You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Lurid Crime Tales-
Daily candy use can turn children into 'criminals'
2009-10-04
Children who eat sweets and chocolate on a regular basis are more likely to be convicted of violent crimes as adults, a new study finds.
Oh. Well. I guess that explains Bazooka Joe.
Previous studies had reported that anti-social behavior stems in social and environmental factors such as poor parenting and a deprived upbringing; the new study, however, believes offenders have very poor diets.

"There appears to be a link between childhood diet and adult violence, although the nature of the mechanism underlying this association needs further scrutiny," said lead researcher Simon Moore.
Thus justifying more nanny-state laws ...
According to the study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, kids with the worst impulsive behavior have the most terrible diets such as having a Coke and a bag of chips for breakfast.
Which is not at all the same as having a single Leonidas truffle every day for a week after Daddy gets home from a business trip, or a couple of cookies for an afternoon snack.
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.

The main reason contributing to the condition is not well recognized; many, however, believe confectionery make adults addicted to certain additives, leading to aggressive behavior in the long run. Others, however, believe rewarding bad behavior in childhood with confectionary is the main cause, adding that instant gratification stops the children from learning how to wait to obtain something, nurturing their impulsive behavior.
Or it could be as simple as properly fed children knowing that they're loved, and so are willing to learn self-control from parents modelling that behaviour. Also, parents who feed their children inappropriately tend to have other parenting skill lacks, and too often model exactly the behaviour these above researchers decry, so clearly there is a constellation of causes leading to a constellation of undesirable effects. It's a good thing I'm not on the grant committee.
Scientists concluded that improving the children's diet may improve health and reduce aggression later in the life.
Improving the children's diet would certainly be A Good Thing, and definitely would lead to all sorts of improved outcomes, including a reduction of the incidence of rickets and common cold infections.
Posted by:Fred

#16  This article upset me so much I had to go and drizzle some Disaronno over some wonderful chocolate Biscotti fresh from Turano Pastry Shop.

Man everybody in that shop must be criminal....
because they love sweets...

Posted by: 3dc   2009-10-04 21:55  

#15  You cross-correlated your Rantburg females slightly incorrectly, g(r)omgoru. I'm the one who grew up in the ivory tower then left for the outside world, ending up in the sheltered rose garden of suburban housewifery and corporate spousery. Daddy used to write grant proposals though, back in the day. Lots and lots of grant proposals. Followed by preliminary papers, definitive papers, summary papers... the game was to see how many papers could be gotten out of each datum. I edited many of them for language usage as I was a native English speaker, unlike my terribly highly educated parents. Based on your description I'd say the rules haven't changed much since I was a girl.
Posted by: trailing wife    2009-10-04 19:37  

#14  Mea Culpa.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-10-04 18:17  

#13  You've misread the hints, g(r)omgoru. I grew up in a blue collar family of people who built things with their hands, hunted, fished and worked in the day to day world.

OTOH I do have education including through the doctoral level. My research is in a science area and I currently manage some basic science research, including decisions about what research to fund and why.

You'll forgive me then if I say that it's quite likely I'm at least as familiar as you are with how research topics are chosen, vetted, funded and results published.

Maybe even a little more familiar. And yes, my research area draws on neuroscience as well as several other foundational disciplines. It's not my specialty but I'm familiar with some parts of the scholarly literature and the state of research questions and results in the field.

FWIW
Posted by: lotp   2009-10-04 18:15  

#12  (a) Lotp, it's not the biochemical effects of the candy, it's the parents who take the easy way---producing offspring who'll grow up to take the easy way (genes + eviro). Which, under proper circumstances translates into criminality.

(b) That said, there is a fair amount of recent neuroscience that demonstrates the effects of nutrition and certain early habitual experiences on brain structure and function.

Lotp (going by the hint's you've dropped over the years) you grew in academic community. Well, things have changed since then. Research, both scientific and scholastic, is no longer a vocation---it's a profession. And, because of the explosion of knowledge, it's no longer a profession where one's colleagues in the same institution are capable of evaluating one's competence directly. That is, it's a profession whose major component is salesmanship.
Now, let us consider a hypothetical case. What is more likely to gain one recognition, grants, etc....
(i) Investigating an issue whose importance is clear to, say, 5 people worldwide.
(ii) Providing evidence (it doesn't have to be a very strong evidence: cf. Global Worming) that some common dietary component is injurious to "the children".
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-10-04 17:05  

#11  This article is from Iran.... All us EVIL candy eating Americans!
Posted by: Chandler   2009-10-04 13:42  

#10  That's why my children always had Diet Coke (later Coke Zero) with their breakfast Whiskey-and-Coke. Cuz that's what good parenting is all about..."for the chilruns"
Posted by: Frank G   2009-10-04 12:47  

#9  My wife has a degenerative eye disease, she's near blind.
Last night we were eating out, she needed help and a 12 (Or so) Year old black kid came to her aid unasked. I made a point of congratulating his parents in his hearing, told them they had raised an outstanding young man, and I meant every word.
They should be very proud of him.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-10-04 11:16  

#8  ;-) Parabellum

I suspect that what's really bad here is not the candy and chips per se but rather that they are eaten instead of foods containing nutrients that are critically important for proper development.
Posted by: lotp   2009-10-04 10:49  

#7  
"Candy use"?

I'm picturing a little kid with a Hershey Kiss, a spoon, a candle, and a syringe.
Posted by: Parabellum   2009-10-04 10:47  

#6  When did the distinction between correlation and causation stopped being one of the basic principles of research?

It's an important distinction that too often is forgotten, to be sure. I haven't read the underlying journal article so don't know if it is solid research or crap. The link here goes to an Iranian news service, which may not be reporting the article correctly.

That said, there is a fair amount of recent neuroscience that demonstrates the effects of nutrition and certain early habitual experiences on brain structure and function. The structures are distinct areas in the brain ... functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)has identified, for instance, that the area of the brain structure that allows us to exercise self-control differs from the area that plans/executes actions. IF the former is underdeveloped or functioning erratically, it means poor impulse control -- a key trait of many violent criminals.

Functions such as the ability to postpone immediate gratification, identify longer term consequences of actions, judge risks, take responsibility and exercise self discipline all depend on neural development and brain chemistry. Those in turn are shaped heavily by repeated experiences and by nutrition. They can be learned, but it's a catch-22 situation: if the basics aren't in place, then learning these traits is less likely and harder to do. Young brains are developing rapidly ... they either do so as a result of favorable experiences and nutrition or they are shaped by the lack of those.

Our ancestors ate far less sugars than we do, including during the critical years of brain development. So it's a reasonable research question to ask whether a diet that is very far from what we evolved to eat, or what our ancestors ate regularly, might not have significant lasting effects on the brain.
Posted by: lotp   2009-10-04 10:12  

#5  So does that make the corollary - Daily use of tax money turns Politicians [and grant studies applicants] corrupt?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-10-04 09:33  

#4  Coke and chips for breakfast. Mmm Mmm Mmm.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-10-04 08:56  

#3  When did the distinction between correlation and causation stopped being one of the basic principles of research?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-10-04 06:05  

#2  Yeah, but kids who are overfed with candy turn to become obese criminals, so, at least, they don't get to snatch your purse and run away, fat slobs. Here, fatso, help yourself with a cookie, I see that you are hungry, you hog.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2009-10-04 04:24  

#1   You may not know me but I find children absolutely wonderful - From the Movie "Silence of the Lambs"

-Jack Crawford: Just do your job, but never forget what he is.
Clarice Starling: And what is that?
[cut to Clarice's first trip to the psychiatric prison]
Dr. Frederick Chilton: Oh, he's a monster. Pure psychopath. So rare to capture one alive. From a research point of view, Lecter is our most prized asset.

Likely to work for this Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services
Posted by: Hannibal Lecter   2009-10-04 01:49  

00:00