.

As for sugar giving you diabetes - nope. Excess weight from any overconsumption of calories can give you diabetes. It doesn't matter if its pure sugar you eat, or only rice. Too many calories = weight gain which *can* lead to a certain type of diabetes.

Refined sugar doesn't "flush nutrients out of the body" either. It does, however, often take the place of food that DOES have nutrients. Example: giving johnny a grape popcicle as a snack instead of grapes.

As for a calming effect - if your kid knows he has to scream and freak out and act crazy to get a snack, then the kid will go crazy etc until he is given one in many cases. There is no chemical or nutrient reason why sugar would calm any more than an equal caloried meal would.

MMMMMmmmmm jelly beans!



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Irrespective of whether or not the sugar 'calms' someone's child is not the real issue. It has been known for years that sugar reduces high density lipoproteins, sugar leads to deficiencies in chromium, copper, and zinc, at least. Sugar interferes with calcium and magnesium absorption. Because of this, it's thought that sugar can contribute to osteoporosis. In addition to this, there is evidence suggesting that sugar can influence the formation of gall stones, heart disease, appendicitis, hemmorhoids, varicose veins, dental caries, multiple sclerosis. This is just a small sampling of the various health maladies that can be linked to sugar. Refined sugar is garbage... no two ways about it.


Where the heck are you getting this info from????? Sugar, on a molecular level, cannot do any of the above. Everything we EAT is turned into sugar by the body. A poor diet, which might include lots of refined sugar, can cause deficiencies and health problems, but its not the presence of sugar that does it, its the lack of all other nutrient dense foods.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
Where the heck are you getting this info from????? Sugar, on a molecular level, cannot do any of the above. Everything we EAT is turned into sugar by the body. A poor diet, which might include lots of refined sugar, can cause deficiencies and health problems, but its not the presence of sugar that does it, its the lack of all other nutrient dense foods.


You're missing the point. The molecular role of sugar isn't in question. As you said in your post " poor diet, which might include lots of refined sugar, can cause deficiencies and health problems..." So... what's your beef? Sugar, in its unprocessed form, with associated micronutrients ISN'T the problem, highly refined, nutrient depleted sugar is. Processing food requires nutrients, vitamins, minerals, trace elements, etc. The source of these substances is your food. Consumption of empty calories, like refined sugar, has the potential and frequently does place your body in a 'depleted state' with respect to nutrients. Please note the use of terms and phrases such as 'can contribute to,' 'leads to deficiencies in,' and 'evidence suggesting.'

Where did I get this information... specifically, I can't say... mostly from years and years of experience as a biochemist. An interesting place to verify some of this information is mercola's site. Though I'd be happy to discuss specifics here with you.

And what do you mean by "sugar on a molecular level cannot do any of the above?" Sugar can't bind to Zn, Ca, Mg, or other trace minerals? Sugar can't cause or influence dental caries? Sugar can't deplete copper? Hmmmm.... according to this ref. Fields, M.., et al. Effect of Copper Deficiency on Metabolism and Mortality in Rats Fed Sucrose or Starch Diets, Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1983;113:1335-1345, sugar is totally capable of doing this. Other seemingly unrelated effects, such as varicose veins are mentioned here: Lee, A. T.and Cerami A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science.1992;663:63-70, and here Dyer, D. G., et al. Accumulation of Maillard Reaction Products in Skin Collagen in Diabetes and Aging. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1993:93(6):421-22, and here: Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. Modifications of Proteins and Nucleic Acids by Reducing Sugars: Possible Role in Aging. Handbook of the Biology of Aging. New York: Academic Press, 1990.

I think the question is where are YOU getting your info from?

Edited to add more refs.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by RedBalloon
Is sugar addictive? Uhh no. Sugar = glucose = fuel. Everything we eat is converted to glucose at one point or another, and excess glucose is stored as fat. Sugar is addictive to the same point that food is addictive.


Here's a ref or two for you: Sugar, White Flour Withdrawal Produces Chemical Response. The Addiction Letter .Jul 1992:04:00, Abrahamson, E. and Peget, A.. Body, Mind and Sugar. (New York:Avon,1977, and Christensen, L. The Role of Caffeine and Sugar in Depression. Nutrition Report. Mar 1991;9(3):17-24.

These studies are highly suggestive of sugar having drug-like properties and addictive qualities.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
You're missing the point. The molecular role of sugar isn't in question. As you said in your post " poor diet, which might include lots of refined sugar, can cause deficiencies and health problems..." So... what's your beef? Sugar, in its unprocessed form, with associated micronutrients ISN'T the problem, highly refined, nutrient depleted sugar is. Processing food requires nutrients, vitamins, minerals, trace elements, etc. The source of these substances is your food. Consumption of empty calories, like refined sugar, has the potential and frequently does place your body in a 'depleted state' with respect to nutrients. Please note the use of terms and phrases such as 'can contribute to,' 'leads to deficiencies in,' and 'evidence suggesting.'

I think you're missing my point. The sugar itself isn't necessarily the evil here. It's what you don't eat when you eat loads of sugar instead of other nutrient rich food. I said essentiall the same thing you had above in my post. Noting those terms doesn't solve the problem of people thinking sugar itself is a dangerous substance. Spoken plainly, its the absence of other food, and not the sugar that causes problems. You seem to be echoing the exact thing I said above.



Where did I get this information... specifically, I can't say... mostly from years and years of experience as a biochemist. An interesting place to verify some of this information is mercola's site. Though I'd be happy to discuss specifics here with you.


Umm - thats looks like a for-profit site to me. I'm skeptical of any for profit website touting health or nutrition information. From a book to a program to recomended products - this site is more for profit than for health. Is this your site personally?

Also - the argument here isn't about dental carries, and I agree that sugar in any form can cause them. Babies suckling juice out of a bottle have a mess of a mouth from the sugar and lack of proper care. Food without refined sugar can do that too, btw. But anyway, sugar is sugar. Refined sugar doesn't magically suck more vitamins out of your body than other sugar.

I'd be happy to read your references if you provide links to them, but I doubt they say sugar is the cause of these maladies. As I said in my other posts and this one - a poor diet can cause a lot of problems. I could eat sugar, or I could eat the foam from my mattress and I still wouldn't get the vitamins and nutrients needed for good health if I don't eat other good food.

I have no beef other than people thinking sugar is some magical substance and acknowledging what's really lacking. Moderation is a beautiful thing.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
I think you're missing my point. The sugar itself isn't necessarily the evil here. It's what you don't eat when you eat loads of sugar instead of other nutrient rich food. I said essentiall the same thing you had above in my post. Noting those terms doesn't solve the problem of people thinking sugar itself is a dangerous substance. Spoken plainly, its the absence of other food, and not the sugar that causes problems. You seem to be echoing the exact thing I said above.

I respectfully disagree, though your point is acknowledged. I agree that replacing nutrient dense calories IS a problem, maybe even the heart of the problem. I also wouldn't classify sugar as a dangerous substance. I am willing to acknowledge the vast amount of information that would suggest that refined sugar is not innocuous. We agree in spirit... it's the details that we seem to be hung up on.



Umm - thats looks like a for-profit site to me. I'm skeptical of any for profit website touting health or nutrition information. From a book to a program to recomended products - this site is more for profit than for health. Is this your site personally?

LOL! No I am not Mercola, and in fact I don't necessarily agree with all of mercola's stuff. However, it is a decent resource for medical information that is reasonably well organized, and more importantly well referenced. I understand your apprehension with 'for profit' websites, but I personally believe information should be evaluated solely on its own merit, not on the location where it's recognized.


But anyway, sugar is sugar. Refined sugar doesn't magically suck more vitamins out of your body than other sugar.

Magically, no. It doesn't do it by magic. It's done by well understood biochemical processes... there's no big mystery here.


I'd be happy to read your references if you provide links to them, but I doubt they say sugar is the cause of these maladies.

Since all the refs. I've provided are science articles, I don't have links. I prefer to get my info from primary sources, rather than relying on someone else to tell me what a study says. You can doubt these refs. all you want, but doubting things without actually reading them doesn't do much for your credibility. I wouldn't have posted the refs. if I wasn't reasonably familiar with the conclusions indicated by them.


I have no beef other than people thinking sugar is some magical substance and acknowledging what's really lacking. Moderation is a beautiful thing.

Well, no one said sugar is a magical substance. In fact, the only person who's alluded to magic in this thread is you. There are scientific explanations for the claims made. For whatever reason though, you seem to only be concerned with what you believe to be true.

If you are really interested, I can email you .pdf's of most of the articles I mentioned.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Magically, no. It doesn't do it by magic. It's done by well understood biochemical processes... there's no big mystery here.

Specifically, what is this well understood biochemical process that makes refined sugar so much worse than regular sugar from say, a grape?


Since all the refs. I've provided are science articles, I don't have links. I prefer to get my info from primary sources, rather than relying on someone else to tell me what a study says.

Likewise, which is why I wanted to see the sources and read them myself.



You can doubt these refs. all you want, but doubting things without actually reading them doesn't do much for your credibility. I wouldn't have posted the refs. if I wasn't reasonably familiar with the conclusions indicated by them.

As you had stated, it's much nicer to read the primary sources for yourself. My credibility? Are you kidding? How does asking for a link to sources threaten my credability? I'm just looking for facts. You have a scientific explanation for how refined sugar is processed biochemically different by the body, and I'm all ears. Genuinely and noncombatively. I'd love to hear it.



There are scientific explanations for the claims made. For whatever reason though, you seem to only be concerned with what you believe to be true.

Hi pot! I'm kettle. Nice to meet you.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Eat a pile of candy and see if you don't feel sick.

Refined and processed foods are missing the other parts which are important for your body actually utilizing it correctly. Many people miss things like enzymes and vitamins in their diet because nearly everything they eat is cooked and/or trashed with additives.

Here is what some people miss on the label in many fruit juices and the like, it's pasteurized, and void of enzymes. I don't waste my time with big name supermarket juices, I eat fresh fruit more often. See I don't know what germs that juice people are encountering, I don't pastueize my apple before I eat it.

Moderate to low amounts of junk might be acceptable, but the bulk of your food should be as close to whole and natural as possible.

Refined sugar might be energy, but there can be a crash at the end.

Man, I've been stripping some of the junk and sugar from my diet along with supplementation, and it seems to have done me a lot of good.

Troy



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
Specifically, what is this well understood biochemical process that makes refined sugar so much worse than regular sugar from say, a grape?

Permit me to rephrase: The biochemical processes in question are well understood, and the experiments being performed clearly demonstrate that refined sucrose is in fact causing situations other carbs are not. To quote:

"Copper deficiency was induced in rats by feeding sucrose or starch diets deficient in copper... Feeding sucrose but not starch diets deficient in copper magnified the copper deficiency and resulted in 60% mortality. Although both deficient diets contained the same concentration of copper, the hepatic copper concentration of rats fed sucrose was reduced nearly threefold compared to rats fed starch.




My credibility? Are you kidding? How does asking for a link to sources threaten my credability?

THAT doesn't; but saying that "I doubt they say sugar is the cause of these maladies," without having read the references, can imply that one has presuppositions that cloud their perspective.



Hi pot! I'm kettle. Nice to meet you.

Interesting.... I've offered evidence to suggest that refined sucrose can negatively effect health in ways that other carbs can't. What evidence have you offered to suggest it isn't, other than simple 'figgerin'? What do you think... I started off thinking sugar was horrible and my perspedtive hasn't changed? If you've got something saying that sugar doesn't deplete copper and zinc, or that sugar doesn't interfere with Ca and Mg absorption, I'm all ears too.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   


(quoted by RedBallon)
As for sugar giving you diabetes - nope. Excess weight from any overconsumption of calories can give you diabetes.



Yes, that seems to be a common popular myth and it had me needlessly worried for years, due to my sweet tooth, until recently, when I discovered the Mayo Clinic website, which has a section called "Ask A Specialist". There I found this explanation:

Too much sugar: Can it cause diabetes?

Q. My grandson eats way too much sugar, including several bottles of Mountain Dew each day and sweets such as candy bars and doughnuts. He doesn't like vegetables or fruits and eats mostly fast food. I told him that he could get diabetes by eating so much sugar. But he doesn't believe me. Am I right?

A. Eating too much sugar doesn't cause diabetes. But a diet high in fat and calories leads to obesity, a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
Insulin is the hormone that helps your body convert sugar, starches and other foods into energy. In diabetes, the body doesn't make or properly use insulin. The exact cause of diabetes isn't known. But genetics, excess weight and inactivity play a role.
Diabetes is an increasingly common problem in children and young adults due to the rising prevalence of obesity. Lifelong eating habits are established early. Helping your grandson choose healthier alternatives can provide a lifetime of health benefits.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
My guess is Diabetes can be overcome with a proper diet.

Empty sugar calories can make you fat. It's funny how low fat items get the stamp of healthy, yet they can be loaded with sugar, or artificial things.

Troy



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
My guess is Diabetes can be overcome with a proper diet.

Empty sugar calories can make you fat. It's funny how low fat items get the stamp of healthy, yet they can be loaded with sugar, or artificial things.

Troy


Diabetes can't be "overcome", or at least can't be cured. There is none. but, with proper diet, a person with diabetes can live a normal life.

As far as low fat items, that is a marketing ploy aimed at people with high cholesterol, like me. Fat is metabolized into cholesterol.






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join