Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Candy-loving kid = Candy-loving adult.Well, in my case :)
Anyone else bothered by the researcher's willingness to label kids "depressed" based on a questionnaire? There's a tendency towards alcoholism in my extended family. Most of the heaviest drinkers can't abide sweets at all, but then there's the one who could easily down a pound of M&Ms in one sitting. There's research that shows a correlation between alcoholism and insulin metabolism defects, but determining causation is murky AFAIK. It's possible that insulin metabolism defects are an underlying cause of the depression.
"Joan said...Anyone else bothered by the researcher's willingness to label kids "depressed" based on a questionnaire? "No, not really. This is merely one study, and if the criteria for what constitutes a "depressed" child turns out to be insufficient, that element of the study will be superceded by future research.
Oh my, the freaks heads are going to explode! Just like AGW, their is going to be self righteous anger over marginalizing psuedo-science.Last week, some so called scientists claimed that people who over use the internet are depressed.My question is what self respecting, responsible parent would allow their child to participate in such research in the first place.
So let's just get on with it then, and give out little bottles of liquor to the trick or treaters at Halloween.
And they're saying their pattern is toward 'depressive symptoms', which as I understand it, is not depression, itself.There's really so much they don't know about the precursors to alcoholism - genetics, brain chemistry, environment - and what draws one to self-medicate. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from one study, but find these ideas to research quite fascinating.
I wonder when they are going to study the effects of using those over the counter recreational drugs hopium and changium?
What's the expression - "candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker?"I like how the article starts out with a bold statement that then splinters paragraph after paragraph. No knowing what the causalities are, the strength and direction of such causalities, or if the sample of kids selected or the definition of depression. But the bold headline remains. That's science journalism.
Every once in a while I'll see a kid in public whose parent seems to be conducting an experiment in Pavlovian conditioning with sugar, which is probably dangerous.
give out little bottles of liquor to the trick or treaters at Halloween.Why not combine booze and sugar -- pass out (ha!) miniatures of Bailey's Irish Cream.Winos have always preferred high octane and high sugar -- witness Richard's Wild Irish Road, Night Train, Thunderbird, etc. Check out www.bumwine.com for an overview of the current range of products.
When The Blonde was a baby, her mother put the amount of Karo syrup in one bottle that was supposed to go in eight (this is also the woman who later thought as long as you had checks, you had money in the bank). She has a considerable sweet tooth, but she is not an alcoholic, nor is she depressive.I was known for my fondness for a 3 Musketeeers bar and M&Ms when I was in single digits. Even though my father was a drunk (no other word for it), I'm not and I've got the depression that comes from my Cushing's under control - without drugs.Could this "scientist" be (gasp) wrong?
Does the Candy Industry like Cadbury's explain why most British teenagers are extreme drunks, or is that there mating dance? Check out the Buckfast wine produced by modern monks at Buckfast Abby in Devon. Getting drunk is a tragedy, while enjoying a drink or two is not. The adults seem to be MIA in this Nanny State.
Buckfast is mentioned on the bumwines.com website. (Obviously bum has a different meaning in the UK, but whatever.) Buckfast, although cheap, is not the cheapest way to get drunk. It has caffeine as well as sugar -- the equivalent of a vodka and Red Bull.(Homeless alcoholics in the UK buy 3 liter jugs of hard cider, per the bumwines website.)
Peter V. Bella said... My question is what self respecting, responsible parent would allow their child to participate in such research in the first place.Perhaps the kind of parenting involved leads to depressive-tendency kids, excessive candy consumption, and future addiction problems. I.e., maybe there is a selection bias in the sample study.wv: psyine. The one-size-fits-all treatment for psychic disorders. Recommended by 4 out of 5 government health board members.
This is par for the course for nutritional studies, which is chock full of junk science.The lead of the article could have read: Sweet-toothed children 'may have X-Ray vision' and been just as valid.
I think the scientist is right--please hear me out.Suppose you are born with a deficiency of neurotransmitters. Or suppose that you are born, for whatever reason, prone to bouts of sadness. (Either or both scenarios work; the first scenario is an instance of the second.)Then you find candy. Candy gives you that extra boost of joy. You love candy.Later in life, you find other boosters.There is your correlation--no causation is implied by the results.
I read this as Candy minus loving kid equals future drunk.Does Candy need a loving kid to prevent her from doing Jagerbombs at The Red Shed every night?
Post a Comment