Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:45 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Oslo teens who drank the most sugary soft drinks also had more mental health problems such as hyperactivity and distress, Norwegian researchers reported on Thursday.

Their study of more than 5,000 Norwegian 15- and 16-year-olds showed a clear and direct association between soft drink intake and hyperactivity, and a more complex link with other mental and behavioral disorders.

They surveyed the students, asking them how many fizzy soft drinks with sugar they had a day, and then questions from a standard questionnaire used to assess mental health.

The teens who reported skipping breakfast and lunch were among the heaviest soft drink consumers, Dr. Lars Lien and colleagues at the University of Oslo found.

"There was a strong association between soft drink consumption and mental health problems among Oslo 10th graders," they wrote in their report, published in the American Journal of Public Health.

"This association remained significant after adjustment for social, behavioral and food-related disorders."

Most of the students said they drank anywhere between one and six servings of soft drinks per week.

Those who drank no soft drinks at all were more likely than moderate drinkers to have mental health symptoms, the researchers said. But those who drank the most -- more than six servings a week - had the highest scores.

For hyperactivity, there was a direct linear relationship -- the more sodas a teen drank, the most symptoms of hyperactivity he or she had.

The worst problems were seen in boys and girls who drank four or more soft drinks a day. Ten percent of the boys and 2 percent of the girls drank this much.

The researchers said it was possible that other substances in the soft drinks, such as caffeine, were to blame for the symptoms, and they did not check other possible sources of refined sugar in the children's diets.

But they said many of the teens were clearly drinking too many sugary drinks. Norway's recommended intake is 10 percent of the day's total calories from sugar and the researchers said at least a quarter of the boys were getting this much from soft drinks alone.

"One simple and effective measure to reduce soft drink consumption in this age group would be to remove soft drink machines from schools and other public places where adolescents gather," they wrote.

Reuters

Hello...

What I come to believe, is that refined sugar is one substance on a stepping stone that leads to other drug abuse.

Interesting. What makes you think that?

This is interesting, and I'm aware of Allen Carr's ("The Easy Way to Stop Smoking") theory that alcoholism is very often an extension of nicotine addiction. Since the Allen Carr method of stopping smoking is by far the most effective statistically, I would tend to give this theory a fair amount of credence.

Similarly, refined sugar is certainly addictive - and I wonder if there are any statistics available for e.g. the number of grls who start smoking, possibly as an alternative to eating chocolate? In retrospect, this seems fairly plausible to me, as many of my (skinny!) peers at school were smokers. Perhaps the real connection may simply be that the habit left them less money for chocolate; I really don't know, but I think this is an interesting hypothesis nonetheless, and I'm curious to hear more about far's opinion on this.

Incidentally, the heaviest smoker in my peer group, whose father was a Physics master, and it certainly couldn't be said that she was from an underprivilaged social group; she was also a very intelligent lass who achieved very good grades at school. However, she was also a junk food and soft drink junkie, and tragically ended up as a burnt-out alcoholic by her early twenties. I realise that this is only anecdotal evidence and a sample of one cannot be held to be representative in any sense, except to illustrate that these problems affect all social groups, and not just the underprivilaged.

Still, I don't know which is worse - refined sugar or aspartame. I prefer to avoid both.
Mairi

My young brother is given many amounts of sugar and is skinny as bones, yet he is very hyper active.

I see two routes to that lead out of sugar abuse. One being hyperactivity the other being... well I suppose one where the sugar in it's refined glucose form just goes straight though the blood around the body and the brain where one receives a sugar high. Once the body uses up all that quick glucose (the hyperactivity) a person then ends up feeling tired. The desire to feel that good feeling is then felt. A person can decide not to listen to that desire, but how would they know that it was a bad desire.

I've seen this mostly occur in children. Though I believe you can starve to death with refined sugar.

Let me state what I see sugar as. I see sugar under a category of "flavor". And what is flavor? Something that adds to ones pleasure of a life? What is that? Promoting feelings. Desires. Emotions. Where do they come from, why do we want these things? Some say that it comes from with in and you just feel it. For such cases, I'd like to know where this want desire comes from. And for that reason, I believe that anything that comes from uncertain source or reason; one should avoid that thing until it is verified.

Ask yourself this question. What is flavor(i.e. what are its effects)? If you cannot do that, then ask this question. Where will you find flavor? Please note, I understand flavor to be anything that has a chemical effect with in the brain that creates an emotional reaction. Why would anyone need an emotional reaction? Boredom? Stress? Depression? Peer pressure? I also understand that when that sensation becomes "boring" one ends up searching for a new high.

Well as for rats - according to a source that was on wiki - this is what sugar does:

"Recent behavioral tests in rats further back the idea of an overlap between sweets and drugs. Drug addiction often includes three steps. A person will increase his intake of the drug, experience withdrawal symptoms when access to the drug is cut off and then face an urge to relapse back into drug use. Rats on sugar have similar experiences. Researchers withheld food for 12 hours and then gave rats food plus sugar water. This created a cycle of binging where the animals increased their daily sugar intake until it doubled. When researchers either stopped the diet or administered an opioid blocker the rats showed signs common to drug withdrawal, such as teeth-chattering and the shakes. Early findings also indicate signs of relapse. Rats weaned off sugar repeatedly pressed a lever that previously dispensed the sweet solution." (Leah Ariniello, Brain Briefings, October 2003)
Generally I'd catogrize worse as anything that leads one on down the road of "flavor"....


Oh and aspartame gives tumors. Calories or no calories... it's all flavor, I'll skipp that for now.

Thanks for your response.

I think you do have a point about sugar and I agree with you to a limited extent, but I'll come back to that separately as I want to say a few things about the original article first.

It's very vague about what is under test isn't it?

sugary soft drinks
soft drink intake
fizzy soft drinks with sugar
soft drink consumption
soft drinks (twice)
sodas
sugary drinks

I realise it's only a press release and not the original research, but it's pretty poorly defined don't you think? Only one of the items mentioned definitively contains any sugar at all and the article is quite clear that the subjects were only "surveyed" to establish what they'd actually been drinking, ie it doesn't sound like anyone actually made a proper study of what had actually been consumed. Saying "soft drink" is like saying "fast food". It could be anything and it this particular case it could be aspartame or another sweetener responsible for any observed behaviour. They shouldn't lump (sic) sugar and artificial sweeteners in together like that. It renders the study meaningless.

I'm not saying sugar isn't without its problems, but next to a chemical nerve agent like aspartame, it's a close call as to which is least desirable. Their sloppy imprecision may well serve to obscure aspartame on purpose. Either way it's a waste of a potentially good study!



Well yes, sugar is a short term fix, but if the soft drinks machines get banned do the researchers think that the students will suddenly start eating breakfasts? Hardly likely. Quite paradoxical really.



No kidding?! It's bad science folks – it says it right there. Not only do they have no idea of how much sugar the student has consumed, but they don't even know if the student had consumed additional refined sugar in food. And caffeine? They didn't think to consider aspartame, given all that's known about this particular poison?



Given the lack of rigour as demonstrated above, they can't make any such claim.



Hmm. So how were "mental health symptoms" defined and measured?

No offence to the posters here of course, but it is a rotten article and I felt it had to be said!






I now what you mean. I have known a few children like that, but again, kind of like the article really; is it sugar or misappropriated chemical weaponry that's to blame? It would be interesting to see how your brother was after a week of strictly controlled intake: the whole diet – all good stuff! Someone I know who tried it with their child found it made a huge difference, although I expect it would work better with some children to introduce healthy food in gradual steps over a period of time – a bit like TPTB did to us, but in reverse, ie from bad to good!

It's so sad to see all this going on isn't it? We all know the answer lies in a shift of consciousness. That or the loss of it altogether if "the dark side" gets it's way. People are so out of touch with themselves – and even on a day to day level there's still the fact that many of the hyper-processed "foods" fool our natural homeostatic impulses into behaving as if we're still hungry when we shouldn't be.



I'm not sure. If the phone rings I don't necessarily find out who it is before I pick it up. On the other hand, I agree that we need to be particularly cautious these days. We've all been lied to so much, about everything.





Sugar as emotional engagement? Well maybe so, but people still have their own free will. They only have to learn to use it to put sugar back into perspective. Instead they buy sweeteners. We can only do our best to help reverse the flow.





Yes, I agree with that, but again, "rats on sugar" are not "children eating a little too much sugar in an otherwise balanced diet". That's not to say the study is invalid. In fact, I can testify to having had the "shakes" from too much chocolate the day before more than once. Had there been a meal ready for me when I was hungry throughout the previous day I wouldn't have eaten the chocolate – and that's my point in a way. Children often eat because they are hungry. If that doesn't happen because they are given regular meals they'll be hungry less often and they'll have much less of an opportunity to become addicted to sugar. Hard for parents to find the time these days though it seems.



For sure, but unfortunately, in this country right now, if you released new food or drink product and you said,

"NEW DESTRUCTO MAX - positively brimming with highly toxic chemicals to mess you right up for good!",

it would be a sell-out. Sad but true.



Dump the article but spread the word I say.

Good day.



As for children, they do what they do according to their environment. That is, the condition of their internal system; emotions, behaviors and what they concentrate their minds on. As for genes, then they would be like their parents but during their childhood. As we known, once you get to a certain age, you'll look in the mirror and you'll see your parent.

As for some parents that I know, they take their advice from a particular source(s). In this such case, they use a particular themed television station(s). The characters on these channels would receive calls from the public, sometimes emotional pleas for help and other times general every day questions. In one such call, this tv character advised the caller (and these parents would also take note) to put sugar in a glass of water, repeat some spiritual words and thus drink it. In other programs you will find a tv character talk about pharmaceutical products, you'll see how he amazes the audience with his knowledge of drug names and what they are for. You'll find these programs followed by religious programs. It would be quite complicated to convince such people who watch these programs that they should avoid such substances as they are not good for them.

This leads to the phrase "if you can't beat them, join them." Unfortunately one would end up with many acquired problems if one agreed to this. An alternative statement that is not widely used would be; "if you can't beat them, pack up and head for a place where they'll join you." Then again we remember the days of the new age and hippy revolution. Lets not forget their parents, who were teens and young adults through mostly after the end of the war - the first of many to experience what we now call junk food. What were them days about? "Feeling good", no? Sex, drugs and rock and roll I hear you say. Emotions that were towards the sense or liberalism and feel good factors?

As far as I understand, the most important thing that should be known is that refined sugar comes as part of a group of endorphin promoters. In the case of sex, I'll redirect you to a site and a quote:


Note also in regard to the mental problems mentioned in this thread as of what one has to deal with when they provide or think thoughts against junk "sex, drugs and rock and roll" if you like:



In any society, if an individual behaves contrary to others in that society... well that individual will be - if not always - out casted. Though strong national/tribal ties would cause the opposite to occur. Currently, the tribal vibe is more for junk endorphin promotion, rather than against. At least from those who can afford to create this vibe.

Let me say this, as far as I understand those who abuse substances are mostly extroverts from where I stand. What are the qualities of such extroverts? They lead while the introverts keep quiet and wait for a signal or pushed when something needs being done. And when the natural born leaders become under the influence of such substances, why would anyone "...pack up and head for a where they'll join you".

Well one needs to know an alternative way of existence other than that of junk lifestyle. Then again, if a person wanted to escape what practical things can they do? Including those who are introverts and those who are extroverts.

I agree with that to an extent, in that many people seem very happy to have become completely dependent on the advice of "experts" to make their decisions for them, but you don't seem to be leaving much room for people to wake up. I'd argue there's more hope than you are allowing for. Yes, the TV and the rest of the foundation stones of the matrix are slick and powerful, but you and I are a testament to the fact that we are not helpless in the face of it. It's a long hard process, but many people might wake up as what's left of our current reality is destroyed by TPTB.

If society were to collapse overnight, many of the factors which support and reinforce the matrix such as the TV, news lies, poisoned food and other false idols would disappear - at least temporarily - and that would present you and I with a golden opportunity to effect far more change than we can just now. Once the shops were empty and the water shut off a lot of the "passive receptors" would listen to you and I much more closely as we would suddenly seem a lot less "crazy" to their eyes.

That's why I think the change will remain gradual and controlled instead. There may well be NO huge jolt to the system - because it would serve us more effectively than TPTB. It's no accident that the 'net is used to push a hundred and one disaster scenarios (Planet X, bird flu and nuclear war etc). While one or two of these will no doubt happen, you can bet your life that TPTB will use these, not to smash society into a million pieces, but to smoothly move from the old word order to the new. They will be limited disasters, by design. Order out of chaos and all that. Disasters will be used much as the planes at the WTC were used, ie something to distract the eye and mind while the real agenda is rolled out. "Managed chaos" will leave us will less of a clear cut opportunity to effect change, so we must learn to function like they do - from within the system: step by step, individual by individual - taking advantage of opportunities as and when they arise. I expect we'll be kept busy - but if we're smart and focused we WILL make a difference.