Dblade –

Ray, the problem is that if you get any detailed set of data, you can find correlations for different things.

Sometimes those correlations are statistical flukes. And sometimes they’re real. That’s why I suggested, y’know, followup research.

Are you prepared to say that this correlation is illusory? How much are you willing to bet?

I think when a system gets complex enough, interactions can’t be reduced to single effects.

At what point did I say that there was only one single factor in obesity, or anything?

Heck, you can even just tell someone something via the placebo effect and find variances. I think when a system gets complex enough, interactions can’t be reduced to single effects.

Indeed, I went and looked at least at the abstract of the study in question. It argues against your hypothesis already: Diet quality was determined using the Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005)… Mean HEI-2005 score was not different in total candy and sugar candy consumers as compared to non-consumers, but was significantly lower in chocolate candy consumers (46.7±0.8 vs 48.3±0.4, p=0.0337).

So, there didn’t seem to be a significant difference in diet otherwise between kids eating candy and those that didn’t. If it’s parental control that’s restricting candy consumption in obese kids, then candy is apparently the only area they’re doing that. Indeed, the abstract states that “Total candy consumers had higher intakes of total energy (2248.9 kcals±26.8 vs 1993.1 kcals±15.1, p<0.0001) and added sugars (27.7 g±0.44 vs 23.4 g±0.38, p<0.0001) than non-consumers." – i.e. the kids eating candy actually did consume more calories than the kids who weren’t. Yet the kids eating candy were noticeably less likely to be obese.

Right now we have a datapoint that indicates that the relationship between candy consumption and obesity is regressive. Quite possibly consumption of candy really does have a previously-unsuspected beneficial effect. Consider the positive effects that have been found arising from (moderate) consumption of alcohol – it’s hardly impossible.

Maybe it’s not affecting metabolism so much as it’s the way candy is served – in bite-size pieces – which leads to kids ‘feeling full’ faster than if they eat a bowl of ice cream. If so, that would offer a way to retrain obese kids with a sweet tooth to satisfy their hankering in a more desirable way.

As Isaac Asimov put it, “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I’ve found it!), but ‘That’s funny…’”

The point is, this study actually does point out something contrary to what most people would expect. I guess you can assume that has no practical relevance… but it didn’t take me much effort to come up with what I think are interesting followup questions that should be addressed by further study.

(Recall the study Joe linked to before (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/05/06/how-contraceptives-are-like-polygamy/) where even Dr. Barr chided him for apparently expecting a study to answer all questions at once?)

But again, the idea that this study was needed to prompt some kind of investigation into the either the causes of childhood obesity, or the effects of sugar on the body, seems ludicrous. And if this study wasn’t needed to prompt such investigations, then I don’t see how my comment that such things are “useless” is effectively disputed by your pointing out that sometimes such population studies can be used to raise possibilities. Of course they can sometimes, but this is not an example of one of those times; if it’s utterly superfluous for the purpose, then “useless” seems as good a word as any.

Are are you seriously proposing that there was no scientifically established reason for studying the effect of sugar on kids until the study was published in the latest issue of Food and Nutrition Research????

Nope.

I was suggesting that this study points out an interesting correlation that cries out for an investigation of causation.

You, for example, have put forth a hypothesis – that (at least a significant portion of) parents who don’t think their children are obese allow their kids to eat candy, and parents who think their kids are already obese don’t allow them to eat candy. A properly-designed followup study could check this hypothesis.

There are other potential explanations – perhaps a natural appetite for concentrated doses of sugar is associated with less desire for fatty foods (like, say, french fries). Or perhaps it’s associated with a tendency to eat more vegetables. In any case, studying just the “effect of sugar on kids” wouldn’t tease out such a ‘tuning of the tastebuds’.

I said we already knew it was *worth studying* what effect sugar has on kids.

Are are you seriously proposing that there was no scientifically established reason for studying the effect of sugar on kids until the study was published in the latest issue of Food and Nutrition Research????

In this case, the conclusion isn’t just a total slam-dunk. This study offers good evidence that sugar, even in concentrated doses, isn’t an automatic ticket to obesity. That’s actually contrary to the expectations of a lot of people these days.

except the value of the resulting published paper to the person in quest of either a PhD or his publishing quota for tenure? THAT’s why studies like this get done.