Mel

Hi All,
According to the latest research, children who consume candy every day are far more likely to become criminals later in life.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107762§ionid=3510210

I'm smiling as I type this as I think this is just good old fashioned fear mongering. Has this "study" been making ripples anyplace else?

Mel
(who should have been a car thief by now....)

Lyla Wolfenstein

someone did post it on facebook and asked for input. i had a lot to say....

i think it is ridiculous, and the conclusions they came to are even more ridiculous. it's all in the interpretation! i'd be happy to post my responses here, but i somehow think that'd just be preaching to the choir...

lyla




Hi All,
According to the latest research, children who consume candy every day are far more likely to become criminals later in life.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107762§ionid=3510210

I'm smiling as I type this as I think this is just good old fashioned fear mongering. Has this "study" been making ripples anyplace else?
.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

It will I am sure. People never learned to think for themselves.
So they read and believe everything.
My dad and my husband Brian are big time sweet tooth  boys and I can say they are the most loving and nice people I know.
They both used to still candy, sweets and deserts from their mothers' pantry so..yeah!
That does make them criminals <BWG>
 
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Robyn L. Coburn

From the article:
<<<< Some 69 percent of adults considered to be violent at the age of 34
were reported to have had eaten sweets and chocolate nearly every day during
childhood. >>>>

So what percentage of adults *not* considered to be violent at the age of 34
were reported to have had eaten sweets and chocolate nearly every day during
childhood?


(Is "to have had eaten..." proper grammar? It seems awkward somehow.)

Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com


> According to the latest research, children who consume candy every day
> are far more likely to become criminals later in life.
>
> http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107762§ionid=3510210
>

Mel

"Robyn L. Coburn" <dezigna@...> wrote:
>
>
> So what percentage of adults *not* considered to be violent at the age of 34
> were reported to have had eaten sweets and chocolate nearly every day during
> childhood?

Good Question!
And how do we account for entire cultures, like my husband's, who are Dutch and often start their day off with hagelslag (chocolate sprinkles) on toast? :)


> (Is "to have had eaten..." proper grammar? It seems awkward somehow.)

> Robyn L. Coburn
> www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
> www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
> www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
>

I can not wrap my sugar-additive addicted brain around this statement:

(from article) "Others, however, believe rewarding bad behavior in childhood with confectionary is the main cause (of violence), adding that instant gratification stops the children from learning how to wait to obtain something, nurturing their impulsive behavior.

Sadly, I just know that because of this "news report" there are parents out there putting the brakes on Halloween.

Mel

Alan Forrester

> Hi All,

> According to the latest research, children who consume candy every day are far
> more likely to become criminals later in life.
>
> http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107762§ionid=3510210
>
> I'm smiling as I type this as I think this is just good old fashioned fear
> mongering. Has this "study" been making ripples anyplace else?

Let's suppose that there is a correlation in the people he studied between having sweets frequently and violence in later life. The only circumstance under which it is appropriate to say that sweets cause violence is if the chemical content of the sweets is correlated with violence regardless of whether the people concerned know they are getting it. Te abstract for the paper, available here, indicates that this experiment has not been done:

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/195/4/366

Instead all he has done is look for correlations between sweet consumption and violence and he has found them.

What could possibly go wrong with this experiment? Hasn't he controlled for all the relevant factors? I rather doubt it because the relevant factors include all of the ideas the child came across when he was growing up, whether anyone took the time to explain good moral ideas, whether the child felt he could trust his parents or thought they were manipulative bastards and so on. Now it might be the case that children who learned good moral ideas did not eat as many sweets and so that the causation is precisely the reverse of what Moore alleges: good ideas lead to less sweet consumption rather than the other way around. It might also be the case that this correlation holds only in families where sweet consumption viewed as a bad thing that should be discouraged, i.e. - almost all families, and so the children who learned good habits also picked up the idea that sweet consumption is bad through a quirk of our culture.

All of the studies I have read indicating that something that children like leads them to become evil granny murderers have the flaw that they are written by people who do not seem to pay any attention to the question of how to explain their results and it is possible in every case to drive a coach and horses through the holes in their argument.

Alan

Schuyler

There was a recent study showing that children whose mother's were home had better health outcomes. The researchers attributed that to some degree to being about their eating less "junk food" and more "healthy food" when they were home with their mother monitoring what they ate. My assumption is that children are healthier with a parent home because they are less stressed. Stress is a wonderful way of getting and staying sick. My guess is that children who eat less candy may be in a similar boat. What they may have found is an intermediary variable and not a causal variable. That is candy eating could be a measure of parental presence, or some other factor, and as such not the factor of interest.

I'm guessing both of these studies are getting government funding under obesity guidelines. The government puts out a research remit and says we'll fund studies that fall within that remit. It means that in order to look at the effects of having a mother in the home they had to tack on an examination of food availability for children.

Schuyler




________________________________
From: Mel <beensclan@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 October, 2009 11:40:49 PM
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] This was on the Newfoundland evening news....

Hi All,
According to the latest research, children who consume candy every day are far more likely to become criminals later in life.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107762§ionid=3510210

I'm smiling as I type this as I think this is just good old fashioned fear mongering. Has this "study" been making ripples anyplace else?

Mel
(who should have been a car thief by now....)



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joyce Fetteroll

On Oct 4, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Mel wrote:

> According to the latest research, children who consume candy every
> day are far more likely to become criminals later in life.

There was another study -- maybe the same study with different
conclusions -- that said the jails had kids with nutritional
deficiencies. Someone brought this to the Unschooling Basics list and
maybe this doctor is discussing the same study, just twisting it
differently:

http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2002/07/14/food-and-behaviourthought


The Presstv article suggests that daily candy is the cause of
criminal behavior. But *why* are those kids eating candy every day?

I suspect what they found is that kids who have to fend for
themselves, who don't have a parent providing good food, don't have
good diets. Their diets heavily rely on foods that don't spoil and
don't need cooked, mostly snacky foods. And a diet like that is
nutritionally deficient. (*And* emotionally and supportively deficient!)

Joyce

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-Sadly, I just know that because of this "news report" there are
parents out there putting the brakes on Halloween. -=-

Being controlling and punishing of kids MUST be worse than giving them
sugar, or letting them dress up and frolic.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-The Presstv article suggests that daily candy is the cause of
criminal behavior. But *why* are those kids eating candy every day?-=-

I bet if they'd had any idea (them or their parents) that it was
possible to have a good, close relationship with another person they
would have MUCH preferred that to self-soothing with sweets.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-All of the studies I have read indicating that something that
children like leads them to become evil granny murderers have the flaw
that they are written by people who do not seem to pay any attention
to the question of how to explain their results and it is possible in
every case to drive a coach and horses through the holes in their
argument.-=-

I can think of worse things than murdering evil grannies.
BEING evil grannies. <g>

But to the lameness of "studies" that come up with one correlation:
Many of them are people working on PhDs in fields in which the
original research is limited or lame anyway. Education. Dietician/
Nutrition. Where the purposes are how to spend or save government
money. How to feed people in hospitals and prisons and schools so
that it doesn't cost too much but the institution doesn't get sued.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

-=-Sadly, I just know that because of this "news report" there are
parents out there putting the brakes on Halloween. -=-

>>>Being controlling and punishing of kids MUST be worse than giving them
sugar, or letting them dress up and frolic.>>>

Ah, yes, but it's for their own good! Right?! That seems to always be the argument for parents who control their kids. As if being kind and thoughtful and generous and sweet wasn't for their own good! I like happiness better than fear and control!




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

thetiemensfamily

Just goes to show you that you can twist research to mean just about anything! The same thing could be said about water or air!

Laurie
www.AnotherBlessing.com - Pregnancy and Ovulation Predictor Tests as low as 50 CENTS with free next day shipping to the USA!



--- In [email protected], "Mel" <beensclan@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> According to the latest research, children who consume candy every day are far more likely to become criminals later in life.
>
> http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107762§ionid=3510210