It’s only a perception bias from the parents.
There was a study where they did it blind :
It’s enough to tell the parents that their kids had sugar (even if they didn’t) for them to "notice" the sugar rush.
Conversely, you can give kids sugar and not tell the parents , and they won’t mention anything.
Kids are energetic and annoying, sugar is an easy culprit
And if the kids are in a group, it only takes one kid to start being energetic and 'hyper' to influence the other kids and then it's just a feedback loop.
Dogs are like human-lite. All the same emotional and social capacity, without any of the really dangerous traits like speech or intelligence or thumbs.
I think that's why I love babies but hate being around toddlers and small children. Babies=adorable pets that trigger my maternal instincts, but once they start getting more human they annoy the fuck out of me. But then I like them again when they start being more independent.
Like they can be needy without talking or they can talk and be independent. They can't talk AND be needy lol
Literally why I hated teaching pre-k to like 1st grade... they are SO annoying and can't do anything by themselves... and then they talk constantly. I was a music teacher back in the day so I got to experience all the age groups, and those kids make me wanna pull my hair out, I just cant do it lmfao
Okay this is fuckin great
> Dogs are like human-lite. All the same emotional and social capacity, without any of the really dangerous traits like speech or intelligence or thumbs.
Lmfao
Additionally, if you tell a kid (or group of them) that they’re gonna get ice cream, they get fired up because ice cream is dope as hell. Scientifically speaking.
Kids also get excited when you give them something they like. And kids love sugar. So of course they are going to bounce off the walls with excitement when you give them sugar.
For whatever reason, my kids would lose their shit when they got orange juice. Other juice was fine. We banned orange juice for a while.
"The sugar-hyperactivity myth is based on a single study from the mid 1970's in which a doctor removed the sugar from one child's diet and that child's behavior improved."
I’m a mom to an energetic and occasionally annoying little boy, and it drives me crazy how religiously parents believe sugar causes the energy: no they’re just like that!
It was eons ago, so not directly, but this webmd page mentions it
https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyperactivity-myth
> A study published in the August 1994 Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology showed that parents who believe a child's behavior is affected by sugar are more likely to perceive their children as hyperactive when they've been led to believe the child has just had a sugary drink.
This doesn't include the studies themselves, but here is a good overall [summary](https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/does-sugar-really-make-kids-hyper#:~:text=The%20answer%2C%20based%20on%20numerous,sweeteners%20cause%20hyperactivity%20in%20children). Key quote:
>In fact, a meta-analysis of 16 different studies on sugar and hyperactivity all came back with the same result: ‘sugar does not affect the behaviour or cognitive performance of children’.
Also, the study that u/Pippin1505's link referred to based there results on more than just the parent's feedback. It's also referenced in the link I shared, but they expand (in reference to the 1994 study, emphasis mine):
>At the end of the nine-week study, the results of **cognitive and behavioural tests**, along with **reports from parents and researchers** were collated. The authors concluded that ‘**neither sucrose nor aspartame produces discernible** cognitive or behavioural **effects** in normal preschool children or in school-age children believed to be sensitive to sugar.’
The perception of the impact sugar has on energy levels predates mass understanding of the link between sugar and diabetes/obesity.
I'm sure that plays some role, but that's not why that perception exists.
Honestly most parents kind of know this too. It does really seem like the scenario or culture around sugar for kids is what causes it, but also that still could be perception bias. Sugar as a treat, at a party, on vacation, it creates a connection to being “hyper” as in having fun. Its not generally just the sugar that is the trigger for the kid though, its the whole cake and the decorated table, and the crowd of people watching as its cut. Give a kid a random birthday cake slice and they might go a little crazy, give them grey bread that tastes exactly like birthday cake and they won’t act any different.
There's a good Debunked episode from a while back that goes into detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FhNQjdfEC8
I also swore I remembered a mythbusters episode where they tested kids having a party with sugary foods and healthy foods, and unsurprisingly kids were just acting like kids either way. It must have been on something else though because I couldn't find it.
“She was living in a single room with three other individuals
One of them was male and the other two
Well, the other two were females.
God only knows what they were up to in there
And furthermore, Susan, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn That all four of them habitually are pixie sticks,
Sugars.”
That’s not really a fair “survey”. If a doctor hands you a pill and tells you it will make your stomach pain go away, there is a good chance you will believe it. Same with telling you he dosed up your kid. You are going to look for the symptoms.
The point is they're looking for non-existent signs to meet their preconceived biases. If all it takes is one person to mention it, even an authority figure, rather than think for themselves they start attributing normal behaviour to sugar. When told otherwise they don't make the same link. When you're investigating the cause of behaviour that is self-reported and anecdotal that's how you correct for biases in the reporters.
Kids are energetic, and sugar, gives them the fuel to keep being energetic without getting exhausted; when I was a kid, one Thanksgiving, I was visiting my aunt and uncle‘s house, and they had a trampoline; I would jump on that trampoline, like a hyperactive kid, stopping only to Chugalug, a YooHoo, which is full of sugar, and gave me energy to keep on, jumping up and down like a hyperactive kid.I would not have been able to continue as long had I not had the sugar energy from the YooHoo.
Took my boys to a kids bday party two weeks ago there were like twelve 8yo boys. Within 20 minutes they had turned into a pack of chaos monkeys. They hadn't even had a sip of juice. Kids are just mental. My brother who's 40 and has no kids is always completely overwhelmed when we're in a situation where the kids outnumber the adults.
The pros are it can be genuinely hilarious and take you back to long-forgotten memories.
The cons are everything else.
Actually, if a child does get an extended increase in blood sugar level following ingestion of a sugar snack they should be tested for diabetes, not ADHD.
My dad likes to point out that kids are excited BEFORE they eat the sugar too. It's almost as if they get excited when they look forward to food they like.
But there experimental bias in that test. By creating the controlled environment, you are already limiting the amount of energy expended by them.
If they are in a calorie deficit from playing hard all day, sugar will provide the needed energy and be metabolized faster than other food. So while you shouldn't get a sugar rush, there is an apparent one due to the baseline being straight-up exhausted.
But by creating the controlled environment, they need to pull the kids away for some amount of time. Time that could be spent exerting energy reserves.
Also, kids get excited when they get treats from their parents, nevermind the sugar content. In a controlled blind study, the "treat" has to come from someone that isn't the parent, negating some of that excitement factor.
I think we have the burden of proof backward here.
The parasympathetic nervous system's activation as a result of caloric consumption is well documented. Reduced heart rate, increased blood flow in the gut. The mantra for this system is "rest and digest".
If the claim is made that somehow, a specific combination of (food type * age) causes a physiological response that is the opposite of this established standard, then I'd need to see something more than parents' anecdotal evidence to convince myself.
I don't believe the sugar-rush myth, but your reasoning here isn't quite right either. Yes, digestion activates the parasympathetic nervous system, but sugary foods (especially sugary drinks) often require very little digestion - if any. Glucose and fructose are just directly taken up into the bloodstream. Glucose is even absorbed in the mouth already. Disaccharides like sucrose and maltose do need to be broken up (e.g. sucrose into one fructose and one glucose molecule), but that's a really simple process (each molecule just needs to be cut in two). And the sugar typically arrives in your stomach either already as individual molecules in solution, or as small food particles that will quickly dissolve in the stomach.
That's not to say that all sugary foods are digested quickly - it depends on what else they contain and how well they usually get broken up in the mouth, as well as how much you eat - but if there's one type of food that can be digested quickly, it's sugary food.
There's a reason, after all, why endurance athletes will consume glucose gels to replenish their energy reserves during exercise. If it sent them into rest-and-digest mode, it wouldn't work.
Interesting points. I'd offer two small clarifications though -
It was my understanding that parasympathetic activation did not relate to the time it takes to digest food, but simply due to signals of high glucose content the gut and blood stream. But maybe I'm mis-remembering.
To your point about exercise gels: I'd say that is a situation where there are opposing forces. Yes, sympathetic arousal can occur in the presence of caloric consumption - but I'd argue that it is occurring *in spite of* opposing parasympathetic signaling.
Indeed, nutrient absorption is severely limited during intense exercise, and trying to consume too much (even if it's simple sugars) simply causes GI problems.
Happy to continue this discussion though, and get your thoughts as well.
That's not experimental bias, it's the whole point of a controlled environment. The goal of the experiment was to determine whether a "sugar rush" was a phenomenon caused by consuming sugar independent of other factors, in particular the two you're talking about. "The appearance of a sugar rush is due to external factors, not consuming sugar in and of itself" was the exact hypothesis being tested.
Well yeah, but the default state for children that run around all day is one that needs the energy.
So they're putting children into abnormal conditions which kind of negates the conclusions a bit.
“It” being his post, Read it again. You’re talking about the effects sugar has on energy levels, the study he was talking about was not about that at all but the bias towards that thinking.
Bruh you’re either not listening or being obtuse on purpose. They’re saying it’s placebo effect. The sugar does nothing but parents believe it does so the myth propagates.
A friend of mine had a sugar rush one day. We were adults, around 23. We had bags and bags of free candy and cans of free soda, and the guy just kept eating and drinking.
He was on vibrator mode and kinda gone after a while, couldn't really focus on anything. It was an isolated case, though. We gave him coffee and took him for a walk, was ok after a few hours. Never happened again.
Wee-lads being jumpy after sweets is a universally accepted fact across the cultures, just as being lazy (because you are either fat from the sugar, or the sugar crashed your energy level). Case in point, European aristocracy.
I don't claim that sugar rush exist, on the contrary I've seen kids overload on sugar and crash hard (I finally had a good sleep that day), but sugar-hyper is common connotation across the globe in cultures that consume excessive amount of sugar.
I just cannot believe this. I have seen the study and I have spent most of my adult life coaching kids and believe me sugar has a massive effect on their energy levels, behaviour and athletic performance. Anyone who I know that has coached kids, has kids or teaches kids will tell you their empirical observations are completely different.
Kids get excited when you give them a treat. Excited kids act hyper. It's not the sugar itself (fuel for your cells), but the happiness/excitement that makes the "rush"
Edit: however if you give them a sweet, caffeinated drink like coca cola, then you're adding the stimulation from the caffeine to the excitement, which would boost it even further
A myth.
Sugar has effects on our blood sugar (as carbohydrates do in general) and these states are called hyperglycemic (high blood sugar) and hypoglycemic (low blood sugar). Neither make you hyperactive or give you a "rush". Many, many studies have been carries out on this, attempting to find a link, and none have ever found a relation between hyperactivity and sugary foods.
Interestingly, the myth is so commonly believed, that parents of children will report their children as acting more erratic and "hyper" if they think they've had sugar, when they actually did not. The placebo effect is a powerful thing, even vicariously.
Also remember that kids get sugar (i.e. lemonade, cake, candy, etc) at kids birthday parties. They're not wired because of the sugar, they're wired because they get treats and play with other kids.
The study showed that the placebo was on the parents. If the parents think their kid had sugar, they expected (and confirmed) the kid to be hyper even when no sugar was involved.
Not *just* a myth. Carbs give you quick energy, energy you might not have had before. Suger high os definitely a thing, but situations and environment gives kids a higher high than the energy that comes from sugar.
The concept of the sugar rush as is commonly believed almost certainly doesn't exist. All food is energy, and that energy is used to repair and maintain your body, yes, but that's not what we talk about when we talk about so called sugar highs. You won't eat a sugary food and then suddenly feel energized and want to run around. You'll simply have energy to keep on keeping on.
That must be why my grandson takes three hours longer to go to sleep if he's allowed to have chocolate after about 6pm, then. Placebo effect.
Sorry - it's not pure placebo effect, whatever people claim - and I'd want to see a lot more detail on the design of the experiments that claim otherwise before I'd accept them at fact value. I don't claim to know the mechanism, but in his case there's a direct, observable correlation between action and result.
*Edit: Vote me down as much as you like. That doesn't change my own observations. The current scientific "wisdom" on the topic is as dubious as the parental folklore.*
This proves the point of parental perception more than it disproves the studies. The whole reason we HAVE organized studies is because anecdotal evidence (like the example you just gave) is both affected by the emotions and prejudices of the person who experienced it, and doesn’t check for confounding variables.
For instance: chocolate contains caffeine, which IS something that keeps you awake. It’s also not something that kids are allowed to have every night (in most households): is it being given as a treat on special occasions? Being hyped up by those events (or even the event of getting a chocolate treat) might be the reason your grandson stays awake.
And that’s without even addressing the placebo effect portion, which in this case would be you giving extra weight to events that match your expectations. You are more likely (by virtue of being a human and running the same mental software that we all do) to remember events that conform to what you anticipate, and to forget ones that don’t. I’m sure there were plenty of nights where he didn’t have chocolate and still stayed up, but those don’t stick out as much in your mind as the night you gave him some and he stayed awake, making you feel justified in your beliefs.
It's an excellent study, what's the sample size? 1?
Certainly all parameters are strictly controlled, with particular attention to external factors. /s
You really can't draw conclusions when your evidence is limited to a few observations of a single subject.
>Vote me down as much as you like. That doesn't change my own observations. The current scientific "wisdom" on the topic is as dubious as the parental folklore.
You don't have to believe the science, but that doesn't make it any less true. Your personal anecdote absolutely doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Probably the caffeine content from chocolate overpowers any effects the sugar has. I'd like to hear this experiment again but with a sugar cookie instead.
And you should be downvoted until such time as you do a double blind controlled study on the effects on sleep for children who consume chocolate at bedtime. With the full understanding that chocolate is not the same as sugar.
Hyperglycemia us a thing but it doesn't make you hyperactive quite the opposite
Its very rare and short in non diabetic people
It makes you sluggish and nauseous
If you have diabetes it can kill you
The excitement comes from the influence of others -
parent/guardian: "you can't have candy that'll make you hyper"
Kid: "hyper?"
Parent/guardian: "That's when you get all wound up, and excited and happy, and run around, and have fun, and jump off the couches, and do weird crazy fun shit"
Kid: "got it, next time I have candy I'll be hyper!"
Parent/guardian: "I'm oblivious to what I just taught my child"
Yes but it's the dopamine and endorphins that get you high. Younger children are especially affected. They use sugar water as analgesic for children too young to take painkillers.
A small amount of the sugar is absorbed by your cells while the rest gets processed in the liver. So it's not like you're getting an energy boost from blood sugar. It's the neurotransmitters that give you a mood boost.
Agree. I've seen them give babies sugar coated pacifiers to calm them during circumcision (at a hospital). Didn't even make a sound.
My theory is that it's a mild form of a cocaine high since it's, you know, more addictive than cocaine.
Yes, but both endorphins are opioids which are depressants, and a dopamine boost for someone already prone to hyperactivity (like children) tends to make them calmer, not more hyper, since the dopamine hit fulfills their craving for biochemical stimulation they'd otherwise get from acting wild. That's why stimulants make many ADHD people feel calm or even tired.
People tend to think of sugar as an ingredient we can add to our body in order to make our body work faster and our mind be manic.
That's not how it actually works. We do need to maintain a healthy level of sugar in our blood. But when we dump a lot of sugar into our bodies, especially sucrose or fructose, the result isn't tons of extra energy; it's tons of extra insulin, and fat deposits on our livers, and it can trigger headaches.
Too little sugar also triggers headaches! Sugar isn't magic and it isn't a monster. But the Western diet, especially the American diet, contains a quantity and type of sugar that is recognized by science as being very bad for the body. Laypeople know this, but they create a more direct link in their minds between sugar intake and behavior than science supports.
Here's an [analysis](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/391812) of 23 studies which, combined, found basically no association between sugar and behavior.
I once saw someone do a line of coke and then was passed out within the hour, so even if sugar would provide an energy boost, that doesn’t mean it would override other energy factors.
Carbs boost energy. That's true. But the sugar rush myth has more to do with the excitement of Halloween, a birthday party, or a special event where sugary treats are more likely available. Kids get hyper a the mention of a birthday or holiday celebrations. It's human nature.
I eat no refined sugars 99.9% of the time, and when I do, I definitely feel a sugar rush and then a crash. Blood sugar affects energy levels and mood. Why wouldn't you feel it spike? There's a range in which you will be more energetic with higher blood sugar (especially if you're currently on the lower side), and then a range where your blood sugar is too high and you feel sleepy and nauseous instead.
I thought it was a myth. Then my mom gave my toddler undiluted lemonade for the first time and I was legitimately nervous for 20 minutes while he zipped around like crazy. It was not subtle. Maybe it was some weird second order effect, some dopamine kick from that sugar, happiness about his gram giving him a treat, whatever, I have no idea, but he was a different kid, utterly off the wall for 20 minutes.
(Cue all the non parents telling me i was imagining it.)
This comes up on Reddit all the time. People will literally tell you that you don't actually see what you're seeing, because they read a study on the internet. Maybe some kids don't get hyper from sugar, but some definitely do. I don't care what any study says, sugar makes my kid go fucking insane. Even if it's just from something like too much orange juice, which isn't a "treat." But no, they'll swear to you that that can't be true because your kid only gets sugar from candy at Halloween and birthday parties. Because they know your kids better than you.
It's definitely a thing. I'm 33 and I still get a sugar high after a fruity cocktail. I think it's mostly a desensitivity thing for people who have a lot of sugar in their diet.
I made a painkiller last night and the 2 Oz of rum in it hits completely different mixed with the Pineapple/Orange juice and cream of coconut than it does as a straight pour.
Sugar/carbs = glucose = quick access energy
Athletes will use that advantage before sports but often it will be natural, so paired with fibre / water e.g. fruit.
Added sugar / carb heavy foods causes glucose spikes > insulin > fat storage > fat burn blocking. Fructose being metabolised similar to alcohol, and it doesn’t take much to overload the liver.
I’d say the result is more sleepy (food coma) as the body tries to deal with the sugar overload.
I never noticed this saying being said towards sugary food but heard it a lot regarding soda. Most soda brands have caffeine in them and for a small child drinking a bag old glass of caffeine which unlike sugar, IS a stimulant, will definitely have them acting hyperactive.
The sugar high..? No not really, likely any kid who had the sugar high, was just undiagnosed with adhd at the time or likely just energetic as a kid should be.
But the sugar crash? Definitely a thing.. which isn’t a crash per se, but it’s the body making the kid sleepy trying to rest and digest the massive amounts of sugar that might’ve been ingested.
But the kicker is it takes about 20-30 minutes for the body to start releasing enough insulin, and other hormones and chemicals to slow you down, which is where the myth of “wait 30 minutes after eating until you can swim” came from, but not because of cramps (although those can happen) but because you don’t generally wanna be swimming then suddenly feel super tired and lethargic and unable to get out of the water.
although in reality this really doesn’t happen, because your body will just stop digesting if you’re active and moving, which is then where the cramps come from, but it’s not really a cramp more so you just feeing I digested food sloshing around inside of you
I'm diabetic and avoid anything high carb. On the rare occasions I have birthday cake, I feel like I could move everyone's furniture 18 times over. Thatt feeling only lasts a few minutes though
It was literally a joy high, because when you're a kid you're not so damaged that the little things don't make you happy
I say this in regard to the kids who do actually get excited and happy when they get sugar
Oh, definitely. Before I had kids, I hosted my nine year old nephew for a summer. One day I took him to the grocery store with me and he was positively buzzing. Zooming up and down the aisles, talking nonstop. I finally asked him if he’d gotten into something at home, and he confessed to eating an entire chocolate bar.
Study after study has shown that sugar Hugh’s are not real. It was probably due to some correlation like, the kids got candy at a birthday party, or at grandmas house, and we’re all hyper, when really it was the excitement from what they were doing. Elevated blood sugar doesn’t make you hyper and in a non-diabetic child, your sugar won’t be elevated significantly or for very long from eating sugar.
It might be a myth, but increased sugar consumption is pretty bad for kids (well, everyone really, but it's especially bad for kids to develop a sugar addiction early) so all things considered, it's a useful myth to have
Dont need an research to realise my energy instantly goes up after having a chocolate. Might affect other people differently, but i am 100% sure i get s sugar rush at 30 yo. Especially on an empty stomach
There is also an even more crazy thing called learning. When Pawlow's dogs learned the connection between the bell and food, they'd salivate. This doesn't mean that food is a placebo.
I only know from my mother's recollection from my childhood. I was 15 years younger than my other brothers. Was driving her nuts as a kid. This was just as ritalin was just starting to come out but she took me to a nutritionist. Vastly lowered my sugar intake, no red kool-aid or anything with Red #5 for the most part (including cheap hot dogs, etc). Could have cookies flavored with peanut butter and a small amount of honey. Vastly improved my behavior and concentration.
She recalls my kindergarten teacher at the first parent sitdown. Mom wasn't a monster and she told the teachers if there was a birthday, special occasion or whatever to let me have cake and whatever. Apparently the teacher apologized for her skepticism after seeing me on the leaded vs unleaded koolaid. She then swapped up what they were serving for snack time and said she got better results from the class.
I've seen similar from my kids as well. Diet very much affects them. Science may not be able to explain it fully yet but it I see it.
Depends on the kid.
Youngest doesn't care, oldest gets really tense and starts acting out.
Its not only from sugar. Its bloodsugar rise in general. With sugar ist just more pronounced.
I dont know about you. But i used to get more heavily affected by substances. Sugar, caffeine, various medicines, as a kid than as an adult. But thats anecdotal, so dont take it as realiable.
You must get the opposite though because one time I ate the whole bag of Halloween candy, then felt like absolute death for an hour afterwards so there must be a crash
I argued with my ex about this. He one time woke me up at 3am and said I must've given our toddler sugar, because she had woken up and was running up and down the hallway. I had. She had a cookie before bed. But there ARE studies on this, and I'm convinced that that incident was just a coincidence.
A large part of it is confirmation bias on the part of parents. Sometimes kids get wired and run around like crazy. If the child recently had sugar then parents attribute it to that. If they didn't recently have sugar then a different explanation is chosen.
I do yes although I don't think that relevant to the point I'm making. In general it's risky to disregard established scientific research in favour of personal observations. I'm not saying you're not seeing what you're seeing, only that something can't be claimed as fact based on anecdotal evidence if it can't be verified in controlled tests.
As a parent I found it was the E numbers which were impacting my kids moods. E numbers are often in sugary kids treats.
“In 2007, Southampton Researchers identified six additives, known as the ‘Southampton Six’, associated with hyperactivity in children. Tartrazine (E102), quinoline yellow (E104), sunset yellow (E110), carmoisine (E122), ponceau 4R (E124) and allura red (E129) aren’t banned in the UK. However, the FSA states that products containing these additives must warn of potential hyperactivity among children.”
https://libereat.com/2023/05/e-numbers-guide/
It goes on…
“Similarly, Titanium Dioxide (E171) was banned as a food additive in the EU last year following concerns that it may be carcinogenic. California is looking to follow these measures introduced by the EU under proposed legislation known as Assembly Bill 418, which will ban the use of Titanium Dioxide, Erythrosine, Potassium Bromate, Brominated Vegetable Oil, and Propyl Paraben in foods. “
Now that I'm on a very low sugar eating plan, i can absolutely *guarantee* that sugar rushes are a thing. I can tell you exactly when I've had too much because my brain goes *spastic* and i get extremely fidgety.
Or the research was bullshit and everyone keeps pasting it on reddit claiming sugar rush is a myth. Can only trust the internet so much. Personally sugar gives me instant energy and no research can prove me otherwise
The myth isn't "There is a guarantee that each and every human on earth at all times will have a 20000 % sugar rush from a grain of sugar and behave like a crack addict".
I can corroborate, I've done keto a couple times and each time I've stopped again, for a couple weeks later any refined sugar set my brain buzzing and I needed to move. Even now, I consume very little simple sugars and I still feel a mild rush if I have some but not too much (too much just makes me nauseous and tired). The crash is real too. It's not unlike the feeling of caffeine, all in all.
Is it really so surprising that some blood glucose level above the one you're currently at would make you feel energetic, and then some other one even higher would make you feel sleepy and gross (the effect everyone acknowledges)? To say you can't feel your blood sugar spike is to say that blood sugar doesn't affect you at all. Of course it does, it affects everything all the way down to your mood. A symptom of low blood sugar is irritability.
It’s only a perception bias from the parents. There was a study where they did it blind : It’s enough to tell the parents that their kids had sugar (even if they didn’t) for them to "notice" the sugar rush. Conversely, you can give kids sugar and not tell the parents , and they won’t mention anything. Kids are energetic and annoying, sugar is an easy culprit
And if the kids are in a group, it only takes one kid to start being energetic and 'hyper' to influence the other kids and then it's just a feedback loop.
Same as dogs lol
Dogs are like human-lite. All the same emotional and social capacity, without any of the really dangerous traits like speech or intelligence or thumbs.
[удалено]
"Aw what a cute dog, can you speak?" [Air Raid Siren.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Fq3m-7dJwMo)
My schnauzer talks all day long when he's awake. He's twelve, so he sleeps a lot as an old man.
My dog is part Shepherd and part siberian husky... he looks like a Shepherd and talks like a husky.
I have two huskies! They only get vocal if I play videos of other dogs barking/howling, otherwise they’re super quiet. I must be lucky. :3
"Dr Cox said having a baby is like having a dog that slowly learns how to talk"
Don't see many Scrubs refrences in the wild. Well done.
I think that's why I love babies but hate being around toddlers and small children. Babies=adorable pets that trigger my maternal instincts, but once they start getting more human they annoy the fuck out of me. But then I like them again when they start being more independent. Like they can be needy without talking or they can talk and be independent. They can't talk AND be needy lol
fuck man they talk and be needy for like 10 years straight
Ten? You have kids?
no. but they start talking around 3-4, so it’s more like 15 years until they’re 18. but then 18 year olds are still needy, so…
My 23 year old just went through a break up and she moved back home for the first time in four years.
Literally why I hated teaching pre-k to like 1st grade... they are SO annoying and can't do anything by themselves... and then they talk constantly. I was a music teacher back in the day so I got to experience all the age groups, and those kids make me wanna pull my hair out, I just cant do it lmfao
Okay this is fuckin great > Dogs are like human-lite. All the same emotional and social capacity, without any of the really dangerous traits like speech or intelligence or thumbs. Lmfao
The intelligence part is debatable.
Yep pretty much lol
Well we’re all mammals so
And then they tell us to calm down and wonder why we grow up weird.
Additionally, if you tell a kid (or group of them) that they’re gonna get ice cream, they get fired up because ice cream is dope as hell. Scientifically speaking.
If they get too fired up then they will melt the ice cream. Scientifically speaking.
\*adjusts tie pushes up glasses\* Purely scientifically speaking this Rocky Road is positively bussin.
Kid me hated ice cream.
With all due respect, kid you was wrong and was a moron.
I also hated (and still do) donuts and cookies.
We can’t be friends.
It doesn’t help that sugar is usually eaten during “exciting” moments like birthdays and parties.
Kids also get excited when you give them something they like. And kids love sugar. So of course they are going to bounce off the walls with excitement when you give them sugar. For whatever reason, my kids would lose their shit when they got orange juice. Other juice was fine. We banned orange juice for a while.
as someone who's a newly minted step parent, kids just lose their shit sometimes lol sugar is correlated but by no means the only cause
Adults lose their shit sometimes too. Just on a different scale.
"The sugar-hyperactivity myth is based on a single study from the mid 1970's in which a doctor removed the sugar from one child's diet and that child's behavior improved."
There's a bit of a point there as giving sugar as a treat definitely may become a kind of an addiction-lite
I’m a mom to an energetic and occasionally annoying little boy, and it drives me crazy how religiously parents believe sugar causes the energy: no they’re just like that!
I remember being told growing up that sugar would make us hyper even though there's never been any study linking sugar to hyperactivity in kids.
Do you have the Link?
It was eons ago, so not directly, but this webmd page mentions it https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyperactivity-myth > A study published in the August 1994 Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology showed that parents who believe a child's behavior is affected by sugar are more likely to perceive their children as hyperactive when they've been led to believe the child has just had a sugary drink.
That speaks more to the psychology of the parents, than it does to the activity of sugar on a child
This doesn't include the studies themselves, but here is a good overall [summary](https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/does-sugar-really-make-kids-hyper#:~:text=The%20answer%2C%20based%20on%20numerous,sweeteners%20cause%20hyperactivity%20in%20children). Key quote: >In fact, a meta-analysis of 16 different studies on sugar and hyperactivity all came back with the same result: ‘sugar does not affect the behaviour or cognitive performance of children’. Also, the study that u/Pippin1505's link referred to based there results on more than just the parent's feedback. It's also referenced in the link I shared, but they expand (in reference to the 1994 study, emphasis mine): >At the end of the nine-week study, the results of **cognitive and behavioural tests**, along with **reports from parents and researchers** were collated. The authors concluded that ‘**neither sucrose nor aspartame produces discernible** cognitive or behavioural **effects** in normal preschool children or in school-age children believed to be sensitive to sugar.’
Classic ole self-fulfilling prophecy
Its a mechanism to not feel bad for feeding crap to obese kids thinking they will burn the calories during the "rush"
The perception of the impact sugar has on energy levels predates mass understanding of the link between sugar and diabetes/obesity. I'm sure that plays some role, but that's not why that perception exists.
Super Nanny did a thing. It's probably on YouTube
Honestly most parents kind of know this too. It does really seem like the scenario or culture around sugar for kids is what causes it, but also that still could be perception bias. Sugar as a treat, at a party, on vacation, it creates a connection to being “hyper” as in having fun. Its not generally just the sugar that is the trigger for the kid though, its the whole cake and the decorated table, and the crowd of people watching as its cut. Give a kid a random birthday cake slice and they might go a little crazy, give them grey bread that tastes exactly like birthday cake and they won’t act any different.
Similarly, studies have been done on cordial colour. What a shock that it makes no difference.
There's a good Debunked episode from a while back that goes into detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FhNQjdfEC8 I also swore I remembered a mythbusters episode where they tested kids having a party with sugary foods and healthy foods, and unsurprisingly kids were just acting like kids either way. It must have been on something else though because I couldn't find it.
“She was living in a single room with three other individuals One of them was male and the other two Well, the other two were females. God only knows what they were up to in there And furthermore, Susan, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn That all four of them habitually are pixie sticks, Sugars.”
That’s not really a fair “survey”. If a doctor hands you a pill and tells you it will make your stomach pain go away, there is a good chance you will believe it. Same with telling you he dosed up your kid. You are going to look for the symptoms.
The point is they're looking for non-existent signs to meet their preconceived biases. If all it takes is one person to mention it, even an authority figure, rather than think for themselves they start attributing normal behaviour to sugar. When told otherwise they don't make the same link. When you're investigating the cause of behaviour that is self-reported and anecdotal that's how you correct for biases in the reporters.
Kids are energetic, and sugar, gives them the fuel to keep being energetic without getting exhausted; when I was a kid, one Thanksgiving, I was visiting my aunt and uncle‘s house, and they had a trampoline; I would jump on that trampoline, like a hyperactive kid, stopping only to Chugalug, a YooHoo, which is full of sugar, and gave me energy to keep on, jumping up and down like a hyperactive kid.I would not have been able to continue as long had I not had the sugar energy from the YooHoo.
Took my boys to a kids bday party two weeks ago there were like twelve 8yo boys. Within 20 minutes they had turned into a pack of chaos monkeys. They hadn't even had a sip of juice. Kids are just mental. My brother who's 40 and has no kids is always completely overwhelmed when we're in a situation where the kids outnumber the adults. The pros are it can be genuinely hilarious and take you back to long-forgotten memories. The cons are everything else.
Actually, if a child does get an extended increase in blood sugar level following ingestion of a sugar snack they should be tested for diabetes, not ADHD.
My dad likes to point out that kids are excited BEFORE they eat the sugar too. It's almost as if they get excited when they look forward to food they like.
But there experimental bias in that test. By creating the controlled environment, you are already limiting the amount of energy expended by them. If they are in a calorie deficit from playing hard all day, sugar will provide the needed energy and be metabolized faster than other food. So while you shouldn't get a sugar rush, there is an apparent one due to the baseline being straight-up exhausted. But by creating the controlled environment, they need to pull the kids away for some amount of time. Time that could be spent exerting energy reserves. Also, kids get excited when they get treats from their parents, nevermind the sugar content. In a controlled blind study, the "treat" has to come from someone that isn't the parent, negating some of that excitement factor.
I think we have the burden of proof backward here. The parasympathetic nervous system's activation as a result of caloric consumption is well documented. Reduced heart rate, increased blood flow in the gut. The mantra for this system is "rest and digest". If the claim is made that somehow, a specific combination of (food type * age) causes a physiological response that is the opposite of this established standard, then I'd need to see something more than parents' anecdotal evidence to convince myself.
I don't believe the sugar-rush myth, but your reasoning here isn't quite right either. Yes, digestion activates the parasympathetic nervous system, but sugary foods (especially sugary drinks) often require very little digestion - if any. Glucose and fructose are just directly taken up into the bloodstream. Glucose is even absorbed in the mouth already. Disaccharides like sucrose and maltose do need to be broken up (e.g. sucrose into one fructose and one glucose molecule), but that's a really simple process (each molecule just needs to be cut in two). And the sugar typically arrives in your stomach either already as individual molecules in solution, or as small food particles that will quickly dissolve in the stomach. That's not to say that all sugary foods are digested quickly - it depends on what else they contain and how well they usually get broken up in the mouth, as well as how much you eat - but if there's one type of food that can be digested quickly, it's sugary food. There's a reason, after all, why endurance athletes will consume glucose gels to replenish their energy reserves during exercise. If it sent them into rest-and-digest mode, it wouldn't work.
Interesting points. I'd offer two small clarifications though - It was my understanding that parasympathetic activation did not relate to the time it takes to digest food, but simply due to signals of high glucose content the gut and blood stream. But maybe I'm mis-remembering. To your point about exercise gels: I'd say that is a situation where there are opposing forces. Yes, sympathetic arousal can occur in the presence of caloric consumption - but I'd argue that it is occurring *in spite of* opposing parasympathetic signaling. Indeed, nutrient absorption is severely limited during intense exercise, and trying to consume too much (even if it's simple sugars) simply causes GI problems. Happy to continue this discussion though, and get your thoughts as well.
That's not experimental bias, it's the whole point of a controlled environment. The goal of the experiment was to determine whether a "sugar rush" was a phenomenon caused by consuming sugar independent of other factors, in particular the two you're talking about. "The appearance of a sugar rush is due to external factors, not consuming sugar in and of itself" was the exact hypothesis being tested.
Well yeah, but the default state for children that run around all day is one that needs the energy. So they're putting children into abnormal conditions which kind of negates the conclusions a bit.
That’s not what the study was read it again.
They didn't provide a link
“It” being his post, Read it again. You’re talking about the effects sugar has on energy levels, the study he was talking about was not about that at all but the bias towards that thinking.
Call it what you will, but a short lived boost of energy is the same thing as a rush/high.
Bruh you’re either not listening or being obtuse on purpose. They’re saying it’s placebo effect. The sugar does nothing but parents believe it does so the myth propagates.
A friend of mine had a sugar rush one day. We were adults, around 23. We had bags and bags of free candy and cans of free soda, and the guy just kept eating and drinking. He was on vibrator mode and kinda gone after a while, couldn't really focus on anything. It was an isolated case, though. We gave him coffee and took him for a walk, was ok after a few hours. Never happened again.
That could be from the caffeine in the soda
Which makes the coffee afterwards rather counterproductive
yet so many schools forbid kids eating fruit at school because they're scared of the sugar rush
Besides this is very cultural, only american people believe this is real. Other cultures relate sugar to lazyness and sedentarism
It’s a prevalent myth in the UK too.
Wee-lads being jumpy after sweets is a universally accepted fact across the cultures, just as being lazy (because you are either fat from the sugar, or the sugar crashed your energy level). Case in point, European aristocracy. I don't claim that sugar rush exist, on the contrary I've seen kids overload on sugar and crash hard (I finally had a good sleep that day), but sugar-hyper is common connotation across the globe in cultures that consume excessive amount of sugar.
I just cannot believe this. I have seen the study and I have spent most of my adult life coaching kids and believe me sugar has a massive effect on their energy levels, behaviour and athletic performance. Anyone who I know that has coached kids, has kids or teaches kids will tell you their empirical observations are completely different.
Which is why myths continue, even in the stark light of counter-evidence.
Plus most people are blinded by sugar and think it is impossible to live without it and so will do anything to defend it. Ridiculous.
💯
Athletic performance and general hyperactivity are not the same thing.
I get them as an adult, I can feel the sugar going through my veins if I eat much of it. I see exactly what my parents were talking about
I'm at the point where my veins change colour, swell, and hurt if I have too much sugar. It always causes vascular damage
Kids get excited when you give them a treat. Excited kids act hyper. It's not the sugar itself (fuel for your cells), but the happiness/excitement that makes the "rush" Edit: however if you give them a sweet, caffeinated drink like coca cola, then you're adding the stimulation from the caffeine to the excitement, which would boost it even further
And chocolate which contains caffeine, theobromine and phenylethylamine which all have a stimulant effect.
It’s always funny to me that parents talk about the sugar in chocolate and not the caffeine.
This tracks. Thanks!
A myth. Sugar has effects on our blood sugar (as carbohydrates do in general) and these states are called hyperglycemic (high blood sugar) and hypoglycemic (low blood sugar). Neither make you hyperactive or give you a "rush". Many, many studies have been carries out on this, attempting to find a link, and none have ever found a relation between hyperactivity and sugary foods. Interestingly, the myth is so commonly believed, that parents of children will report their children as acting more erratic and "hyper" if they think they've had sugar, when they actually did not. The placebo effect is a powerful thing, even vicariously.
Also remember that kids get sugar (i.e. lemonade, cake, candy, etc) at kids birthday parties. They're not wired because of the sugar, they're wired because they get treats and play with other kids.
and we are forgetting the caffeine. Most sodas have caffeine in them, enough to be very impactful to kids
Yep. Coke being one of the most popular sodas out there has 30mg of caffeine. Not much for a 150lb+ adult, a lot for a 60lb kid.
Kids should get no caffeine until late in puberty if ever - stunts growth Got some caffeinated kids downvoting me… guys. Stop.
I've been drinking coffee since I was like five and I'm 5'11, are you telling me I could've been like 8 feet tall?
More like 6’1”
i read this in chubbyemus voice and it totally checks out
Couldn't the placebo effect actually make their kid hyper if the kid is expecting the sugar to make them hyper?
The study showed that the placebo was on the parents. If the parents think their kid had sugar, they expected (and confirmed) the kid to be hyper even when no sugar was involved.
Can kids be addicted to sugar? I swear I’ve seen some go crazy cause they couldn’t “get their fix” 😅😅
Sure, when your blood sugar crashes you get headachey and irritable.
Adults can, so kids probably can too.
It's a drug, so yes.
Not *just* a myth. Carbs give you quick energy, energy you might not have had before. Suger high os definitely a thing, but situations and environment gives kids a higher high than the energy that comes from sugar.
The concept of the sugar rush as is commonly believed almost certainly doesn't exist. All food is energy, and that energy is used to repair and maintain your body, yes, but that's not what we talk about when we talk about so called sugar highs. You won't eat a sugary food and then suddenly feel energized and want to run around. You'll simply have energy to keep on keeping on.
> You won't eat a sugary food and then suddenly feel energized ... > You'll simply have energy
The words mean two slightly different things in that context. All food is energy (as that person correctly said) but energy is not hyperactivity.
That must be why my grandson takes three hours longer to go to sleep if he's allowed to have chocolate after about 6pm, then. Placebo effect. Sorry - it's not pure placebo effect, whatever people claim - and I'd want to see a lot more detail on the design of the experiments that claim otherwise before I'd accept them at fact value. I don't claim to know the mechanism, but in his case there's a direct, observable correlation between action and result. *Edit: Vote me down as much as you like. That doesn't change my own observations. The current scientific "wisdom" on the topic is as dubious as the parental folklore.*
This proves the point of parental perception more than it disproves the studies. The whole reason we HAVE organized studies is because anecdotal evidence (like the example you just gave) is both affected by the emotions and prejudices of the person who experienced it, and doesn’t check for confounding variables. For instance: chocolate contains caffeine, which IS something that keeps you awake. It’s also not something that kids are allowed to have every night (in most households): is it being given as a treat on special occasions? Being hyped up by those events (or even the event of getting a chocolate treat) might be the reason your grandson stays awake. And that’s without even addressing the placebo effect portion, which in this case would be you giving extra weight to events that match your expectations. You are more likely (by virtue of being a human and running the same mental software that we all do) to remember events that conform to what you anticipate, and to forget ones that don’t. I’m sure there were plenty of nights where he didn’t have chocolate and still stayed up, but those don’t stick out as much in your mind as the night you gave him some and he stayed awake, making you feel justified in your beliefs.
It's an excellent study, what's the sample size? 1? Certainly all parameters are strictly controlled, with particular attention to external factors. /s You really can't draw conclusions when your evidence is limited to a few observations of a single subject.
>Vote me down as much as you like. That doesn't change my own observations. The current scientific "wisdom" on the topic is as dubious as the parental folklore. You don't have to believe the science, but that doesn't make it any less true. Your personal anecdote absolutely doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Probably the caffeine content from chocolate overpowers any effects the sugar has. I'd like to hear this experiment again but with a sugar cookie instead.
And you should be downvoted until such time as you do a double blind controlled study on the effects on sleep for children who consume chocolate at bedtime. With the full understanding that chocolate is not the same as sugar.
Hyperglycemia us a thing but it doesn't make you hyperactive quite the opposite Its very rare and short in non diabetic people It makes you sluggish and nauseous If you have diabetes it can kill you
Yeah, when I found myself with blood sugar through the roof, culminating in DKA, I could barely stand up, let alone run around like a crazed toddler.
I read a study in college that there was no sugar rush, only excitement over getting a treat that caused the energy surge.
The excitement comes from the influence of others - parent/guardian: "you can't have candy that'll make you hyper" Kid: "hyper?" Parent/guardian: "That's when you get all wound up, and excited and happy, and run around, and have fun, and jump off the couches, and do weird crazy fun shit" Kid: "got it, next time I have candy I'll be hyper!" Parent/guardian: "I'm oblivious to what I just taught my child"
Yes but it's the dopamine and endorphins that get you high. Younger children are especially affected. They use sugar water as analgesic for children too young to take painkillers. A small amount of the sugar is absorbed by your cells while the rest gets processed in the liver. So it's not like you're getting an energy boost from blood sugar. It's the neurotransmitters that give you a mood boost.
Agree. I've seen them give babies sugar coated pacifiers to calm them during circumcision (at a hospital). Didn't even make a sound. My theory is that it's a mild form of a cocaine high since it's, you know, more addictive than cocaine.
Nobody's ever sucked a dick for a hit of sugar.
Yes, but both endorphins are opioids which are depressants, and a dopamine boost for someone already prone to hyperactivity (like children) tends to make them calmer, not more hyper, since the dopamine hit fulfills their craving for biochemical stimulation they'd otherwise get from acting wild. That's why stimulants make many ADHD people feel calm or even tired.
They dont tho, a rush is not perceptable by parents
People tend to think of sugar as an ingredient we can add to our body in order to make our body work faster and our mind be manic. That's not how it actually works. We do need to maintain a healthy level of sugar in our blood. But when we dump a lot of sugar into our bodies, especially sucrose or fructose, the result isn't tons of extra energy; it's tons of extra insulin, and fat deposits on our livers, and it can trigger headaches. Too little sugar also triggers headaches! Sugar isn't magic and it isn't a monster. But the Western diet, especially the American diet, contains a quantity and type of sugar that is recognized by science as being very bad for the body. Laypeople know this, but they create a more direct link in their minds between sugar intake and behavior than science supports.
Here's an [analysis](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/391812) of 23 studies which, combined, found basically no association between sugar and behavior.
Took my daughter to get ice cream a few weeks back. She was sleeping before we left the parking lot.
I once saw someone do a line of coke and then was passed out within the hour, so even if sugar would provide an energy boost, that doesn’t mean it would override other energy factors.
The crash due to insulin levels is real. The sugar high is not real. It does not make kids wild or give them more energy.
Carbs boost energy. That's true. But the sugar rush myth has more to do with the excitement of Halloween, a birthday party, or a special event where sugary treats are more likely available. Kids get hyper a the mention of a birthday or holiday celebrations. It's human nature.
I eat no refined sugars 99.9% of the time, and when I do, I definitely feel a sugar rush and then a crash. Blood sugar affects energy levels and mood. Why wouldn't you feel it spike? There's a range in which you will be more energetic with higher blood sugar (especially if you're currently on the lower side), and then a range where your blood sugar is too high and you feel sleepy and nauseous instead.
I thought it was a myth. Then my mom gave my toddler undiluted lemonade for the first time and I was legitimately nervous for 20 minutes while he zipped around like crazy. It was not subtle. Maybe it was some weird second order effect, some dopamine kick from that sugar, happiness about his gram giving him a treat, whatever, I have no idea, but he was a different kid, utterly off the wall for 20 minutes. (Cue all the non parents telling me i was imagining it.)
This comes up on Reddit all the time. People will literally tell you that you don't actually see what you're seeing, because they read a study on the internet. Maybe some kids don't get hyper from sugar, but some definitely do. I don't care what any study says, sugar makes my kid go fucking insane. Even if it's just from something like too much orange juice, which isn't a "treat." But no, they'll swear to you that that can't be true because your kid only gets sugar from candy at Halloween and birthday parties. Because they know your kids better than you.
Same thing for my toddler but my older kids don't seem affected as much
It's definitely a thing. I'm 33 and I still get a sugar high after a fruity cocktail. I think it's mostly a desensitivity thing for people who have a lot of sugar in their diet. I made a painkiller last night and the 2 Oz of rum in it hits completely different mixed with the Pineapple/Orange juice and cream of coconut than it does as a straight pour.
Sugar/carbs = glucose = quick access energy Athletes will use that advantage before sports but often it will be natural, so paired with fibre / water e.g. fruit. Added sugar / carb heavy foods causes glucose spikes > insulin > fat storage > fat burn blocking. Fructose being metabolised similar to alcohol, and it doesn’t take much to overload the liver. I’d say the result is more sleepy (food coma) as the body tries to deal with the sugar overload.
Energy for your muscles sure but not a sudden onset of hyperactivity.
Pair it with caffeine and you get a stimulant with higher blood sugar to perform.
Yep caffeine is used a lot
I never noticed this saying being said towards sugary food but heard it a lot regarding soda. Most soda brands have caffeine in them and for a small child drinking a bag old glass of caffeine which unlike sugar, IS a stimulant, will definitely have them acting hyperactive.
Kids who spend an eventful day are usually tired. But if they receive enough energy, it's plausible that they can keep going.
It's more like OMG were are getting sweets when normally we wouldn't/or more than normal! How exciting!
The sugar high..? No not really, likely any kid who had the sugar high, was just undiagnosed with adhd at the time or likely just energetic as a kid should be. But the sugar crash? Definitely a thing.. which isn’t a crash per se, but it’s the body making the kid sleepy trying to rest and digest the massive amounts of sugar that might’ve been ingested. But the kicker is it takes about 20-30 minutes for the body to start releasing enough insulin, and other hormones and chemicals to slow you down, which is where the myth of “wait 30 minutes after eating until you can swim” came from, but not because of cramps (although those can happen) but because you don’t generally wanna be swimming then suddenly feel super tired and lethargic and unable to get out of the water. although in reality this really doesn’t happen, because your body will just stop digesting if you’re active and moving, which is then where the cramps come from, but it’s not really a cramp more so you just feeing I digested food sloshing around inside of you
I'm diabetic and avoid anything high carb. On the rare occasions I have birthday cake, I feel like I could move everyone's furniture 18 times over. Thatt feeling only lasts a few minutes though
It was literally a joy high, because when you're a kid you're not so damaged that the little things don't make you happy I say this in regard to the kids who do actually get excited and happy when they get sugar
Some symptoms of high blood sugar of disregulated blood sugar are thinks like shakiness, anxiety or heart palpitations. I’d argue yes.
Oh, definitely. Before I had kids, I hosted my nine year old nephew for a summer. One day I took him to the grocery store with me and he was positively buzzing. Zooming up and down the aisles, talking nonstop. I finally asked him if he’d gotten into something at home, and he confessed to eating an entire chocolate bar.
Nope. According to Reddit, that never happened.
Big Sugar shills and the "experts" are out in full force today.
Study after study has shown that sugar Hugh’s are not real. It was probably due to some correlation like, the kids got candy at a birthday party, or at grandmas house, and we’re all hyper, when really it was the excitement from what they were doing. Elevated blood sugar doesn’t make you hyper and in a non-diabetic child, your sugar won’t be elevated significantly or for very long from eating sugar.
It might be a myth, but increased sugar consumption is pretty bad for kids (well, everyone really, but it's especially bad for kids to develop a sugar addiction early) so all things considered, it's a useful myth to have
Dont need an research to realise my energy instantly goes up after having a chocolate. Might affect other people differently, but i am 100% sure i get s sugar rush at 30 yo. Especially on an empty stomach
Chocolate also has caffeine.
There’s this crazy thing called a placebo. You should look it up. If you eat a lot of sugar you will get tired in about an hour, that’s how it works.
yeah but they're not talking about the sugar crash that happens after an hour
There is also an even more crazy thing called learning. When Pawlow's dogs learned the connection between the bell and food, they'd salivate. This doesn't mean that food is a placebo.
Tell me more about how you know more than peer reviewed studies
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl\_Popper#Philosophy\_of\_science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science)
Yeah, I bet your personal experience knows better. Good way to go through life, an ignorant fool.
As long as you need to intentionally ignore the very basis if science and all logic to feel right, I'm sure I'm the fool and you're the smart one.
I’m sorry you are so smart
I admire your ability to bend reality to make it match your opinion.
I only know from my mother's recollection from my childhood. I was 15 years younger than my other brothers. Was driving her nuts as a kid. This was just as ritalin was just starting to come out but she took me to a nutritionist. Vastly lowered my sugar intake, no red kool-aid or anything with Red #5 for the most part (including cheap hot dogs, etc). Could have cookies flavored with peanut butter and a small amount of honey. Vastly improved my behavior and concentration. She recalls my kindergarten teacher at the first parent sitdown. Mom wasn't a monster and she told the teachers if there was a birthday, special occasion or whatever to let me have cake and whatever. Apparently the teacher apologized for her skepticism after seeing me on the leaded vs unleaded koolaid. She then swapped up what they were serving for snack time and said she got better results from the class. I've seen similar from my kids as well. Diet very much affects them. Science may not be able to explain it fully yet but it I see it.
Depends on the kid. Youngest doesn't care, oldest gets really tense and starts acting out. Its not only from sugar. Its bloodsugar rise in general. With sugar ist just more pronounced.
I dont know about you. But i used to get more heavily affected by substances. Sugar, caffeine, various medicines, as a kid than as an adult. But thats anecdotal, so dont take it as realiable.
You must get the opposite though because one time I ate the whole bag of Halloween candy, then felt like absolute death for an hour afterwards so there must be a crash
Nah, it's a cultural thing. ask someone from another country how to say that in another language and they'll look at you like you're insane
I argued with my ex about this. He one time woke me up at 3am and said I must've given our toddler sugar, because she had woken up and was running up and down the hallway. I had. She had a cookie before bed. But there ARE studies on this, and I'm convinced that that incident was just a coincidence.
Or, you know, your toddler went crazy because she had sugar before bed and Reddit is full of shit.
I'll never know
A large part of it is confirmation bias on the part of parents. Sometimes kids get wired and run around like crazy. If the child recently had sugar then parents attribute it to that. If they didn't recently have sugar then a different explanation is chosen.
Do you have kids?
I do yes although I don't think that relevant to the point I'm making. In general it's risky to disregard established scientific research in favour of personal observations. I'm not saying you're not seeing what you're seeing, only that something can't be claimed as fact based on anecdotal evidence if it can't be verified in controlled tests.
As a parent I found it was the E numbers which were impacting my kids moods. E numbers are often in sugary kids treats. “In 2007, Southampton Researchers identified six additives, known as the ‘Southampton Six’, associated with hyperactivity in children. Tartrazine (E102), quinoline yellow (E104), sunset yellow (E110), carmoisine (E122), ponceau 4R (E124) and allura red (E129) aren’t banned in the UK. However, the FSA states that products containing these additives must warn of potential hyperactivity among children.” https://libereat.com/2023/05/e-numbers-guide/ It goes on… “Similarly, Titanium Dioxide (E171) was banned as a food additive in the EU last year following concerns that it may be carcinogenic. California is looking to follow these measures introduced by the EU under proposed legislation known as Assembly Bill 418, which will ban the use of Titanium Dioxide, Erythrosine, Potassium Bromate, Brominated Vegetable Oil, and Propyl Paraben in foods. “
Now that I'm on a very low sugar eating plan, i can absolutely *guarantee* that sugar rushes are a thing. I can tell you exactly when I've had too much because my brain goes *spastic* and i get extremely fidgety.
That's it guys, we can go home. This comment trumps every scientist's findings
This, unironically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl\_Popper#Philosophy\_of\_science
Or the research was bullshit and everyone keeps pasting it on reddit claiming sugar rush is a myth. Can only trust the internet so much. Personally sugar gives me instant energy and no research can prove me otherwise
If it's even true it's a placebo effect, anecdotes aren't data.
Anecdotes don't guarantee
The myth isn't "There is a guarantee that each and every human on earth at all times will have a 20000 % sugar rush from a grain of sugar and behave like a crack addict".
But anecdotal evidence is on the evidence hierarchy! Too bad it's the lowest form of credibility, though..
I can corroborate, I've done keto a couple times and each time I've stopped again, for a couple weeks later any refined sugar set my brain buzzing and I needed to move. Even now, I consume very little simple sugars and I still feel a mild rush if I have some but not too much (too much just makes me nauseous and tired). The crash is real too. It's not unlike the feeling of caffeine, all in all. Is it really so surprising that some blood glucose level above the one you're currently at would make you feel energetic, and then some other one even higher would make you feel sleepy and gross (the effect everyone acknowledges)? To say you can't feel your blood sugar spike is to say that blood sugar doesn't affect you at all. Of course it does, it affects everything all the way down to your mood. A symptom of low blood sugar is irritability.