Sugar, sweet suicide—part I

Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, July, 2003 by Gary Null

* Trials were short, observing children for only a few hours before concluding that sugar had no relationship to hyperactivity. (56,57)

* Children's diets were unchanged. They were given a sugary drink in lieu of their usual breakfast. Since the drink contained as much sugar as the average breakfast cereal, the variable was not manipulated, and researchers should not expect to find a change in behavior.

* Control groups were given artificial sweeteners instead of nutritious food or nothing at all. Sweeteners, like aspartame, can produce side effects, such as changes in neurological behavior. How then can the researchers determine the effect of sugar versus the effect of aspartame? Yet, they conclude, "compared to the control group (on aspartame), there was no difference in behavior." (58)

* Sugar drinks contained artificial colors and flavors, ingredients that are known to alter neurological behavior. How could the researchers know whether the children were reacting to sugar or these components? (59,60)

* The "Hawthorne Effect," where an unnatural setting and routine may skew the results, could influence outcomes. The possibility that the children were acting differently than they normally would for the investigators was never taken into account.

* The premise of the studies were faulty as they were giving more sugar to children suspected of already having too much. In studies by Schoenthaler and Schauss, it was assumed children were already wired from too much sugar. When sugar was taken away from them for long periods of time, the improvement in behavior was remarkable.

It is hard to believe that the sugar industry was able to convince the public that sugar has no effect on behavior with such careless research. Giving a small number of children a few teaspoons of sugar and observing them for just a few hours is considered sufficient proof that sugar does not affect mood or behavior, while long-term, large-sample, correctly controlled studies go unnoticed. Consider Schoenthaler's landmark study of a million school children in over 803 New York City public schools over a seven-year period. After gradually eliminating synthetic colors and flavors and the preservatives BHA and BHT, along with refined sugar, significant gains in learning were seen. Among 124,000 children who, before the dietary changes, were unable to learn grammar and mathematics, 75,000 were able to perform these basic tasks after dietary changes alone. There was a 15% gain (from 39.2% to 55%) in learning ability compared with other schools during the years in which these changes were introduced. (61) In anoth er study on refined carbohydrates and cognitive function, Lester et al. concluded that consumption of foods low in nutrient density and high in sucrose may significantly contribute to childhood learning disorders. (62)

Some sugar industry-sponsored studies has also claimed that sugar improves memory. (63) This conclusion is based on the fact that when a person's blood sugar is low, some dietary sugar helps thinking in the short term because the brain functions on glucose. Sugar in the diet, however, will have an appetite-suppressing effect. Not enough calories will come from foods that build muscle and bone, make enzymes, and provide nutrients for tissues and organs.