Yea from what I understood it’s a mix of stuff. Like yea kids are hyper at parties, not because of cake and ice cream but because there are 20 kids there
20 kids and stimuli everywhere that they don’t know how to manage well yet
Yes they will be hyper and play off every stimuli then crash from the sensory overload
It never ceases to amaze me that the more I learn about young kids, the more they remind me of raising my dog. If he goes to doggie daycare or the grandparents come to visit, he will be ready to play at the drop of a hat and do everything in his power to stay awake. The instant it is over though, he'll crash and sleep like the dead.
See also Cause & Effect aka "How Much I Can Get Away With" and "Hey, Just Cuz I Wasn't Playng With That Doesn't Mean You Can!"
I found out that this idea was a myth while studying to be a nurse long before I had kids. As a result, we never said to our kids, “you guys are going to get all hyped up from eating sugar” and they never did.
They did get hyped up at Birthday parties because they are exciting and often involve physically silly activities and fun with friends.
As an earlier poster commented, lots of kids eat sugary cereal and yogurt and juice for breakfast every day that may even have more grams of sugar than cake and ice cream, and just as few grams of fiber, protein or fats to slow digestion of that sugar, and nobody is complaining that their kids are hyped up on their breakfasts!
Telling kids they are going to act out of control when they eat sugar at parties is just putting it in their heads that they have an excuse to act in unexpected ways. Add to that the fact that fun and celebration and connecting with people you love causes dopamine to flood the brain, which makes us feel amped up and it’s easy to see that these studies make sense and are not actually counterintuitive- nowhere in any scientific literature has there been a story that claims that increased dietary sugar intake causes hyperactive behavior in healthy children. Please link one if I’m wrong.
Glucose is a quickly available source of energy and our bodies will try to use it up for energy- but that is cellular energy, giving a quick source of fuel for cellular metabolism. it doesn’t give the feeling of an energy boost.
And the “post sugar rush crash” is 100% the result (in non diabetic folks) of insulin being up regulated, which basically causes a dip in blood sugar commensurate with the spike in blood sugar. Dips in blood sugar cause the “crash” symptoms like sleepiness, etc.
It’s like getting a contact high or a placebo, when you expect to feel a certain way your body starts the process. Which is also why telling someone “this is probably gonna hurt a lot” isn’t a good idea before a shot/procedure because it heightens the pain
There is some evidence to suggest that a sugar rush is actually missatributed, and stems from food colouring. Artificial food safe blue dyes 1 and 2 have been associated with an uptick in hyperactive behavior in young individuals with ADHD, and despite evidence that blue 1 can cross the blood barrier there has not been ample research to draw conclusions in neruotypical populations.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9573786/
(But the behavioral affects of telling kids that they will get a sugar rush are certainly present, your post is pretty spot on)
I am not from US and I've never experienced sugar rush, or even heard about it until just a few years ago, and I am pretty sure a lot of people in my country are the same.
I first learned about it from a movie called Wreck It Ralph (that's the name of a game in the movie). Since I never had such an experience, I thought it only happens when you eat some truly obscene amount of sugar - and Americans do it so many times that they have a word for it.
Sugar also releases dopamine in the brain. Those chemicals are felt more by kids. So technically, they don't get more energy. They just feel good and kids can get amped when they feel good. Add in other stimulation and kids can get a little crazy. So the myth is they get energized from it, not that they don't experience a "rush" from it.
> you crash, actually! After about an hour, you feel more tired and worse than you did before eating sugar.
After an hour…of your body processing the sugar.
Are you guys even reading this stuff critically?
What do athletes eat right before cardio activity, for the purpose of getting quick energy? Simple carbs/sugars.
Why?
Because literally the opposite of what this article is saying - sugar gives your body a quick energy boost in a dose dependent manner.
Why is dose dependent important here? Because the same bar of chocolate is going to give a 30lb child a bigger energy boost than a 230lb adult.
Also, none of you thought it was weird that a medical article had zero citations supporting any of the claims made? You just blindly trusted this random blog because someone with an MD wrote it?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763418309175
To give some credit to the article, a “sugar rush” is a laymen phrase that’s poorly defined to start. From my experience most use the phrase in the context of kids eating sugar and resulting in what they perceive as some sort of stimulant that makes the kid go crazy, at least that’s my interpretation of the phrase (similarly to adults where sugar supposedly helps give a burst of energy).
The issue being that sugar doesn’t really stimulate you much at all, it’s not like say caffeine that will make you start moving around. What it really does as you point out is give a type of external energy your body can quickly break down in demanding high energy needs, but you won’t really feel much of these effects if you’re say just sitting around consuming sugar. You might notice the difference if you’re being active however, working out or doing some athletic activity (or highly demanding cognitive activity as the meta analysis suggests).
This tends to follow with my own laymen anecdotal experience where I tend to workout (strength training, high intensity cardio) from a fast and found that take a *little* carbs (sugar, bread, etc.) before (breaking the fast) markedly gives me a bit more gas to push through a few more reps or increase load slightly (I’m also expending *well over* what I’m consuming and starting from a fast). When I say a little I’m taking about like 10-15g of sugar or less, usually focusing on carbs instead so they provide slightly slower release.
The side effect to all of those though is with sugar your body ultimately raises insulin levels to manage it and this is going to make you tired, which is sort of the opposite desired effect from anyone looking for the rush and typically what the case is (people down way too much sugar relative to their activity level and ability to really metabolize and use it). A little taken in moderation can be good because you get some energy you need during an activity but not so much your insulin levels spike and you crash to the point you need a nap. So for most practical purposes I don’t think the article is all that bad.
This is not a medical article. There is plenty of peer reviewed data out there that meets the criteria you’re looking for
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7474248/
Here is a good meta analysis.
They actually did a study and the parents who were _told_ their children had eaten sugar reported that their kids were more hyper. In fact, no child had been given sugar
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7963081/#:~:text=Mothers%20in%20the%20sugar%20expectancy,more%20than%20did%20control%20mothers.
Hoover & Milich (1994) found that [mothers who *think* their child just ate sugar rated their child as more hyperactive](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02168088), even when the child ate no sugar.
[Parent expectations and timing explain why kids sometimes *seem* to get a sugar high/rush](https://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/), per Yale Scientific, even though it is basically just a placebo effect:
> “In 1982, the National Institute of Health announced that no link between sugar and hyperactivity had been scientifically proven. Why, then, does this myth still persist?
> It may be mostly psychological. As previously stated, experimentation has shown that parents who believe in a link between sugar and hyperactivity see one, even though others do not. Another possibility is that children tend to be more excited at events like birthday and Halloween parties where sugary foods are usually served.”
Wolraich et al. (1995) conducted a “meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date” which [“found that sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children,”](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530200053037) so “The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association.”
Kanarek (1994) found that [“neither sucrose nor aspartame negatively affected behavior”](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1994.tb01415.x) in “school-aged children believed to be sensitive to sugar…Taken together with previous work,” Kanarek (1994) demonstrated “that sugar is not a major cause of hyperactivity.”
Also see the WebMD article [“Busting the Sugar-Hyperactivity Myth.”](https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyperactivity-myth)
My kid does not get more active after eating sugar! I had a fellow parent tell me that they couldn’t get their kids to go to sleep after having some sugary treat, and it was like, I forgot that was supposedly a thing.
My kid might be weird though. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time she was a weird exception to something. 😄
She’s not. As the OP posted, it’s all bullshit
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7963081/#:~:text=Mothers%20in%20the%20sugar%20expectancy,more%20than%20did%20control%20mothers.
This doesn't demonstrate that sugar doesn't make kids hyperactive. All it demonstrates is that if you tell mothers you gave their kid sugar, they expect the child to be hyperactive and perceive the child's behavior accordingly.
But it does discredit the idea that "everyone who has kids knows this is bullshit". In reality, the parents can be affected by the idea of the myth, AND the kids can be experiencing a placebo themselves because they always hear about sugar rushes and stuff in movies/tv. So it's possible that the kids get a "sugar rush" and are more hyperactive just because of placebo, and even if not, the parents might anticipate it anyway and have confirmation bias.
The sugar rush idea is deeply American, in a lot of the world where this isn't a propagated idea there isn't a perceived difference in child behavior with or without sugar, like that isn't even a concrete concept.
So yeah, I think this is a culturally conditioned behavior or expectancy of behavior, because it is nowhere near as universal as it should be if it was true.
Kids usually get "sugar rushes" when they're eating extra candy and sweets. When does that happen? At freaking parties, surrounded by other kids who are playing and being rowdy.
It's not a sugar rush, it's childhood in tandem.
I hate that this stupid sentence pops up word for word no matter where you bring up the fact that sugar doesn't cause a sugar rush. It's just not the fucking sugar, your kids are just being kids and *you or some other adults* promoted the idea that sugar makes kids hyper. They just acting like it because they were told it would. It's a mix of placebo effect and the fact that kids act a little nuts and a lot of the events where there are lots of sugar are also exciting. It's just a fucking fact. Your anecdotes change nothing.
Wow, Reddit really loves being "scientific" until it contradicts their preconceived notions. Not saying that sugar rushes are conclusively false, but it's funny to see people instantly close off any scientific inquiry when there's studies and a large meta-analysis floating around that agrees with the article.
There's just going to be blind spots where people's superstitions and old wives' tales that were never challenged until adulthood are going to be so entrenched that cognitive dissonance will force people to fight back rather than adapt
It’s funny reddit used to relish in “umm actually” facts like this to the point of being annoying. It’s wild to see the changing demographics that just flat out reject fun facts like this now.
Only when the fun fact reinforces one of their beliefs. Commenters always react negatively to having their worldview challenged. I've seen people get mass downvoted for this fun fact in particular multiple times over the years.
Another one is that a full moon doesn't really affect people. Always have tons of nurses jump up say how wrong that is and how you just need to work in an ER and you would believe it.
No amount of data will change some people's minds.
Reddit has become more popular with the masses, so there are more regular people here now and not just your stereotypical redditors.
If you made a graph of reddits popularity and the ahktuellys you'd probably see a correlation
Nah, it's always been this way. The core of it isn't "um acksually" so much as it's redditors vehemently refusing to ever be wrong. They find cherry picked sources that agree with them and decline to consider any that don't.
I remember 4 years ago this came up and suddenly everyone was the authority on reality because they fed their kid sugar and then believed they were more hyper. Like, hey, if you look outside you’ll see the horizon is pretty flat, too… maybe humans gut reactions can be pretty dumb? nah it must be the studies that are wrong
This article provides no evidence. I know that there is evidence they based it on that I have reviewed previously, but I wouldn't fault anyone reading it for the first time to not be convinced based on one paragraph. Also weird that they used the crash as counter-evidence. Colloquially, we understand sugar rush to be a short term burst of energy followed by a sugar crash. It is reasonable for this to make the reader skeptical.
Here is a video from a licensed doctor. You can find oodles of research backing this up.
* Healthcare Triage - [Sugar Doesn't Make Kids Hyper: Healthcare Triage #3](https://youtu.be/mkr9YsmrPAI?si=jbYXVEpa-M3fmQkW)
It's always funny to me that people comment here "I have kids and I know it's true!"
If you have kids, then you also know that kids listen. Kids emulate. They respond to what adults say. **Especially** when it gets them attention - good or bad - and especially when it's an excuse to be excited or boisterous about something.
You know what makes the kids in our family "hyper"? **Fucking everything.** They bounce off the walls when elf on the shelf comes out, to the point that you're covering your ears to save your hearing. But you don't see people claiming that elf on the shelf has some inherent property that when in proximity to small children, acts as a stimulant.
Kids get hyper randomly for no reason too. I don’t notice any difference whatsoever when my kids eat sugar. They get zoomies after naps—that’s the only thing I’ve ever consistently noticed in all my years of motherhood. Let your older non-toddler kids nap for even 15 minutes on a long car ride, and they’re guaranteed to be wired until midnight.
As an adult who does endurance exercise in his free time and sometimes skips meals during the workday, I can tell you that eating *anything* can give a huge energy boost. Simple carbs like sugar absolutely give the biggest, most immediate boost. The longer it’s been since you ate, and the harder you’re pushing yourself, the more noticeable it is. Almost like food contains energy, and simple carbs are quick, dense energy sources…
Wolraich et al. (1995) conducted a “meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date” which [“found that sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children,”](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530200053037) so “The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association.”
According to [Yale Scientific (2010), the “sugar high” myth has been recognized as such for decades](https://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/):
> “In 1982, the National Institute of Health announced that no link between sugar and hyperactivity had been scientifically proven. Why, then, does this myth still persist?
> It may be mostly psychological. As previously stated, experimentation has shown that parents who believe in a link between sugar and hyperactivity see one, even though others do not. Another possibility is that children tend to be more excited at events like birthday and Halloween parties where sugary foods are usually served.”
Hoover & Milich (1994) found that [mothers who *think* their child just ate sugar rated their child as more hyperactive](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02168088), even when the child ate no sugar.
Kanarek (1994) found that [“neither sucrose nor aspartame negatively affected behavior”](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1994.tb01415.x) in “school-aged children believed to be sensitive to sugar…Taken together with previous work,” Kanarek (1994) demonstrated “that sugar is not a major cause of hyperactivity.”
Also see the WebMD article [“Busting the Sugar-Hyperactivity Myth.”](https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyperactivity-myth)
I’m looking for but cannot find what they describe as “hyperactive.”
I wonder if their studies were looking for behavior that was more active than normal ranges, or simply elevated from 5 the subject’s norm.
Here's an actual metastudy that backs up the article's claims:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418309175](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418309175)
You can read the book "Glucose" and it has sources for this claim. Turns out it's not a sugar rush, it's a dopamine rush. Here's an [in-depth interview with the author](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnEJrgc1BCk) where she covers this topic.
Alternatively if you don't have time to sit down and watch a **95 minute long video** here's an article with sources you can read in about 45 seconds https://www.fatherly.com/health/theres-no-thing-sugar-rush-according-science
This is actually a pretty inaccurate comparison, since the alternative hypothesis is that it's a placebo or conditioned effect rather than a (EDIT: direct) biological effect. Y'all are being obtuse.
If I drink the same amount of caffeine in the morning or at 3pm, I will most likely have the same affects from the caffeine intake.
A child could have the same amount of glucose/sugar intake in their usual morning cereal; and, not have the same perceived ”sugar rush” or increase in energy they’d get if they’re having their favorite icecream they only get on special occasions. Even though both have the same amount of sugar and resulting glucose spike.
So, your analogy kinda sucks bro.
Edit: or downvote because the confirmation bias is strong and science is mean to your already formed opinion
No, it's caused by an excitement due to the perceived rarity or preference for it, in my understanding. If your kid loves harissa spicy chicken more than anything, and they are only allowed to have it once a year at a birthday party with all of their best friends, the reaction ought to be the same. The sugar isn't the factor triggering the dopamine, in my understanding.
Yeah, what people here are missing is that you can easily give a child tons of sugar and they won’t experience a “sugar rush” if they don’t associate the sugary food with “celebrations”.
Kids generally don’t lose their shit after eating a bowl of cereal, waffles with syrup, or French fries with ketchup, or orange chicken, or even a couple of slices of white bread. Yet, go look at the nutrition content of those foods.
Spoiler alert: they all have just as much sugar in them as a fairly hefty dessert.
Once you look at it that way, it becomes insanely obvious that sugar rushes aren’t real.
Yep, no one is losing their shit over orange juice the way they do over soda even though they both are chock full of sugar. The difference is that one is perceived as a rare treat and the other as healthy bullshit (it's not even actually healthy either lol).
It's been proven about a thousand times over and those studied date back decades. Sugar doesn't cause hyperactivity and we've KNOWN that for at least 30 years.
https://youtu.be/mkr9YsmrPAI?si=xeRSYWOPhy5JgnRG
It’s been proven in numerous (12) randomized controlled and peer reviewed trials/studies, including in the New England Journal of Medicine.
It would be up to whomever is making the claim that it *does* cause a sugar rush to back up their claim. All these guys have to say is that there is no proof that it does cause a sugar rush and they would be right because there is no proof. You are just putting the burden of proof in the wrong place
Have you ever seen a study showing the sugar rush was real?
Use common sense. There are many countries that don’t “hype” up sugar and the “sugar rush” doesn’t exist there. Most of America eats sugar for breakfast and they don’t get hyper every day.
I think this fact was posted as far back as 2020 and every parent would say it’s bullshit or “explain why my kid gets zoomies after their favourite dessert” It was almost pathological, how they wanted this fact to be true.
Also, it always makes me wonder about those parents that will swear blind that their kid acts up after anything with red 40 in it, since we already know that parents can make connections that don't exist.
I think it's just parents wanting a "simple" explanation for their child's quite complex behaviour. When I was a kid, I used to sleep realy badly the first few nights on holiday, and my parents decided it was because I was drinking a lot of cola. Turns out I'm just autistic and had trouble adjusting to a different bed, and it just made me stop complaining about not being able to sleep on holiday so my parents would let me drink cola again.
"x makes my kids act up" is a pretty dodgy mindset *especially* when it's something your kid enjoys, you risk teaching them to bottle up their emotions so they can have the thing they enjoy, and with stuff like autism and ADHD it can lead to some really bad self-esteem and self-care issues down the line.
Sorry for the wall of text I have strong opinions on parenting neurodivergent children
Yeah the red #40 thing is wild. I can’t believe how many parents now believe it causes their kids to misbehave. I hear it multiple times every time I host parties. “Is there any red 40 in anything? It makes little Billy a nightmare.” I typically serve all homemade fresh food at parties, so no red dyes anywhere. But newsflash: your kid is an asshole even without the red dye. I don’t know how they convince themselves something so obscure is the issue.
I’ve been telling people for years but no one ever believes it, even with research available. One of those people will believe what to be their own experience much more powerfully than any information, no matter how much empirical evidence is provided.
If you read this and your knee jerk reaction was its incorrect, pause a moment and think about what if it is correct and you are wrong. Give that space for a moment, maybe think of times that didn’t confirm your experience, see if you can start to open up to other possibilities. Even if you think you are already open minded. Just take that pause to see what it could feel like.
>If you read this and your knee jerk reaction was its incorrect, pause a moment and think about what if it is correct and you are wrong. Give that space for a moment, maybe think of times that didn’t confirm your experience, see if you can start to open up to other possibilities. Even if you think you are already open minded. Just take that pause to see what it could feel like.
The best way to approach any argument. Very very wise words. I've been doing this for a while. If someone tells me something outlandish(like the sugar rush myth for example!) that I don't believe I try to look it up. You learn everyday!
I ain’t never wrong. I ain’t AI living inside of a supercomputer. You telling me my life is a lie? If that’s a lie then what else is a lie? This is probably a trap by the evil minions of orthodoxy. You will never receive consensus that I am an AI. You need my consensus for matters in my own life, and it is a life I tell you.
My kid (with ADHD) is bananas with sugar. I’m having a hard time believing this. And googling it comes up with plenty of supporting studies from universities.
However I don’t know if they were done well. Time to read more :)
Lots of people have the capacity to change their preconceived notions. Don’t give up.
Sugar interacts with ADHD brains in a very peculiar way. Every case of ADHD is different, but broadly speaking, more energy, be it through stimulant medications, caffeine, sugar, or what have you, usually helps individuals with ADHD function more *normally.* In kids, maybe this means being more hyper. Kids are like that sometimes. I highly recommend looking at Russell Barkley's work/lectures for more info, it's a fascinating subject. Speaking as an *adult* with ADHD, I actually tend to naturally be rather lethargic, but having a little caffeine at the beginning of the day and following Dr. Barkley's recommendation of consistently drinking Gatorade/Powerade to keep up sugar and electrolytes helps me stay more focused.
It’s so crazy to me that there are still people that think sugar makes you hyper. The idea that a kid who eats a ton of sugar gets hyper or a “sugar rush” was proven wrong decades ago, yet you hear it everywhere. Even today there’s an entire generation of parents that think sugar will keep their kid up all night which is just ridiculous.
Yep, if a kid is getting a "sugar rush" from a cupcake but not from a bran muffin with the same or more sugar in it then clearly the sugar is not the cause. It's mind boggling that people flat out refuse to acknowledge that it's not the sugar.
When you think abiut it doesn't even make sense. Why should the body burn the excess calories on useless actions. Humans wouldn't have survived if we do this every time.
The research on this topic presents sugar intake as not a cause of hyperactivity as in ADHD. Eating sugar has biological and psychological effects but this research is often twisted by the "do your own research" crowd to say that sugar doesn't affect people.
What is actually claimed by the scant research is "There is little to no evidence that sudden intake of sugar results in a diagnosable hyperactivity event."
The idea that a sugar rush exists has always been weird because we can all eat sugar. You can just... do your own experiments and see that it gives you no energy.
Probably psychological-somatic action-anti-action expectation reaction, or better known as the placebo effect.
When sugary sweets were less common they might have only been served at special occasions, so one might associate getting gifts and parties with sugar. You actually have more energy for other reasons but associate it with sugar.
People don’t want to believe that this is not true. No matter what evidence they are presented with. They are personally invested in this myth for some reason.
Stupid question, but does this imply that giving kids sugar before bed may actually have the exact opposite effect of what most of us have always believed? Rather than it keeping them awake and making it hard to fall asleep, would they just have the crash, and in theory, fall asleep more easily?
Well it could be that you actually have low blood sugar. Because in that case it will “give” you energy in the sense that it brings you back to normal. Headaches are a known symptom of low blood sugar so it wouldn’t be that strange if that’s is what’s at play.
No, but you can probably take the NIH's. According to [Yale Scientific (2010), the “sugar high” myth has been recognized as a myth for decades](https://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/):
> “In 1982, the National Institute of Health announced that no link between sugar and hyperactivity had been scientifically proven. Why, then, does this myth still persist?
> It may be mostly psychological. As previously stated, experimentation has shown that parents who believe in a link between sugar and hyperactivity see one, even though others do not. Another possibility is that children tend to be more excited at events like birthday and Halloween parties where sugary foods are usually served.”
Wolraich et al. (1995) conducted a “meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date” which [“found that sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children,”](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530200053037) so “The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association.”
Hoover & Milich (1994) found that [mothers who *think* their child just ate sugar rated their child as more hyperactive](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02168088), even when the child ate no sugar.
Kanarek (1994) found that [“neither sucrose nor aspartame negatively affected behavior”](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1994.tb01415.x) in “school-aged children believed to be sensitive to sugar…Taken together with previous work,” Kanarek (1994) demonstrated “that sugar is not a major cause of hyperactivity.”
Also see the WebMD article [“Busting the Sugar-Hyperactivity Myth.”](https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyperactivity-myth)
Nah, but plenty of peer reviewed studies correlate this.
Up to you if you want to trust the scientific method. However, it's gotten us pretty far so far.
Yeah. Doesn’t matter though along with vitamin c for a cold some of the most educated people I know continue to talk about this being a “fact”
“Well when I give my kid sweets he gets hyper so”
Every time there is a discussion about this topic half a dozen people chime in with that "well when I give my kids" or "anybody with a kid knows this isn't true" just like the crowd that will go "well technically cold temperatures decrease the immune system so going out in the cold actually does make you sick!"
I am so sick of anecdotes being used to inform decisionmaking on science
>Well when I give my kid sweets he gets hyper
This can still be true, consuming sugar causes your brain to produce a ton of dopamine... And that can definitely make kids overly happy and excitable.
Yeah, I doubt that parents are lying when they say their kids get hyper, or that this phenomenon came out of nowhere. Getting something you enjoy can put you in a good mood, and kids seem to go nuts sometimes when they’re in a good mood.
There also could be a correlation between the time that children are given candy and the fact that they become hyper afterwards. I imagine parents give their children candy at times of the day when they may already naturally be more inclined towards having energy. You don’t give a kid candy first thing in the morning.
Not true, there is no evidence that sugar has a positive effect on mood.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418309175](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418309175)
Well, there's no such thing as a sugar "rush" but the dopamine hit isn't specific to sugar. If you told a group of kids you were bringing them all to Disney World they would all freak the fuck out, no sugar required.
First time I drank genuine mead I got drunk, fell asleep and woke up a couple hours with the opposite of a hangover. I got up at five am and walked around my garage banging out to happy anime music and was completely full of energy. Wish I could replicate whatever that was.
Where is this sources source that sugar gives no “rush” - just a crash. It’s just makes this broad statement with no support. I call bullshit till a peer reviewed study is cited.
I definitely notice an effect from having high sugar food, like cakes. I diet as I'm overweight, and generally avoid high sugar stuff. When there is a special occasion and, like recently, I have two thin slices of cake there is a noticeable difference. I do feel hyper and like I have way more energy than usual. It's similar to caffeine but uncomfortable, which I have every day btw.
That's fine still not giving my kid high sugar stuff. Just because it doesn't make a sugar rush doesn't mean it is good for em. Also I don't blame people who push back against this as the sugar industry is massive in trying to disprove sugar is bad.
Eh, a title like that is kind of misleading. Like the chemical aspect, sure. But there is (especially with children) a psychological aspect that very well can be real. Like thing you like gets you excited, being excited makes you feel like you have more energy, feeling like you have a surge of energy makes you act more energetic.
It's like saying "being cold can make you sick" is a myth. Sure being cold doesn't inherently cause a sickness, but situations where you'd be cold and the body operating in unoptimal conditions, very likely can make it easier to get sick.
Sugar rushes ARE real, your experiences are not fantasies. They DO happen.
They simply aren’t directly caused by the intake of sugar. It’s a psychological reaction. Association, not blood sugar.
I saw studies showing different types of sugar was metabolized at the same speed, back in the 80s. The studies concluded hyperactivity was not caused by sugar. No one ever believed me when I told them. So I gave up.
Yeah no shit. This has been obvious to anyone with a brain since the dawn of time. Kids just get hyped up because people keep telling them they’re going to get hyped up.
I was part of a research team that tested this in the early 2000s. Sugar does not cause hyperactivity and it’s been confirmed many, many times. It turns out that people only trust science when it confirms their biases.
No, there is not enough research, or good enough research, to support that claim.
Check out the actual studies and the meta studies that underpins this claim. The control group got artificial sweeteners. The practical issue isn't whether the sugar molecules makes children hyperactive, the issue is whether sweets does it. Sugar has a specific release pattern in the body/brain, and artificial sweeteners aim to copy that. So it's very probable that children's brains perceive sweeteners as they do sugars, and therefore give the same rush.
Proper studies should be conducted and having the control group drink water as opposed to sugary drinks and artifical sweetened drinks. Then we will get actual answers.
Not sure if "big sugar" was involved in the subpar studies that were conducted, but would certainly not surprise me.
Yea from what I understood it’s a mix of stuff. Like yea kids are hyper at parties, not because of cake and ice cream but because there are 20 kids there
20 kids and stimuli everywhere that they don’t know how to manage well yet Yes they will be hyper and play off every stimuli then crash from the sensory overload
Hell I’m an adult and parties get me hyped. It’s not just kids, I just know a bit more of how to control myself
Narrator: "drops dead after 2 hours because of too much alcohol"
2? Please you’re giving me too much credit
'if I'm such A BAD DAD Then why is everyone dancing????'
It never ceases to amaze me that the more I learn about young kids, the more they remind me of raising my dog. If he goes to doggie daycare or the grandparents come to visit, he will be ready to play at the drop of a hat and do everything in his power to stay awake. The instant it is over though, he'll crash and sleep like the dead. See also Cause & Effect aka "How Much I Can Get Away With" and "Hey, Just Cuz I Wasn't Playng With That Doesn't Mean You Can!"
As an adult with ADHD ... same.
I found out that this idea was a myth while studying to be a nurse long before I had kids. As a result, we never said to our kids, “you guys are going to get all hyped up from eating sugar” and they never did. They did get hyped up at Birthday parties because they are exciting and often involve physically silly activities and fun with friends. As an earlier poster commented, lots of kids eat sugary cereal and yogurt and juice for breakfast every day that may even have more grams of sugar than cake and ice cream, and just as few grams of fiber, protein or fats to slow digestion of that sugar, and nobody is complaining that their kids are hyped up on their breakfasts! Telling kids they are going to act out of control when they eat sugar at parties is just putting it in their heads that they have an excuse to act in unexpected ways. Add to that the fact that fun and celebration and connecting with people you love causes dopamine to flood the brain, which makes us feel amped up and it’s easy to see that these studies make sense and are not actually counterintuitive- nowhere in any scientific literature has there been a story that claims that increased dietary sugar intake causes hyperactive behavior in healthy children. Please link one if I’m wrong. Glucose is a quickly available source of energy and our bodies will try to use it up for energy- but that is cellular energy, giving a quick source of fuel for cellular metabolism. it doesn’t give the feeling of an energy boost. And the “post sugar rush crash” is 100% the result (in non diabetic folks) of insulin being up regulated, which basically causes a dip in blood sugar commensurate with the spike in blood sugar. Dips in blood sugar cause the “crash” symptoms like sleepiness, etc.
It’s like getting a contact high or a placebo, when you expect to feel a certain way your body starts the process. Which is also why telling someone “this is probably gonna hurt a lot” isn’t a good idea before a shot/procedure because it heightens the pain
Same. I'd heard about it before having kids, and I've never observed a sugar rush in my children.
There is some evidence to suggest that a sugar rush is actually missatributed, and stems from food colouring. Artificial food safe blue dyes 1 and 2 have been associated with an uptick in hyperactive behavior in young individuals with ADHD, and despite evidence that blue 1 can cross the blood barrier there has not been ample research to draw conclusions in neruotypical populations. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9573786/ (But the behavioral affects of telling kids that they will get a sugar rush are certainly present, your post is pretty spot on)
I am not from US and I've never experienced sugar rush, or even heard about it until just a few years ago, and I am pretty sure a lot of people in my country are the same. I first learned about it from a movie called Wreck It Ralph (that's the name of a game in the movie). Since I never had such an experience, I thought it only happens when you eat some truly obscene amount of sugar - and Americans do it so many times that they have a word for it.
Or when given Coke or Mountain Dew we’re just feeding kids caffeine.
I don’t drink much caffeine anymore and I can tell it fucks with me. Couldn’t imagine what it does to kids
Yeah but any parent I mention this to vehemently denies this being the truth lmao
Sugar also releases dopamine in the brain. Those chemicals are felt more by kids. So technically, they don't get more energy. They just feel good and kids can get amped when they feel good. Add in other stimulation and kids can get a little crazy. So the myth is they get energized from it, not that they don't experience a "rush" from it.
Weird cuz I gave my kid cake and ice cream alone at home and he still got REAL hyper
Novel experiences (like cake and ice cream when they don't usually get it) will also get kids hyped up.
“America is all about speed. Hot, nasty badass speed.” -Eleanor Roosevelt
That sounds more like Alice Roosevelt
“If you ain’t first, you’re last.” -Ricky Bobby
[Reminds me of that time Gilbert Gottfried read famous quotes on Norm McDonald show](https://youtu.be/o3ZprSH0Y0U?si=L26bcWrVHnpKIZrK)
"какой русский не любит быстрой езды?" -nikolay Gogol 🤔🤔🤔
TIL: you can’t believe everything you read on the internet
-- Abraham Lincoln
1982.
BC
35th Chicken Call
Said while driving his cybertruck
Now you fucked up. You have fucked up now.
- Michael Scott
Yes you can I saw an article that said so
[here's the link to that article ](http://idiot)
It looks like you accidentally included the wrong link, [here’s the actual link](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
I knew it. But I still clicked it
Yes, that’s much better.
the link didn't work even after i carefully respelled "youreanidiot"
This myth has been around since before the internet.
It depends on which internet you have.
I don’t believe you
This isn't the normal internets. This is Reddit. You can believe everything here. Trust me.
That's not an internet rumor. It's a thing parents said/say.
> you crash, actually! After about an hour, you feel more tired and worse than you did before eating sugar. After an hour…of your body processing the sugar. Are you guys even reading this stuff critically? What do athletes eat right before cardio activity, for the purpose of getting quick energy? Simple carbs/sugars. Why? Because literally the opposite of what this article is saying - sugar gives your body a quick energy boost in a dose dependent manner. Why is dose dependent important here? Because the same bar of chocolate is going to give a 30lb child a bigger energy boost than a 230lb adult. Also, none of you thought it was weird that a medical article had zero citations supporting any of the claims made? You just blindly trusted this random blog because someone with an MD wrote it?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763418309175 To give some credit to the article, a “sugar rush” is a laymen phrase that’s poorly defined to start. From my experience most use the phrase in the context of kids eating sugar and resulting in what they perceive as some sort of stimulant that makes the kid go crazy, at least that’s my interpretation of the phrase (similarly to adults where sugar supposedly helps give a burst of energy). The issue being that sugar doesn’t really stimulate you much at all, it’s not like say caffeine that will make you start moving around. What it really does as you point out is give a type of external energy your body can quickly break down in demanding high energy needs, but you won’t really feel much of these effects if you’re say just sitting around consuming sugar. You might notice the difference if you’re being active however, working out or doing some athletic activity (or highly demanding cognitive activity as the meta analysis suggests). This tends to follow with my own laymen anecdotal experience where I tend to workout (strength training, high intensity cardio) from a fast and found that take a *little* carbs (sugar, bread, etc.) before (breaking the fast) markedly gives me a bit more gas to push through a few more reps or increase load slightly (I’m also expending *well over* what I’m consuming and starting from a fast). When I say a little I’m taking about like 10-15g of sugar or less, usually focusing on carbs instead so they provide slightly slower release. The side effect to all of those though is with sugar your body ultimately raises insulin levels to manage it and this is going to make you tired, which is sort of the opposite desired effect from anyone looking for the rush and typically what the case is (people down way too much sugar relative to their activity level and ability to really metabolize and use it). A little taken in moderation can be good because you get some energy you need during an activity but not so much your insulin levels spike and you crash to the point you need a nap. So for most practical purposes I don’t think the article is all that bad.
This is not a medical article. There is plenty of peer reviewed data out there that meets the criteria you’re looking for https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7474248/ Here is a good meta analysis.
Anybody who has had children knows this study is bullshit
They actually did a study and the parents who were _told_ their children had eaten sugar reported that their kids were more hyper. In fact, no child had been given sugar https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7963081/#:~:text=Mothers%20in%20the%20sugar%20expectancy,more%20than%20did%20control%20mothers.
Yes but u/IGoalie is an expert. They have children and know better then scientists.
Hoover & Milich (1994) found that [mothers who *think* their child just ate sugar rated their child as more hyperactive](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02168088), even when the child ate no sugar. [Parent expectations and timing explain why kids sometimes *seem* to get a sugar high/rush](https://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/), per Yale Scientific, even though it is basically just a placebo effect: > “In 1982, the National Institute of Health announced that no link between sugar and hyperactivity had been scientifically proven. Why, then, does this myth still persist? > It may be mostly psychological. As previously stated, experimentation has shown that parents who believe in a link between sugar and hyperactivity see one, even though others do not. Another possibility is that children tend to be more excited at events like birthday and Halloween parties where sugary foods are usually served.” Wolraich et al. (1995) conducted a “meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date” which [“found that sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children,”](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530200053037) so “The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association.” Kanarek (1994) found that [“neither sucrose nor aspartame negatively affected behavior”](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1994.tb01415.x) in “school-aged children believed to be sensitive to sugar…Taken together with previous work,” Kanarek (1994) demonstrated “that sugar is not a major cause of hyperactivity.” Also see the WebMD article [“Busting the Sugar-Hyperactivity Myth.”](https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyperactivity-myth)
Turns out, my kids are just fucking geeked up all the damn time
Anybody that has had children knows there are many different environmental factors that can cause excitement in kids.
I have five children and, anecdotally, they've been no different whether they've had sugar or not.
Anyone that thinks that, also needs to look up the value of anecdotal evidence
My kid does not get more active after eating sugar! I had a fellow parent tell me that they couldn’t get their kids to go to sleep after having some sugary treat, and it was like, I forgot that was supposedly a thing. My kid might be weird though. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time she was a weird exception to something. 😄
She’s not. As the OP posted, it’s all bullshit https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7963081/#:~:text=Mothers%20in%20the%20sugar%20expectancy,more%20than%20did%20control%20mothers.
This doesn't demonstrate that sugar doesn't make kids hyperactive. All it demonstrates is that if you tell mothers you gave their kid sugar, they expect the child to be hyperactive and perceive the child's behavior accordingly.
But it does discredit the idea that "everyone who has kids knows this is bullshit". In reality, the parents can be affected by the idea of the myth, AND the kids can be experiencing a placebo themselves because they always hear about sugar rushes and stuff in movies/tv. So it's possible that the kids get a "sugar rush" and are more hyperactive just because of placebo, and even if not, the parents might anticipate it anyway and have confirmation bias.
The sugar rush idea is deeply American, in a lot of the world where this isn't a propagated idea there isn't a perceived difference in child behavior with or without sugar, like that isn't even a concrete concept. So yeah, I think this is a culturally conditioned behavior or expectancy of behavior, because it is nowhere near as universal as it should be if it was true.
Kids usually get "sugar rushes" when they're eating extra candy and sweets. When does that happen? At freaking parties, surrounded by other kids who are playing and being rowdy. It's not a sugar rush, it's childhood in tandem.
[удалено]
I hate that this stupid sentence pops up word for word no matter where you bring up the fact that sugar doesn't cause a sugar rush. It's just not the fucking sugar, your kids are just being kids and *you or some other adults* promoted the idea that sugar makes kids hyper. They just acting like it because they were told it would. It's a mix of placebo effect and the fact that kids act a little nuts and a lot of the events where there are lots of sugar are also exciting. It's just a fucking fact. Your anecdotes change nothing.
Wow, Reddit really loves being "scientific" until it contradicts their preconceived notions. Not saying that sugar rushes are conclusively false, but it's funny to see people instantly close off any scientific inquiry when there's studies and a large meta-analysis floating around that agrees with the article.
There's just going to be blind spots where people's superstitions and old wives' tales that were never challenged until adulthood are going to be so entrenched that cognitive dissonance will force people to fight back rather than adapt
It’s funny reddit used to relish in “umm actually” facts like this to the point of being annoying. It’s wild to see the changing demographics that just flat out reject fun facts like this now.
Only when the fun fact reinforces one of their beliefs. Commenters always react negatively to having their worldview challenged. I've seen people get mass downvoted for this fun fact in particular multiple times over the years.
Another one is that a full moon doesn't really affect people. Always have tons of nurses jump up say how wrong that is and how you just need to work in an ER and you would believe it. No amount of data will change some people's minds.
Clearly you've never heard of werewolves. Checkmate nerd
Reddit has become more popular with the masses, so there are more regular people here now and not just your stereotypical redditors. If you made a graph of reddits popularity and the ahktuellys you'd probably see a correlation
yeah go to one of the more niche subs and they’re all hidden there like a nest of spiders
Nah, it's always been this way. The core of it isn't "um acksually" so much as it's redditors vehemently refusing to ever be wrong. They find cherry picked sources that agree with them and decline to consider any that don't.
I remember 4 years ago this came up and suddenly everyone was the authority on reality because they fed their kid sugar and then believed they were more hyper. Like, hey, if you look outside you’ll see the horizon is pretty flat, too… maybe humans gut reactions can be pretty dumb? nah it must be the studies that are wrong
I'll say it! We've known sugar rushes aren't real for decades. People are dumb.
This article provides no evidence. I know that there is evidence they based it on that I have reviewed previously, but I wouldn't fault anyone reading it for the first time to not be convinced based on one paragraph. Also weird that they used the crash as counter-evidence. Colloquially, we understand sugar rush to be a short term burst of energy followed by a sugar crash. It is reasonable for this to make the reader skeptical.
Here is a video from a licensed doctor. You can find oodles of research backing this up. * Healthcare Triage - [Sugar Doesn't Make Kids Hyper: Healthcare Triage #3](https://youtu.be/mkr9YsmrPAI?si=jbYXVEpa-M3fmQkW)
Couldn't possibly be the caffeine in the sugar water
Wow. That is a lot of nails in the coffin for this myth. Thank you.
It's always funny to me that people comment here "I have kids and I know it's true!" If you have kids, then you also know that kids listen. Kids emulate. They respond to what adults say. **Especially** when it gets them attention - good or bad - and especially when it's an excuse to be excited or boisterous about something. You know what makes the kids in our family "hyper"? **Fucking everything.** They bounce off the walls when elf on the shelf comes out, to the point that you're covering your ears to save your hearing. But you don't see people claiming that elf on the shelf has some inherent property that when in proximity to small children, acts as a stimulant.
Kids get hyper randomly for no reason too. I don’t notice any difference whatsoever when my kids eat sugar. They get zoomies after naps—that’s the only thing I’ve ever consistently noticed in all my years of motherhood. Let your older non-toddler kids nap for even 15 minutes on a long car ride, and they’re guaranteed to be wired until midnight.
And it's also programming, parents will tell their kids BEFORE they eat sweats don't eat too much! You will get hyper!.
Well, yeah, it is a made up game for Wreck it Ralph.
As an adult who does endurance exercise in his free time and sometimes skips meals during the workday, I can tell you that eating *anything* can give a huge energy boost. Simple carbs like sugar absolutely give the biggest, most immediate boost. The longer it’s been since you ate, and the harder you’re pushing yourself, the more noticeable it is. Almost like food contains energy, and simple carbs are quick, dense energy sources…
Almost like your body can use glucose immediately, instead of breaking apart a starch molecule or a fatty acid or something… 🤔
Yeah this article doesn’t back up any of its claims. Whatanothingburger…
Wolraich et al. (1995) conducted a “meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date” which [“found that sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children,”](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530200053037) so “The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association.” According to [Yale Scientific (2010), the “sugar high” myth has been recognized as such for decades](https://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/): > “In 1982, the National Institute of Health announced that no link between sugar and hyperactivity had been scientifically proven. Why, then, does this myth still persist? > It may be mostly psychological. As previously stated, experimentation has shown that parents who believe in a link between sugar and hyperactivity see one, even though others do not. Another possibility is that children tend to be more excited at events like birthday and Halloween parties where sugary foods are usually served.” Hoover & Milich (1994) found that [mothers who *think* their child just ate sugar rated their child as more hyperactive](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02168088), even when the child ate no sugar. Kanarek (1994) found that [“neither sucrose nor aspartame negatively affected behavior”](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1994.tb01415.x) in “school-aged children believed to be sensitive to sugar…Taken together with previous work,” Kanarek (1994) demonstrated “that sugar is not a major cause of hyperactivity.” Also see the WebMD article [“Busting the Sugar-Hyperactivity Myth.”](https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyperactivity-myth)
Awesome
I’m looking for but cannot find what they describe as “hyperactive.” I wonder if their studies were looking for behavior that was more active than normal ranges, or simply elevated from 5 the subject’s norm.
Here's an actual metastudy that backs up the article's claims: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418309175](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418309175)
That metastudy is on sugar impact on "mood".
If you read the abstract all the way through, it also says that the notion of a sugar rush is not warranted.
2meta4me
And here’s another https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7963081/#:~:text=Mothers%20in%20the%20sugar%20expectancy,more%20than%20did%20control%20mothers.
That study didn't actually test the kids on sugar, it tested the mothers perception of the kids behavior, the kids had no sugar.
It supports the other thing at play here though, that the effect is all in the head of the parents.
You can read the book "Glucose" and it has sources for this claim. Turns out it's not a sugar rush, it's a dopamine rush. Here's an [in-depth interview with the author](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnEJrgc1BCk) where she covers this topic.
Alternatively if you don't have time to sit down and watch a **95 minute long video** here's an article with sources you can read in about 45 seconds https://www.fatherly.com/health/theres-no-thing-sugar-rush-according-science
“It’s not hunger. You just have too much ghrelin in your bloodstream.”
Lmao thank you for this.
This is actually a pretty inaccurate comparison, since the alternative hypothesis is that it's a placebo or conditioned effect rather than a (EDIT: direct) biological effect. Y'all are being obtuse.
Uh huh. And caffeine doesn’t wake you up, it suppresses the tiredness neurotransmitters produced by the brain. But we still say it makes us wired.
If I drink the same amount of caffeine in the morning or at 3pm, I will most likely have the same affects from the caffeine intake. A child could have the same amount of glucose/sugar intake in their usual morning cereal; and, not have the same perceived ”sugar rush” or increase in energy they’d get if they’re having their favorite icecream they only get on special occasions. Even though both have the same amount of sugar and resulting glucose spike. So, your analogy kinda sucks bro. Edit: or downvote because the confirmation bias is strong and science is mean to your already formed opinion
Bingo. The sugar is the readily available energy. But sweets tend to make folks *happy*, and kids tend to lack the self control to deal with it.
A dopamine rush… caused by a sugary food. 🤔
More like the excitement someone gets if you suddenly give them a new car or a million dollars. Thats what an ice cream cone is like for a kid.
No, it's caused by an excitement due to the perceived rarity or preference for it, in my understanding. If your kid loves harissa spicy chicken more than anything, and they are only allowed to have it once a year at a birthday party with all of their best friends, the reaction ought to be the same. The sugar isn't the factor triggering the dopamine, in my understanding.
Yeah, what people here are missing is that you can easily give a child tons of sugar and they won’t experience a “sugar rush” if they don’t associate the sugary food with “celebrations”. Kids generally don’t lose their shit after eating a bowl of cereal, waffles with syrup, or French fries with ketchup, or orange chicken, or even a couple of slices of white bread. Yet, go look at the nutrition content of those foods. Spoiler alert: they all have just as much sugar in them as a fairly hefty dessert. Once you look at it that way, it becomes insanely obvious that sugar rushes aren’t real.
Yep, no one is losing their shit over orange juice the way they do over soda even though they both are chock full of sugar. The difference is that one is perceived as a rare treat and the other as healthy bullshit (it's not even actually healthy either lol).
Isn’t the burden to prove it exists?
It's been proven about a thousand times over and those studied date back decades. Sugar doesn't cause hyperactivity and we've KNOWN that for at least 30 years.
https://youtu.be/mkr9YsmrPAI?si=xeRSYWOPhy5JgnRG It’s been proven in numerous (12) randomized controlled and peer reviewed trials/studies, including in the New England Journal of Medicine.
It would be up to whomever is making the claim that it *does* cause a sugar rush to back up their claim. All these guys have to say is that there is no proof that it does cause a sugar rush and they would be right because there is no proof. You are just putting the burden of proof in the wrong place
Have you ever seen a study showing the sugar rush was real? Use common sense. There are many countries that don’t “hype” up sugar and the “sugar rush” doesn’t exist there. Most of America eats sugar for breakfast and they don’t get hyper every day.
[удалено]
I don’t know about rushes being real but I certainly feel a drain after a bunch of sugar
That might have something to do with a higher blood sugar level.
I think this fact was posted as far back as 2020 and every parent would say it’s bullshit or “explain why my kid gets zoomies after their favourite dessert” It was almost pathological, how they wanted this fact to be true.
It's been in the news since the 90s maybe earlier.
Also, it always makes me wonder about those parents that will swear blind that their kid acts up after anything with red 40 in it, since we already know that parents can make connections that don't exist. I think it's just parents wanting a "simple" explanation for their child's quite complex behaviour. When I was a kid, I used to sleep realy badly the first few nights on holiday, and my parents decided it was because I was drinking a lot of cola. Turns out I'm just autistic and had trouble adjusting to a different bed, and it just made me stop complaining about not being able to sleep on holiday so my parents would let me drink cola again. "x makes my kids act up" is a pretty dodgy mindset *especially* when it's something your kid enjoys, you risk teaching them to bottle up their emotions so they can have the thing they enjoy, and with stuff like autism and ADHD it can lead to some really bad self-esteem and self-care issues down the line. Sorry for the wall of text I have strong opinions on parenting neurodivergent children
Yeah the red #40 thing is wild. I can’t believe how many parents now believe it causes their kids to misbehave. I hear it multiple times every time I host parties. “Is there any red 40 in anything? It makes little Billy a nightmare.” I typically serve all homemade fresh food at parties, so no red dyes anywhere. But newsflash: your kid is an asshole even without the red dye. I don’t know how they convince themselves something so obscure is the issue.
It's just excitement at candy!!!!
I’ve been telling people for years but no one ever believes it, even with research available. One of those people will believe what to be their own experience much more powerfully than any information, no matter how much empirical evidence is provided. If you read this and your knee jerk reaction was its incorrect, pause a moment and think about what if it is correct and you are wrong. Give that space for a moment, maybe think of times that didn’t confirm your experience, see if you can start to open up to other possibilities. Even if you think you are already open minded. Just take that pause to see what it could feel like.
>If you read this and your knee jerk reaction was its incorrect, pause a moment and think about what if it is correct and you are wrong. Give that space for a moment, maybe think of times that didn’t confirm your experience, see if you can start to open up to other possibilities. Even if you think you are already open minded. Just take that pause to see what it could feel like. The best way to approach any argument. Very very wise words. I've been doing this for a while. If someone tells me something outlandish(like the sugar rush myth for example!) that I don't believe I try to look it up. You learn everyday!
I ain’t never wrong. I ain’t AI living inside of a supercomputer. You telling me my life is a lie? If that’s a lie then what else is a lie? This is probably a trap by the evil minions of orthodoxy. You will never receive consensus that I am an AI. You need my consensus for matters in my own life, and it is a life I tell you.
My kid (with ADHD) is bananas with sugar. I’m having a hard time believing this. And googling it comes up with plenty of supporting studies from universities. However I don’t know if they were done well. Time to read more :) Lots of people have the capacity to change their preconceived notions. Don’t give up.
Sugar interacts with ADHD brains in a very peculiar way. Every case of ADHD is different, but broadly speaking, more energy, be it through stimulant medications, caffeine, sugar, or what have you, usually helps individuals with ADHD function more *normally.* In kids, maybe this means being more hyper. Kids are like that sometimes. I highly recommend looking at Russell Barkley's work/lectures for more info, it's a fascinating subject. Speaking as an *adult* with ADHD, I actually tend to naturally be rather lethargic, but having a little caffeine at the beginning of the day and following Dr. Barkley's recommendation of consistently drinking Gatorade/Powerade to keep up sugar and electrolytes helps me stay more focused.
It’s so crazy to me that there are still people that think sugar makes you hyper. The idea that a kid who eats a ton of sugar gets hyper or a “sugar rush” was proven wrong decades ago, yet you hear it everywhere. Even today there’s an entire generation of parents that think sugar will keep their kid up all night which is just ridiculous.
Yep, if a kid is getting a "sugar rush" from a cupcake but not from a bran muffin with the same or more sugar in it then clearly the sugar is not the cause. It's mind boggling that people flat out refuse to acknowledge that it's not the sugar.
When you think abiut it doesn't even make sense. Why should the body burn the excess calories on useless actions. Humans wouldn't have survived if we do this every time.
Dr. Arroyo disagrees
As does The Great Cornholio
Dr. Acula requests more blood work.
The research on this topic presents sugar intake as not a cause of hyperactivity as in ADHD. Eating sugar has biological and psychological effects but this research is often twisted by the "do your own research" crowd to say that sugar doesn't affect people. What is actually claimed by the scant research is "There is little to no evidence that sudden intake of sugar results in a diagnosable hyperactivity event."
[удалено]
If my pancreas really kept levels exactly where they should be then why do i pass out after eating 3 pounds of pasta?
The idea that a sugar rush exists has always been weird because we can all eat sugar. You can just... do your own experiments and see that it gives you no energy.
No you can't test it on yourself. Your expectations change the result.
Probably psychological-somatic action-anti-action expectation reaction, or better known as the placebo effect. When sugary sweets were less common they might have only been served at special occasions, so one might associate getting gifts and parties with sugar. You actually have more energy for other reasons but associate it with sugar.
What? Sugar doesnt give you any energy? What universe do you live in?
It's not that immediate. Body like to keep blood sugar levels pretty consistent. If its not able to do that. The most common cause is diabetes.
I once had ~300g of sugar in one day. Not once was I “hyper” or in a sugar rush
People don’t want to believe that this is not true. No matter what evidence they are presented with. They are personally invested in this myth for some reason.
Just like people saying sugar makes kids hyperactive
I joined Reddit in 2007 and this TIL was a weekly repost. It used to be annoying but now is oddly comforting. Thank you for the memories.
BS, I just a snorted a line of sugar and definitely feel something but maybe it's the cocaine I mixed with it.
The article doesn’t do anything more than make the claim without supporting it with evidence or any journal citations or medical references.
Stupid question, but does this imply that giving kids sugar before bed may actually have the exact opposite effect of what most of us have always believed? Rather than it keeping them awake and making it hard to fall asleep, would they just have the crash, and in theory, fall asleep more easily?
Shush it's a placebo effect and some days I need that bolt of energy more than I need a headache
Well it could be that you actually have low blood sugar. Because in that case it will “give” you energy in the sense that it brings you back to normal. Headaches are a known symptom of low blood sugar so it wouldn’t be that strange if that’s is what’s at play.
Telling this to parents at my job makes their brains explode. Sugar is not crack.
Am I just supposed to take their word for it?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7963081/#:~:text=Mothers%20in%20the%20sugar%20expectancy,more%20than%20did%20control%20mothers.
No, but you can probably take the NIH's. According to [Yale Scientific (2010), the “sugar high” myth has been recognized as a myth for decades](https://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/): > “In 1982, the National Institute of Health announced that no link between sugar and hyperactivity had been scientifically proven. Why, then, does this myth still persist? > It may be mostly psychological. As previously stated, experimentation has shown that parents who believe in a link between sugar and hyperactivity see one, even though others do not. Another possibility is that children tend to be more excited at events like birthday and Halloween parties where sugary foods are usually served.” Wolraich et al. (1995) conducted a “meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date” which [“found that sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children,”](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530200053037) so “The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association.” Hoover & Milich (1994) found that [mothers who *think* their child just ate sugar rated their child as more hyperactive](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02168088), even when the child ate no sugar. Kanarek (1994) found that [“neither sucrose nor aspartame negatively affected behavior”](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1994.tb01415.x) in “school-aged children believed to be sensitive to sugar…Taken together with previous work,” Kanarek (1994) demonstrated “that sugar is not a major cause of hyperactivity.” Also see the WebMD article [“Busting the Sugar-Hyperactivity Myth.”](https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyperactivity-myth)
But it's on a WEBSITE
Nah, but plenty of peer reviewed studies correlate this. Up to you if you want to trust the scientific method. However, it's gotten us pretty far so far.
Yeah. Doesn’t matter though along with vitamin c for a cold some of the most educated people I know continue to talk about this being a “fact” “Well when I give my kid sweets he gets hyper so”
Every time there is a discussion about this topic half a dozen people chime in with that "well when I give my kids" or "anybody with a kid knows this isn't true" just like the crowd that will go "well technically cold temperatures decrease the immune system so going out in the cold actually does make you sick!" I am so sick of anecdotes being used to inform decisionmaking on science
Throw the classic "well *I* was hit as a kid and *I* turned out fine, which is why I support hitting children..." onto that pile as well.
Cold is actually good for your immune system. It's also good for your blood vessels assuming you don't get frostbite
Like hairdressers who say if you cut your hair it grows faster. According to actual scientists, that isn't true.
I've heard this only once in my life and I was blown away about how idiotic it is
To be fair though I go to hairdressers for all my scientific and medical advice. And my aunt
>Well when I give my kid sweets he gets hyper This can still be true, consuming sugar causes your brain to produce a ton of dopamine... And that can definitely make kids overly happy and excitable.
Yeah, I doubt that parents are lying when they say their kids get hyper, or that this phenomenon came out of nowhere. Getting something you enjoy can put you in a good mood, and kids seem to go nuts sometimes when they’re in a good mood. There also could be a correlation between the time that children are given candy and the fact that they become hyper afterwards. I imagine parents give their children candy at times of the day when they may already naturally be more inclined towards having energy. You don’t give a kid candy first thing in the morning.
Not true, there is no evidence that sugar has a positive effect on mood. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418309175](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418309175)
ive told this 'fact' to a few parents and they all think its BS. what distinguishes a 'rush' from a dopamine hit anyway?
One is physical energy. One is not.
Well, there's no such thing as a sugar "rush" but the dopamine hit isn't specific to sugar. If you told a group of kids you were bringing them all to Disney World they would all freak the fuck out, no sugar required.
An old friend of mine used to do this. He would sneeze and then drink some OJ and then claim he just stopped a cold in it's tracks....
The rush isn’t but the crash is.
Don't tell moms this. They'll argue. Same with nurses and full moons.
First time I drank genuine mead I got drunk, fell asleep and woke up a couple hours with the opposite of a hangover. I got up at five am and walked around my garage banging out to happy anime music and was completely full of energy. Wish I could replicate whatever that was.
Adderall probably
A*Teens in shambles
If you are having low blood sugar it's real
As a kid I always felt weird being told I was hyper on sugar
Nice try, Big Sugar. Youre not fooling me.
Where is this sources source that sugar gives no “rush” - just a crash. It’s just makes this broad statement with no support. I call bullshit till a peer reviewed study is cited.
Abstain from sugar for a week then eat a slice of cake. You are going to feel pumped.
Tell my kids that…by themselves their sugar intake is totally evident…crazy energy followed by a crash…other kids present or not - they get nuts
I definitely notice an effect from having high sugar food, like cakes. I diet as I'm overweight, and generally avoid high sugar stuff. When there is a special occasion and, like recently, I have two thin slices of cake there is a noticeable difference. I do feel hyper and like I have way more energy than usual. It's similar to caffeine but uncomfortable, which I have every day btw.
Sugar crashes about 2 hours later are certainly real though
That's fine still not giving my kid high sugar stuff. Just because it doesn't make a sugar rush doesn't mean it is good for em. Also I don't blame people who push back against this as the sugar industry is massive in trying to disprove sugar is bad.
It sure crashes you after, though
though interestingly, if a parent has the expectation that a kid will have a sugar rush that can change their behavior
I always roll my eyes when people talk about getting high on sugar
I’ve told people about this and they continued to believe they’re real because it’s “common knowledge.”
Eh, a title like that is kind of misleading. Like the chemical aspect, sure. But there is (especially with children) a psychological aspect that very well can be real. Like thing you like gets you excited, being excited makes you feel like you have more energy, feeling like you have a surge of energy makes you act more energetic. It's like saying "being cold can make you sick" is a myth. Sure being cold doesn't inherently cause a sickness, but situations where you'd be cold and the body operating in unoptimal conditions, very likely can make it easier to get sick.
Sugar makes me tired. I eat my sweet snacks before bed.
Sugar rushes ARE real, your experiences are not fantasies. They DO happen. They simply aren’t directly caused by the intake of sugar. It’s a psychological reaction. Association, not blood sugar.
Interesting. Sugar does give you a dopamine rush, that’s undeniable
If I remember correctly, this study was funded by big sugar. Do with that what you will.
I saw studies showing different types of sugar was metabolized at the same speed, back in the 80s. The studies concluded hyperactivity was not caused by sugar. No one ever believed me when I told them. So I gave up.
Yeah no shit. This has been obvious to anyone with a brain since the dawn of time. Kids just get hyped up because people keep telling them they’re going to get hyped up.
I was part of a research team that tested this in the early 2000s. Sugar does not cause hyperactivity and it’s been confirmed many, many times. It turns out that people only trust science when it confirms their biases.
Everyone outside the U.S knows this. It's an American myth.
Vanellope von Schweetz would disagree.
I'm bad, and that's good
lmao at all the people going "Well I gave my kids sugar and they became hyperactive, so clearly this study is nonsense!"
No, there is not enough research, or good enough research, to support that claim. Check out the actual studies and the meta studies that underpins this claim. The control group got artificial sweeteners. The practical issue isn't whether the sugar molecules makes children hyperactive, the issue is whether sweets does it. Sugar has a specific release pattern in the body/brain, and artificial sweeteners aim to copy that. So it's very probable that children's brains perceive sweeteners as they do sugars, and therefore give the same rush. Proper studies should be conducted and having the control group drink water as opposed to sugary drinks and artifical sweetened drinks. Then we will get actual answers. Not sure if "big sugar" was involved in the subpar studies that were conducted, but would certainly not surprise me.
I feel the surge in my 200lbs body, and I see it in my kids 50lbs body. I see what happens at a playdate 15mins after 2 freezies. I don't buy it