Posted on 08/16/2013 8:48:26 PM PDT by 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.
bump for later
Your body can't recognize fructose and glucose? Did you bump your head?
What does that have to do with HFCS being digested just like anything else with fructose and glucose in it?
More like parents who won’t say no to their kids and let them have as much soda as they want, also don’t discipline them in any other way.
There is so much bad science out there.
Did you know that the most dangerous place is your bed? Because most people die in bed.
I figure that if I stay away from beds, bathtubs, cars, and hospitals I’ll live forever.
Hello....anybody home?
Ha, ha, and with all the supplements I’ve been taking, I plan on being the healthiest corpse in the morgue.
This is absolutely how it is supposed to work, and it wasn't all that long ago that it did work in this manner. Unfortunately, this article serves as an excellent example of just how far we've fallen.
I'm assuming that the authors have not released the study yet, so we have no idea what the correlation factor is. Is it .3 or 1? My BS meter tells me we'll never know what this factor is because these guys are making a major league stretch with this nonsense to begin with, and they are quite content to let the press run with what little information they've provided so they will deliver to the public flagrantly misleading information exactly like what is contained in this article. The media is doing exactly what is expected of them so that the researchers can justify the additional money needed to conduct the studies to prove whether or not the correlation is valid. This is a common occurrence today and it is truly unfortunate.
The article makes this ridiculous claim:
We don't know if this is something the researchers claimed, or if this is just an idiot journalist making it up as he goes. There is no way you can control for these factors and the result is a false conclusion. There is nothing scientific about this at all. It will be interesting to learn where this study gets published. That will tell you a great deal. Again, it wasn't all that long ago that this kind of junk would never make it to a legit publication, and the authors would get laughed at.
I did manage to come across a study conducted by the University of New South Wales and Queensland University that found having a sweet beverage reduced aggression and stress in people. These guys claimed their research showed that the glucose in sugary drinks caused a neuronal energy boost that improved brain function that would result in the ability to better control ones impulses. The study concluded that Consuming a sweetened beverage on the commute home following a stressful day could reduce aggression toward family members or fellow drivers.
Sweet drinks reduce stress and aggression
This study was actually published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. I cannot vouch for the reliability or the peer review process for this particular publication. However, it shows that if you look hard enough, you can find research to support just about any position you want to take when it comes to health studies. Like I said earlier, 95% of research ends up being meaningless. But hey, when you're spending taxpayer money to help the children, and save us from ourselves, what could possibly be wrong with that?
Good grief, what a load that statement is. To accept such nonsense you'd have to believe that fructose and glucose are chemically different depending where they are found. That's total BS. Fructose is fructose and glucose is glucose regardless where it comes from. Your body doesn't know the difference nor does it care one whit about the source.
You are incredibly confused and it's because your sources for information are junk. A decent book in basic human nutrition would help you immensely.
Dear Lord, are you still touting that canard? Food allergies are caused by your bodys response to certain proteins in foods, however, all but trace amounts of the corn protein are removed when making HFCS. The trace amounts that remain have been so broken down that they have nothing in common with the protein found in the original kernel. HFCS isn't going to cause anyone to suffer an allergic reaction.
But you go ahead and believe whatever it is you want to believe, science be damned. You've been very consistent with that over the years.
You seem to be making a great many assumptions in your effort to deny the validity of a study you haven’t read. The paper will be published in the Journal of Pediatrics - publish monthly since 1932, and for 2012 it had an impact factor of about 4.04, making it 4th for pediatrics.
There is no way to legitimately control for these factors, and it is ridiculous to think that they can. So, yeah, color me a little bit skeptical when someone claims that there is a serious relationship between drinking soda and being aggressive. Can't wait to see what the correlation factor is. I'm sure we'll soon learn why it wasn't made available to the press with their pre-release. The public is easily led by this kind of information, which is why there is so much money available to these people. The world is awash in junk science, and it is the pursuit of grant money that is responsible. That these publications support this practice serves as more evidence of just how far we've fallen.
I did manage to find a pretty decent schematic for how HFCS is manufactured, so I linked it below. As I said earlier, fructose is fructose and glucose is glucose no matter what the source. Also, your body can't tell the difference between glucose and fructose from HFCS, or glucose and fructose from any other source.
I did manage to find a pretty decent schematic for how HFCS is manufactured, so I linked it below. As I said earlier, fructose is fructose and glucose is glucose no matter what the source. Also, your body can't tell the difference between glucose and fructose from HFCS, or glucose and fructose from any other source.
Yep. Correlation, not necessarily causation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.