> Like sugar causing hyperactivity in children.

I don't know about children, but its vaguely true about adults. Increased sugar intake alters the fat burning process with the gift of quick energy followed by a period of depression, a sugar low, that impacts body energy and mental concentration. The resulting behavior is slowed/faulty decision making and a desire for napping.

I suspect if this same metabolic change occurs in children it would slow a child's mental concentration thereby allowing less controlled behavior, which may present as hyper activity at the loss of self-reflection.

"alters the fat burning process"

Are you referring to the release of insulin in response to the intake of sugar? I believe the sugar high may just be a myth perpetuated by both the dopamine reward response, but also parents looking for explanations of children's hyperactivity. Kids are simply de facto hyperactive, there are disordered levels of hyperactivity, but simply: their motor cortex is overdeveloped and overactive relative to their prefrontal cortical control mechanisms (executive functions).

Yes, sugar is metabolized by insulin while fat is metabolized by the liver. Sugar does trigger a dopamine response much stronger than cocaine addiction (this is medically observed), but the dopamine effect is orthogonal to the different metabolic response.

This difference in metabolism is due to physiology. It is not a myth. The implications of the difference are that energy created through the insulin process is immediately available and the unused remainder of energy after use is stored as fat. Fat in take, on the other hand, stores energy as fat the body thinks it will need and dumps the rest. Fat becomes energy when stored fat is metabolized in the liver resulting in slow but more consistent energy. Understanding that difference is significant to dropping weight.

It's not correct to say sugar is metabolized by insulin, though. Cells in the pancreas detect increased blood sugar levels, which then leads to subsequent insulin release, which tells different kind of cells across the body to intake sugar and store energy in various ways. Those cells then may store sugar into fatty acids or glycogen, though it's been a while since I reviewed the biochemistry.

That one is actually true. Sugar highs are a thing.

When I google "sugar high children", everything on the front page points to it being debunked, mainly due to the mid-90s studies.

"Through various experiments over the years, scientists have discovered that no substantial evidence exists to support the claim that sugar causes hyperactivity." (1)

"Nonetheless, other experiments show that sugar may at least influence behavior. Dr. Wesnes conducted a study in which he found that having a large amount of sugar for breakfast led to a severe deterioration of attention span when compared to having no breakfast or eating whole grain cereal. Dr. Tamborlane, also from Yale, reported that children given sugar had higher levels of adrenaline. A possible explanation for this effect is that since sugar is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, blood sugar rises quickly, which can lead to higher adrenaline levels and thus symptoms similar to those associated with hyperactivity. Furthermore, children with ADHD also tend to have higher levels of insulin." (1)

(1) http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar...

Yep just like scientists couldn’t find a link between smoking and anything either. People laughed at the doctor who washed his hands. They said Earth is at most 100 Million years old. And so on.

That was physics and biology and here you are talking about correlation studies??

My comment was designed to stimulate discussion about this exact issue. Not because I really had a strong position. What if studies show one thing and other studies can’t reproduce the effect? What if something IS true despite current studies “debunking” it?

The quote above was an example as such: "Nonetheless, other experiments show that sugar may at least influence behavior. Dr. Wesnes conducted a study in which he found that having a large amount of sugar for breakfast led to a severe deterioration of attention span"

Tell ya what? Go hang out with some kids after you give them a bunch of sugar. Studies can say one thing, personal experience watching children turn into little demons that make you run all day before they get cranky and crash hard says otherwise.

It's funny you mention that since here's how the top link (The Guardian) starts off:

> People often get cross when you tell them there's no such thing as a sugar rush. Especially parents. They have witnessed, time and again, their offspring going ape at parties, after mainlining jelly and ice cream.

But let's not get distracted trying to convince me the study is wrong with anecdotes. That's the point: even ubiquitous "common sense" that anyone would swear is right can be debunked.

> They have witnessed, time and again, their offspring going ape at parties, after mainlining jelly and ice cream.

And I feel like there's another explanation for that - the party setting.

Indeed. At home i notice no difference at all when my kids eat candy. And at parties they get wild before the candy is handed out.

Also kids are different of course.

I wasn't saying the study was wrong, it's more it doesn't matter if it is or not. Just try it yourself. Find a kid, give the child some candy, pop, or other high sugar thing and hang out with them for a few hours, then draw your own conclusion.

What does it matter what some study says when every kid i've ever seen get a bunch of sugar acts the same way? Studies mean nothing when you're with kids hyped up on sugar.

And honestly, I don't really eat sugar, when I have some pop or eat candy, I notice the way it makes me feel. It doesn't make me hyper, but it makes me antsy and twitchy.

> Find a kid, give the child some candy, pop, or other high sugar thing and hang out with them for a few hours, then draw your own conclusion.

I've done this. I didn't notice any difference. I suspect the difference people notice is down to their lack of skill at parenting rather than anything to do with sugar.

Hypothesis: being around crummy adults leads both to lots of sugar and to bad behavior.

I've done this numerous times. It's all placebo and literally the point of the original comment.

Things that seems common sense AND you see them happen anecdotally all the time can still be wrong.

Finding a kid, giving the child some candy, pop, or other high sugar thing and hanging out with them for a few hours is by no means a sensible way to draw any reasonable conclusions. Isn't it pretty obvious?

Or, just put a bunch of kids together and get them playing.

"Personal experience" can be biased too: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02168088

Haha, if this was the metric, I'd be an antivaxxer too.