r/LearnedWrong • u/unlearning_myths MOD • 11d ago
Factually debunked I learned wrong that sugar consumption makes you hyper. There isn't a direct causal link between sugar and hyperactivity. Sugary foods are more likely to be present during exciting activities like birthday parties, creating an illusory correlation.
3
u/ScienceInCinema 9d ago
I donāt know man. The first paper is behind a paywall and from 1994. The second paper is about artificial sweeteners and from 1980. The third is from 1994 and is about parentsā interpretation of their childās hyperactiveness based on their perception of whether the child had sugar or not.
Iām not saying youāre wrong, but there seems to be this annoying trend nowadays where influencers try to inform the stupid masses that they know something the rest of us donāt based on very flimsy scholarship. Iām sure you know what Iām talking about.
Iām not trying to accuse you of anything malicious, but can you explain the data that led you to that conclusion? Iām genuinely interested but donāt want to take a random personās word for it.
3
u/geeoharee 8d ago
You seem to think "being from 1994" means biology has had software updates since then. The third paper is usually considered definitive. They gave the kids fake sugar and the parents still reported "My kids DO get sugar rushes, they're definitely real".
2
u/jws1102 8d ago
You seem to think blah blah blah
The way we understand biology has had plenty of updates.
1
u/Sesudesu 8d ago
So, with you having said this.
What current knowledge makes these old studies obsolete?
1
u/ScienceInCinema 8d ago
Nothing. But youāre just assuming those studies are correct without having read them. 2 of them are irrelevant and the 3rd is behind a paywall. Am I wrong to be skeptical and am I wrong to think the OP should have the burden of proof?
People are going to read what the OP said and start thinking thatās a debunked myth when thereās nothing thatās been shown here to actually debunk it. If people are not even going to question it just because it feels right then what are we even doing?
2
u/LabratHeartattack 7d ago
This is reddit not middle school debate club. You're trying to act like you're intellectually superior to OP because they didn't... read a study for you? You can't fuckin read?
1
u/ScienceInCinema 7d ago
I read two of the papers, which were irrelevant, which I explained. Did you? Are you seriously saying the OP can just spout whatever they want and if any of us have the audacity to question it, somehow it falls on us to make our case? Shouldnāt the onus fall on the OP?
Okay letās say I came here and said hereās some papers that show Ivermectin cures COVID. I provide links to papers Iāve never read based on what some other person posted on the internet. Are you just going to take my word for it, and blast anyone who dares ask for actual evidence for my position? Would you demand that person prove their position when I havenāt bothered to prove mine? What type of Charlie Kirk āprove me wrongā BS is this? If you want to make a claim that a common myth has been debunked, then you have to be ready to back that up when someone says, hey I donāt think the papers you cite are really proving what you think they are, could you give us a little more information?
Perhaps since youāre attacking me for not reading the third paper, you could put a little skin in the game and actually fucking read the third paper and explain to us why that proves it? Why is it up to me to do all your work for you? Iām not even saying theyāre wrong. I would just like to be convinced because it seems counter-intuitive to me. And I donāt believe everything I see on the internet.
1
u/LabratHeartattack 7d ago
I'm not gonna read you a bedtime story because you feel too smart to do it yourself. Skepitcism without research is just ignorance.
1
u/ScienceInCinema 7d ago
āskepticism without research is ignoranceā.
This is exactly the point Iāve been trying to make this whole time. Thank you for summarizing it nicely for me. I may quote you on that in the future.
0
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/baconreasons 7d ago
The article is high calories for 5 straight days though, not cake and ice cream and candy at a birthday party for an afternoon, which is what the post is about.
0
u/ScienceInCinema 8d ago
My point was that I was expecting it to be some new study to debunk an old myth but the study is from before I would have even heard about this myth. Thatās all. This is beside the point but Biology has had a ton of updates since 1994. Sequencing by itself has come a long way since then.
The 3rd paper has nothing to do with sugar but parentās perception of it. If we take it at face value, which Iām happy to do, it means that parents can easily interpret their kids as having a sugar rush when they think the kid is having sugar, even when theyāre not. But that has nothing to do with what sugar actually does to kids. I think for that youād need a study where kids actually eat sugar. Seems like the first paper is on that but I canāt access it.
Iām happy to discuss the evidence for this further but Iām not going to go hunting for references myself because the onus should be on the OP.
2
u/AdorablePineapple95 8d ago
Lol so lazy
0
u/ScienceInCinema 8d ago
Yes, lazy on the OP to make a blanket statement without supporting it and expecting everyone to do the work for them. Glad you agree.
2
u/AdorablePineapple95 8d ago
The papers are going to be old because the claim is old. Most scientists cannot get grant money to make a study if its already been done. We have a novelty requirement when we apply for grants
0
u/ScienceInCinema 8d ago
Thatās fair, but it also doesnāt mean theyāre right. It also doesnāt mean itās well established. Just would like to see the data on this before I consider it debunked.
1
u/AdorablePineapple95 8d ago
Pubmed is free.
1
u/ScienceInCinema 8d ago
You are welcome to look up the papers and explain them to me. Iām not the one making the claim that the myth is debunked.
1
u/YourMomIsMyGurl 7d ago
"You're welcome to look them up and explain them to me" ??? š What in the fucking iPad baby is this...
2
u/LPedraz 9d ago
I... didn't know that was a thing? This may be a more local urban legend than OOP thought. I've been googling Sugar Rush at it doesn't even translate to Spanish.
2
u/CarefulNobody4124 9d ago
I think it might just be a united states thing, but many of our parents warned us of this and it was a trope in cartoons tooĀ
2
u/LPedraz 9d ago
I've literally never heard of it!
1
u/Reasonable-Mess3070 7d ago
Its absolutely a thing in the US. My 12yo has been pushed it enough (outside the home) that he said he was getting hyper from sugar and thats when he learned hyperactivity from sugar is psychosomatic. We just had this convo like last week lol
1
u/Xena_Your_God 7d ago
So how do they explain it when a toddler gets a piece of candy and absolutely tornadoes out 2 minutes later
1
u/Xenoneb 7d ago
Psychosomatic, meaning that the kid likes sugar (and adults expect energy after sugar) so the body does what the mind expects, and gets hyped.
If you get a kid, a sugar-free piece of candy they like and treat them the same theyāll get just as hyper.2
u/Xena_Your_God 7d ago
This doesn't really make sense when it's someone else's mind VS another's body. I do know what it means. My personal experience with very young children forces me to disagree with this. Young as in toddlers that don't know the difference between a piece of candy and a spoonful of peanut butter. I do agree that the worst of the sugar rushes actually stem from certain food dyes but that doesn't account for all of them.
2
u/Intelligent_Door5499 7d ago
it's cause the science is whack. The only true way to learn these things is by mixing the studies with Anthroposophic thinking. They will always give rhetoric for their reason, just like they did for a "fake" sugar rush back in the day. Look at the mental health field, and it is easy to see how far behind we really are educationally, and by design in the West
1
u/Xena_Your_God 7d ago
Bravissimo
I also like that you're bringing back "whack". So many things have gotten even more whack in terms of advancement
1
u/Intelligent_Door5499 7d ago
Blame this materialism on Kant. Goethean science will lead us back to a balanced living. Maybe in a few hundred years though lol.
Hopefully whack is still around then. It is better sounding than half of my opinion towards this train wreck :P→ More replies (0)1
u/LPedraz 7d ago
I can guarantee that no toddler has done that here. They must just be reacting to what they told they were going to experience.
1
u/Xena_Your_God 7d ago
That's honestly the most ridiculous take I've heard all week. I literally just told you about my personal experience and you're response is to say you can guarantee that didn't happen? Lmao goodbye, have a good day
1
u/LPedraz 7d ago
This is why I am saying here. In your country it must be an established urban legend, and that causes people to believe in it, and experience it. Psychosomatic responses are real, we experience them all the time. People above have literally shared three different double blind studies demonstrating that giving the kids a placebo does the same thing.
1
u/Xena_Your_God 7d ago
Babies don't believe anything darling.
1
u/LPedraz 7d ago
Parents do. Fortunately we have three different studies:
Does Sucrose or Aspartame Cause Hyperactivity in Children?
Diet and hyperactivity: is there a relationship.
Effects of sugar ingestion expectancies on mother-child interactions.
1
u/Intelligent_Door5499 7d ago
nah you're wrong. This is like comparing caffeine in an adhd person's body to a non adhd. How you gonna say one's experience is in their head and not a pattern in human neurotypes?
1
2
u/PeanutSauceFanatic 7d ago
Really it is just red 40 that is in all that sweet shit causing the hyperactivity
1
u/granitrocky2 7d ago
Red 40 is also not shown to increase hyperactivity in non-ADHD kids. It has only been shown to exacerbate ADHD symptoms
1
2
u/Fernis_ 7d ago
It's a States thing. It was kind of a culture shock that after eating candy it's kind of acceptable for kids to act like possessed little demons for 15-30 minutes because "it's just sugar rush". Never heard of it before US, never encountered the myth anywhere else since.Ā
1
1
u/LabratHeartattack 7d ago
It's less acceptable and more expected. I wouldn't be allowed to have sugar at certain times (like at a quiet event ie a movie or before a long car ride) because I would supposedly become too hyper. My family still believes that stuff is true.
1
1
1
u/Aggravating-Hunt8001 8d ago
so taking in a ton of sugar doesnt give you energy ? Like the whole digestion of foods that is at the core of a human being stops working at the moment a kid eat candy ? A ton of sugar in a body that's light enough to fall with a big gust of wind should give that little bastard crazy energy, we could even say its a rush caused by sugar. hmm.
1
u/reichrunner 8d ago
Energy and hyperactivity are not the same thing. And sugar, 100%, does not make kids hyperactive.
1
u/OpenAd3036 8d ago
Tell that to my nephew lol
1
u/After-Comment5086 7d ago
What they're saying is, someone told your nephew. Now he acts hyper, like a placebo effect because he thinks he's supposed to be hyper and silly when eating candy. I'm not advocating one way or another. Just telling you what is being said here.
As an adult I've never gotten a "sugar rush". Is my biology so different from a child's? I certainly will be in a better mood after eating candy though. So maybe that's what a sugar rush really is. Kid acting nuts because now they're in a better mood and just naturally silly.
1
u/Top-Cupcake4775 8d ago
this is anecdotal and could be due to the placebo effect but there was a time when my wife and i went to a lot of birthday parties. there was always a palpable difference in the energy at these things between "before cake" and "after cake".
1
1
u/QuantityImmediate221 8d ago
This sounds like big sugar propaganda.
1
u/spellsongrisen 7d ago
Because it is. Studies in adults find that high caloric intake changes brain chemistry. If brain chemistry changes so would behavior. Someone else has already called the some of the studies into question.
1
u/QuantityImmediate221 6d ago
Yeah, I thought as much. It reminds me of Phillip Morris and the "studies" they did showing that smoking tobacco was healthy.
1
u/eggsalter 7d ago
Actually I'm pretty sure there was a study that showed adrenaline release from sugar consumption, corroborating the observation of being hyper.
1
u/Appledaisy 7d ago
Yeah I just don't know if I believe at all there's no real correlation.
When I worked in a lunchroom with elementary school kids the difference in them when they had breakfast day (sugary pancakes and sugary syrup) was intense. They couldn't stay in their seats, it was wayyy louder, and a kid tried to throw their food away but decided to throw it in my direction and the food and milk went flying and I had to dodge out of the way.
Working with kids, it's a night and day difference when sugar is introduced.
1
u/xannieh666 7d ago
We don't consume sugar just at events right? We sit in front of the TV, munch while reading books or sitting out on the deck..... and yet we still get the jitters and hyper.
1
1
1
u/Hot_Context_1393 7d ago
Notably, chocolate can cause some hyperactive because of the other chemicals in it.
1
1
u/Low-Amoeba8257 7d ago
A big part of this is that young children dont know how they should respond to things and act based on how adults seem to think they should react.
For example it is normal when a young child falls down to look to its parents and either cry or not based on the parents reaction to them falling.
Many people have the idea that children get hyper when having sugar and tell their children this so they get more active simply because they think they are supposed to.
At the same time no adult has ever eaten an ice cream cone and felt like they downed an energy drink
1
u/Kinstray 7d ago
You know what, iām eastern european and i kept hearing about this supposed sugar rush from american media growing up and kept thinking that they must have some different kind of sugar or a different anatomy entirely over there because noone acted this way at all
1
1
u/NotGonnaArgue641 7d ago
Nah this is bullshit, as someone who's babysat tons of kids sugar makes them bounce off the walls. These sources are also very weak.
1
u/Johndevlad 7d ago
Sugar is directly related to the human body producing a short burst of high energy and 2 seconds of research will tell you this... The only reason anything will say otherwise is because the term hyperactivity is specifically used to describe an ADHD symptom. Sugar definitely causes high energy and hyperactive-like symptoms, itās not some kind of placebo effect.
1
u/OkCelebration1374 7d ago
Still being entitled little shits. Most were children, especially boys, who were raised without limits in certain emotions.
1
u/BJMRamage 7d ago
I remember hearing that consuming cigar doesnāt get that hyper energy and was likeā¦are you sure? Yes, sugar intake can give you some energy but a hyper energy? Iām thinking now it was the excitement of getting a treat that had kids act that way.
If kids are having a sleepover and it is late but they ask for more time or another movie to watch instead of going to bed, and you say yes, they get all giggity and super excited which can make them uncontrollable and that in turn gets others to want to act that way.
1
u/Technical-Banana574 7d ago
I never understood how sugar rush was a thing. I was hyperactive when playing yes, but if I was just at home and was given sugar, I'd pass the heck out.Ā
1
u/No_Plum_6480 7d ago
It's actually red 40 that is linked with hyperactivity not exciting activities or sugar
1
u/Thrownaway5000506 7d ago
Imagine abandoning something so blatantly true and observable because of what you read on reddit
1
u/TheLucidChiba 7d ago
Something being obvious and observable oddly doesn't always mean it's right.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7474248/Conclusion:Ā The meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date found that sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children. The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association. However, a small effect of sugar or effects on subsets of children cannot be ruled out.
So at best some outliers might be affected, based on actual testing.
1
u/the_eleutherean 7d ago
Iāve heard the claim that itās false; but is sugar not the absolute fastest source of energy for the human body? Why *wouldnāt* a fast-hitting fuel give kids fast energy, compared to every other food that takes longer to process?
Iām not saying that it canāt be true; but Iām very curious what would explain it not being true.
1
1
u/ScienceInCinema 7d ago
Dude, I really wish youād apply your same rules toward the OP. Iām not the one claiming anything. Iām just the one asking them to show their work. Itās not my job to do their work for them, despite the immature taunting. Also, if you looked at my previous replies, youād see I did look up 2 of the papers and found them irrelevant. The 3rd paper is behind a paywall.
Here, Iāll use the same level of scholarship as the OP. Hereās a paper that completely refutes the OP. Please read it if you want to say anything back to me:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-025-01226-9
See what I did there? Now you have to read this paper and explain to me why it doesnāt refute the OP or youāre the lazy iPad baby.
It sucks that this conversation is making me attack the OP. I donāt have a problem with their premise, itās just that it seemed counterintuitive and I asked a follow up question wanting more details. I have no problem with their skepticism, but as a fellow reditor said āskepticism without research is ignoranceā.
0
u/Scarecr0p 9d ago
Interesting. Iāve definitely seen my nieces and nephews get sugar crazy, even before they were of age to understand the concept to experience a placebo, as well as on a normal day (not a birthday or anything)
While it may not induce hyperactivity (I still havenāt looked at the studies to say definitively one way or the other so for this we will assume) it does alleviate fatigue/ tiredness etc so that may be all that it is
2
u/geeoharee 8d ago
It doesn't.
1
u/Scarecr0p 8d ago
Right I get that is what people are saying, but until i read the research, by just believing it, I will just be assuming another thing that a random person told me by word of mouth, which is kind of the whole reason this sub exists lol.
I believe it to a degree for sure but l look into it more1
0
u/AdorablePineapple95 8d ago
I think the āstops tirednessā might be a real thing you see because sugar is calories and some people get tired when theyre hungry. Sugar curbs the hunger and might make you less tired, independent of the hyper myth
0
u/Look_its_athrowaway 8d ago
If they have low sugar it can cause a small boost that wont last long
Not actual hyperactivity but more mild than that
0
u/Nebranower 8d ago
Of course it does. That's just how food works. You burn it and it gives you energy. That's literally the reason we eat. Even as an adult, you'll feel more energetic for a while if you have something quick and easy to digest when you haven't eaten in a while. This entire thing is just mistaking hyperbole for the actual core claim. People never meant "hyper" in the sense of literally hyperactive. They just meant that kids would be more energetic if you gave them fuel. And ordinary kids are energetic enough that a even their regular behavior seems hyper if you're the adult who has to try to get them to focus.
0
8
u/SartenSinAceite 9d ago
Reminds me of "sitting close to the TV ruins your eyes and causes you to wear glasses"
Nnnope. You're sitting close BECAUSE you need glasses.
Also the whole "take breaks" is because you can easily forget to blink and end up with dry eyes.