Soft drinks linked to aggression in young children

TORONTO SUN ^ | AUGUST 16, 2013 | QMI AGENCY

[rickmichaels]

All those Pepsis and Cokes could be making a monster out of your little bundle of joy.

New research shows kids who regularly drink soft drinks are more aggressive.

Researchers from Columbia University, the University of Vermont and Harvard studied data on 3,000 five-year-old children from 20 U.S. cities. Their mothers reported the frequency of soft drink consumption and completed a behavioural assessment survey.

Nearly half of the children (43%) drink at least one serving of soft drink a day, and 4% drink four or more.

Even after taking into account other factors, such as family violence, kids who drink soft drinks showed increased aggressive behaviour.

And the more soda, the more aggressive the kid.

Children who drink more than four soft drinks a day were found to be twice as likely to destroy other people's things, get into fights and physically attack people.

The study will be published in Journal of Pediatrics.

[Essie]

This is not really science. It’s some researcher taking a mother’s recollection of what her child does and “filtering” out other factors in the child’s life to come up with what I feel is a conclusion based on anecdotal evidence.

[stormer]

I think this may have less to do with kids drinking pop than it has to do with the parenting skill of people that would let a child drink 4 pops a day. If kids aren’t taught some level of self control - and that includes beverage consumption - there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t be more likely to act aggressively in order to get what they want.

[stormer]

Did you read the paper? They had a sample size of 3000 kids. That’s huge, and with that much data, a properly designed survey will correct for the type of bias you describe.

[LurkingSince1943]

If you think soft drinks make you aggressive, try beer!

[Essie]

Did you read the paper? I did. There is no way that any study can make adjustments for family factors. And even if there seems to be a correlation, that does not prove that drinking the soda caused more aggression.

[trebb]

Perhaps they’re more aggressive because they found out they can push their parents around and get all the soft drinks they want. If they can control their parents with aggression, why not anyone else they come in contact with?

[chainsaw]

It’s publish or parish out there in academic land. The loonies are alive and well, trying to keep their nonsense jobs

[Cloverfarm]

Probably all the pop kids drink indicates what the home is like — Mom (probably no dad around) is too busy and tired to deal with conflict with the kids about what to drink, and she won’t buy milk because it’s expensive and she doesn’t know why kids need milk because she dropped out of high school before having a home ec class, or else her school did not teach home ec anymore. I know punctuation is my friend but I am on a rant here.

[KosmicKitty]

Sugar and caffeine makes kids aggressive.

Who would have guessed?

[daniel1212]

I think it is part of an overall indulgence is gratifying the flesh that is the cause. What do you suppose this indicates (Consumption of carbonated soft drinks. Litres per person per year, 2002):

Rank	Countries	Amount
# 1	United States:	216 litres
Food in United States
# 2	Ireland:	126 litres
Food in Ireland
= 3	Norway:	119.8 litres
Food in Norway
= 3	Canada:	119.8 litres
Food in Canada
# 5	Belgium:	102.9 litres
Food in Belgium
# 6	Australia:	100.1 litres
Food in Australia
# 7	United Kingdom:	96.5 litres
Food in United Kingdom
# 8	Netherlands:	96.1 litres
Food in Netherlands
# 9	New Zealand:	84.2 litres
Food in New Zealand
# 10	Sweden:	82.4 litres
Food in Sweden
# 11	Switzerland:	81.4 litres
Food in Switzerland
# 12	Denmark:	80 litres
Food in Denmark
# 13	Austria:	78.8 litres
Food in Austria
# 14	Germany:	72 litres
Food in Germany
# 15	Finland:	52 litres
Food in Finland
# 16	Italy:	50.2 litres
Food in Italy
# 17	France:	37.2 litres
Food in France
# 18	Japan:	21.6 litres

[stormer]

No you didn't, nor have I - the paper hasn't been published yet. Sampling protocols will be addressed and the statistics defined and explained. Rather than immediately attacking the validity of a study that disagrees with what you believe/seems reasonable/your momma told you/you dreamed, think about what was claimed. You actually stumbled into some insight when you said, "if there seems to be a correlation, that does not prove that drinking the soda caused more aggression". In the provided article, the researchers never claimed that "drinking pop causes aggression", they said that there was indeed a correlation between kids that drink a lot of pop and aggression. As I mentioned earlier, I think the dynamic that allows for a kid to drink a lot of pop is the same one that account for aggression - it is not a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

[coton_lover]

What makes the kids aggressive is the high fructose corn syrup. My husband and some of our kids get quite agitated when they have this. We learned over 20 years ago to avoid this chemical substitute fake sugar. We live much happier lives to just having regular cane sugar. We see no problems with aggression when we have pure cane sugar sodas. Also, since I do not have the HFCS very often, when I do, I get end up with a terrible headache.

[Mase]

As I mentioned earlier, I think the dynamic that allows for a kid to drink a lot of pop is the same one that account for aggression

So, it isn't the soda causing the aggression, it's the environment that allows for children to access and consume a large amount of soda that causes a child to be aggressive? That appears to be what you are saying here anyway. If so, how can that be when the study makes this far fetched claim?

Even after taking into account other factors, such as family violence, kids who drink soft drinks showed increased aggressive behaviour.

If they controlled for all of these variables, then it has to be the soda causing the aggression, right? Just my humble opinion, but it appears that these researchers have created the desired results to keep the public alarmed and the grant money flowing. There's a lot of that going on out there these days.

Far too many of these people are trying to sell correlations as causes, and there are even more people buying into this nonsense. When I was in school, there was a book published offering all sorts of wacky correlations. The book showed, conclusively, that the price of peanuts in Georgia could be determined by the amount of rainfall in Fiji. They had the statistics to prove it, but I hope no one believed it.

95% of all research ends up being meaningless. It's the nature of research. Unfortunately, there is more junk research being done these days because of the need to produce grant money. To your point, there is very little information included in this story. However, research like this today is is rife with highly flawed studies, data dredging, flagrant misdiagnoses, and all kinds of tests that provide misleading results. The tiny amount of information offered in the article, at least for me, makes it pretty obvious that this is just more junk. But I'm sure it will deliver the money from the NAS these folks desire so they can spend their time in the lab rather than actually having to teach.

[Mase]

Then your husband and kids must get quite agitated when they eat honey. Honey must also give you headaches.

[stormer]

“If they controlled for all of these variables, then it has to be the soda causing the aggression, right?”

Again, no. They are demonstrating correlation, not causation. It does not seek to explain the underlying dynamic.

[MaxMax]

I'll bet they ate carrots too! Everything bad can be tied to Carrots
because at least once in a lifetime Carrots were eaten by said persons.

[Mase]

Again, it's hard to discern their conclusions from the linked article, but I have read enough of this kind of research to believe that even if they don't directly make the link, their conclusions will make any link highly suggestive.

They have to do this if they are going to attract more money to continue their "research." Mere correlation isn't worth much, unless you think there really is something legit between the amount of rainfall in Fiji and the price of peanuts in Georgia. These people are going to have to make some sort of connection here....and they will. They are already laying the groundwork. The media are willing accomplices in the charade that passes for legitimate research today.

You appear willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Not me, I've seen far too much of this in my career to believe otherwise.

[BunnySlippers]

“Studies” are the problem. No one ever “studies” to find out if they are even accurate or true.

[stormer]

Clearly without reading the paper one cannot with certainty describe their conclusions. That said, in science there is nothing wrong with saying that a correlation is highly suggestive of any given hypothesis - that's how it's supposed to work. As far as your example of peanuts and rain in Fiji, that sounds like something from Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics" - I briefly thumbed through my copy and couldn't find it and it doesn't have an index, so, who knows? Anyway, examples like that are meant to illustrate the importance of recognizing a post hoc argument and just how ludicrous some findings may be. In the case of the pop drinking kids - indeed, with most health studies - the demonstrability of correlations can be a very valuable tool in identifying trends and developing hypotheses. I couldn't hazard a guess as to the value of the soft drink industry, nor would I want to speculate on the cost to society of aggression in children and their trajectory through time, but given the importance of those, I think that research like this may be quite relevant.

[coton_lover]

Honey and all natural sugars do nothing to cause any agitation in my family. I have been on a honey kick lately, and have no headache problems.

HFCS is a chemical man-made mixture that chemist university professors have personally warned us about, and told us not to consume. It is known to cause brain damage and kidney damage. Since it is a chemical mixture that is man-made and not natural, our bodies have trouble recognizing it for sugar.

High Fructose Corn Syrup: Some Scary Facts to Consider Before You Gulp Down Soda
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3002048/posts

5 Reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup Will Kill You
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2723427/posts

Also, to those who wish to avoid HFCS. They have been changing the name of it to hide it in ingredients. ex: corn sugar.