…feed ’em Mars Bars and Snickers instead:
Children and adolescents who eat candy tend to weigh less than their non-consuming counterparts, according to a new study published in Food & Nutrition Research, a peer-reviewed journal. This is potentially important news given the current state of the childhood obesity epidemic. But lead researcher Carol O’Neil, PhD, MPH, LDN, RD, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, wants to ensure the study is put into perspective.
“The study illustrates that children and adolescents who consume candy are less likely to be overweight or obese,” O’Neil said. “However, the results of this study should not be construed as a hall-pass to overindulge. Candy should not replace nutrient-dense foods in the diet; it is a special treat and should be enjoyed in moderation.”
This is a potentially important detail: “This research project was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service through specific cooperative agreement 58-6250-6-003. Partial support was received from the USDA Hatch Project LAB 93951. Partial support was also received from the National Confectioners Association.” (And where did the study’s authors find “non-consuming counterparts,” e.g. children who don’t consume candy. I would’ve imagined that finding kids who don’t consume candy would be at least as difficult as finding men who don’t consume porn.)
More in NEWS
Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.
Well, I can tell you I had a mother who NEVER allowed candy. This was a woman who added a scoop of wheat germ to any cookie recipe (thereby rendering it completely unpalatable to a child), never bought sugar cereal (I had to ask Santa for it), and used to not add sugar to cakes because “there’s enough sugar in the frosting”. And I was a healthy weight as a child and a teen.
But the second I went to college, it was all about eating the food I was never allowed to eat at home, and when I graduated I’d gained 60 pounds. I continue to struggle with my craving for sugar, and my weight, and while it’s certainly not all my mom’s fault, I think if I’d been allowed to have it once in a while as a child it wouldn’t have been such a big deal when I got to be an adult.
Both my parents are fairly health-conscious people, and I grew up eating lots of salads and almost no fast food. Cookies and ice cream were once-every-now-and-again treats, and we didn’t eat much red meat.
I’ve now got a taste for proteinaceous, bitter, and pungent flavors, and can’t stand overly greasy or sugary foods.
I wonder how many of the parents of “non-consuming” kids are body fascists who don’t allow their kids to have any treats, and whether those kids are lying about their consumption of candy (i.e. they’re eating it at school or at their friends’ homes where they inevitably grossly overindulge because their parents are such assholes).
@2 same with me…except for the red meat part 😀 I am however 300 pounds so *gasp* the study may be right…then again most of that isn’t fat… Honestly I’ve always been more into savory and bitter than sweet.
Maybe the kids who eat candy are eating it instead of eating “healthy” stuff that’s loaded with sugar (cereals, snack cakes, etc). I mean, if that’s the case, they’re eating smaller amounts of sugar and fat than kids whose parents actually think that Pop-Tarts and Eggos are a good thing. Like how people who drink alcohol weigh less, because they indulge occasionally instead of eating shit all the time.
Perhaps the kids who don’t consume candy have been told not to BECAUSE THEY ARE FAT.
Raisins are nature’s candy!
I grew up with a kid whose parents only ever allowed her to have carob. When she was anemic as a teenager and the doctor gave her iron drops and told her to take them in chocolate milk, her parents made her take them in diluted apple juice. There are lots of kids whose parents don’t let their kids have candy, and do their best to make sure they’re not snaking some at school/camp as well. Overscheduling parents have a great ability to monitor their child’s eating for the bulk of their waking hours.
Correlation is not causation: children who are thin are not going to worry about their weight (as much) and are not going to avoid candy in the way that children who are fat might (if they’re trying to lose weight). This may or may not be what’s going on, but establishing that correlation doesn’t tell us a whole hell of a lot.
I have War of the Roses playing in my head right now. “I read that kids who are deprived of sweets and candies all the time, they get obsessed by it and they turn out to be obese. Kids who get it all the time: it’s not big deal – they turn out normal.”
Also, @7 Now, I have Daria as well. “If raisins are nature’s candy, why do they have to put chocolate on them to sell them at the movie theater?”
My background is pretty much the same as venomlash @2 plus my parents were both (still are!) physically active. So while I’ve had to address temporary weight issues when I’ve hit different metabolic points, overall I’ve been at a good HWP state most of my life and have always been very active.
I was also a kid back before food was quite processed so much. It really was something of a “rare treat” because processed foods and such weren’t prevalent or as sugar/nitrite/preservative laden as they are now.
I would also echo others that “thin” doesn’t automatically equal “healthy”. You have to have both some exercise and a healthy diet for that, not just calorie restriction.
But back to the real point of the article — I wish more studies disclosed FRONT AND CENTER who the hell was financing the study. Because that kind of thing — the candy confectioners CONVENIENTLY behind a study showing candy CONVENIENTLY “less fattening” — is awfully prevalent these days and drives me batshit.
It’s a question to ask yourself about any study these days: who commissioned/paid for it, and what steps were taken to ensure impartiality?
@7 @9: Hitler ate sugar.
And yeah, I second those saying that parents who FORBID OH NO SUGAR APOCALYPSE candy fetishize it for their kids. I never thought much about pasta either way until my mom went no-carb; now it’s an indulgence I fantasize about.
Yeah, I think if you teach kids “moderation in all things” (including wine/alcohol consumption — I got to have a small glass of wine at dinner if I wanted once I turned 13, for example) it’s a lot healthier mentally.
The study sorted “candy consumers” and “non-consumers” by asking the subject (or subject’s parents) what they ate over teh last 24-hrs. “Consumers” were those that consumed non-gum candy, “non-consumers” didn’t. I question if this measure is an accurate proxy for general candy consumption over a lifetime.
Who funded the study likely isn’t the big story here…it’s more likely that the issue is that the study was sloppy. Did it account for other eating habits? Did kids who skipped the candy binge on fruit juice or eat three peanut butter and jelly sandwiches after school every day? Was their frequency of candy consumption based on self-reporting (where kids who didn’t have weight problems might be less embarrassed to admit they eat candy than overweight kids might be)? Published conclusions of studies often seem pretty goofy when you read the actual study, and the takeaway the media reports is often even less accurate.
@6, 8: yep. Especially if the study doesn’t follow its subjects into adulthood, “Parents of overweight children deny them candy” seems likes the most obvious conclusion.
And because others are weighing in: My mom never imposed any dietary restrictions on me or my brother. She also didn’t cook and frequently brought home fast food for dinner. None of us are overweight adults. Shrug. Even crappy foods won’t make you overweight if you don’t eat too many of them.
@14, I suspected that kinda malarky. So, gum chewers weren’t considered to be eating candy? And this was only based on what they self-reported about the last 24 hours? Lord love a duck!
@14 good info. So, they ask the kids, “Did you eat any candy yesterday or today?” and the thin ones who have no guilt answer yes, and the fat ones who already feel bad about themselves answer no. The study result could as easily have been “Overweight people often under-report consumption, for various reasons”.
another bullshit piece of ‘science’ handed to us by corporate america. thanks!
But they were the best donuts …
Seriously, though, you’d be better off replacing both with their favorite fruits and vegetables, or at least nuts.
Soda is the highest risk factor in America, however.
I like @18’s read on it. My guess was the non-candy-eaters were fat-preferers… Burgers instead of candy… Fatty fried shit is way worse than jolly ranchers. But the abstract mentions same blood lipid levels in both groups. I’d be interested to read the whole paper and see what other factors they attempted to track.
Kids self-reporting candy consumption IS kinda dumb thou.
The study is based on kids’ self-reporting of their candy consumption in the previous 24 hours. Kids were classified as “non-candy consumers” if they didn’t admit eating candy in the previous 24 hours, and as “candy consumers” if they did admit to it.
My hunch is that much of the difference can be explained by the fact that fat kids are less likely to admit that they ate candy, as compared to skinny kids. Thus the fat kids who don’t admit eating candy in the previous 24 hours are classified as “non-candy consumers,” thus skewing the scale. Goodness knows when I was a fat kid I was ashamed of my junk-food consumption and did my best to keep it a secret.
Note that the authors admit what I said above @22:
“In children and adolescents, a greater degree of under-reporting has been shown as relative adiposity increased, which may have accounted for the results.”
Doesn’t really surprise me. Candy is rarely a huge component of an unhealthy lifestyle, it’s usually just a treat. Getting a small sugar fix might even steer your urges toward more reasonable food come meal time.
Yeah, this study was about consumption of ‘sugary candy’, but there’s no mention of the buckets of carbonated liquid candy that kids consume every day. I suspect that the slender kids prefer sugar candy that rots their teeth, but the fat kids got fat and are getting fatter on too-large portions, soda, and high-fat in-between-meal snacks like doritos and potato chips.
@12 and co. – I wonder what the Fashion Club would make of all those studies about diet soda.
@22, 23: I must say, that is an awesomely clever nick.
Is this a metaphor for Republicans and kinky sex?
Obesity in kids isn’t about candy or sweets, although they can contribute. Think about it this way: if you ate enough chocolate bars to become obese just from them, you’d be dead before you could become obese.
Kids are getting fat because of the “healthy” things their parents feed them — greasy, fatty food, nonstop, in huge portions. The parents might indeed limit their kids’ candy consumption, out of a genuine concern for their weight (which is ballooning), but they don’t make the connection between the things they’re eating for dinner (huge helpings of mac and cheese, spaghetti, beef, etc., with very little veggies), which they think are healthy, and the weight gain.
Also, there’s an evolutionary/biological reason kids crave candy: their brains need it to grow. I know that sounds like a joke, but it’s true. Depriving kids of candy is just demented. If you feed them healthy diets, no amount of candy will make them fat.
@2 That has to be about the smuggest comment I’ve read here in a while.