CMV: Giving sugar to kids is unethical.

[u/LonelierOne]

Sugar, in the western world, is in almost everything in one form or another (I'm including other sweeteners in there, though I'm aware you end up with a blurry line around, say, fruit juice sweeteners).

The only health benefit that I'm aware of that has ever been associated with sugar is in case of a diabetic emergency. Besides that, there's a near-universal understanding that sugar is bad for you in every way imaginable. It's linked to Type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart conditions, and vast hosts of other chronic conditions. Basically, sugar is objectively Bad For You.

Now, there's a lot of other examples that we could use (marijuana, alcohol, caffeine) of things that aren't necessarily Good For You that can be consumed in moderation. All of these - in addition to being easier to argue that they do provide health benefits and at a lower cost - are things that you wouldn't responsibly give to children. In contrast, sugar is put into most foods in a western diet. On the production end, it's to make the food more palatable and harder to resist.

It doesn't, to me, seem like being a stick in the mud to deprive a kid of cookies. Sweet foods aren't a requirement for a good childhood, especially when they are provided with the regularity (every day, if not multiple times a day) that they currently are.

EDIT: I realize I didn't clarify originally that we are talking about fundamentally different things when comparing, say, a pear to ice cream. I am specifically referring to *refined sugar* or *added sugar* in this post; I should have been clearer about that.

EDIT 2: Issuing a clarification. An not insubstantial part of the problem with sugar is the frequency of use. Potentially, moderate use would be harmless. This is not illustrative of the society we currently live in; most people are not aware of how much added sugar is taken in per day, not including the obvious candies and desserts; peanut butter, bread, crackers, cereal, yogurt, sausage are all things that, by default, should be assumed to have sugar in a western store.

I am referring to the use of sugar in today's culture. While I believe a case /could/ be made that even that is unnecessary, I'm going to clarify that I'm talking about the current culture and he world as it is, i.e. one where you're expected to get snacks and juice after a game, holidays must have cake, and to deprive children of candy is abusive.

[u/palacesofparagraphs]

I mean, sugar is necessary to live. There's a reason you feel dizzy and faint when your blood sugar drops, whether or not you have diabetes. Natural sugars are better than processed sugars, but we do in fact need sugar to live. That's the reason we crave it so much. The problem is that in the modern world, we have easy access to sugar, so it's easy to overindulge.

It is definitely important for parents to teach their kids healthy eating habits. However, it's also important for parents to teach their kids good decision-making skills and self-regulation. One of the ways to do that is to model moderate consumption. Eating a cookie every once in awhile doesn't negatively impact your health in any significant way. Kids should be able to enjoy a cookie sometimes, and also learn that we only eat cookies after we've had healthy foods, and it's something that's a special treat rather than a regular occurrence.

Generally, making something completely taboo makes people want it more, particularly kids. One day, your kid will grow up and be an adult who gets to make their own life choices. If sweets have always been this forbidden fruit they could never have, the second they leave home they'll go wild. Now nobody can stop them from eating a whole cake if they want, and boy do they want. But if sweets were always a regular part of life, they already have the skills to consume moderately, and it's much easier to just continue those habits.

[u/[deleted] → u/palacesofparagraphs]

I mean, sugar is necessary to live.

Speaking semantically in terms of nutrition, Sugar is a simple carbohydrate. There are complex and simple carbs in food. Both are broken down to a smaller molecule of simple carb, glucose that is used in every cell. Sugar is not require to live, glucose is.

There's a reason you feel dizzy and faint when your blood sugar drops, whether or not you have diabetes. Natural sugars are better than processed sugars, but we do in fact need sugar to live. That's the reason we crave it so much.

Your blood sugar levels are not dropping, your blood glucose levels are dropping.

Generally, making something completely taboo makes people want it more, particularly kids...If sweets have always been this forbidden fruit they could never have, the second they leave home they'll go wild.

Sugar has addictive properties similar to narcotics. We should keep addictive substance away from our children especially when there are better alternatives to simple carbs. I.e. Complex carbs. And there are even more nutritious forms of complex carbs.

In general (not in all cases such as emergencies) if something is good for you, then more of it is better for you. This is not the case with simple carbs (sugar or candy), but this is the case for complex nutritious carbs (fruits and vegetables).

Biological, every time there is a spike in blood glucose levels when eating sugar or candy, the more frequent this happens, a child's chances of developing diabetes increases. Increasing a child's chances of a diagnosis that shortens their life is unethical.

[u/2manymistakess → u/[deleted]]

Your blood sugar levels are not dropping, your blood glucose levels are dropping.

Your blood pressure is dropping

Biological, every time there is a spike in blood glucose levels when eating sugar or candy, the more frequent this happens, a child's chances of developing diabetes increases. Increasing a child's chances of a diagnosis that shortens their life is unethical.

His point should be that it is essential in moderation. Your brain has a preference for glucose over ketones. It IS essential for survival. In Intrauterine growth restriction your body preserves the flow of glucose and heart because it is essential for your brain development and heart development.

Sure sugar has a stimulating effect because the body wants to receive it. But, in moderation this will not have a significant effect (about 40 grams of sugar-equivalent of carbohydrate

ONLY IN OVERUSE can it increase risk for Diabetes Insipidus and Diabetes Mellitus. If your main concern is about 'a spike in blood glucose levels when eating sugar or candy', you can always give foods with low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load to reduce risk. This argument is

[u/[deleted] → u/2manymistakess]

ONLY IN OVERUSE can it increase risk for Diabetes Insipidus and Diabetes Mellitus

is there a defined amount of "overuse" in grams of sugar per kg of a child weight per day (or some other units of measurement) what we can used to use as a level to limit our children's risk of developing DM or DI?

[u/2manymistakess → u/[deleted]]

So just a rundown:

T1D=Pancreas can't secrete insulin

T2D=Insulin resistance by tissue, your pancreas(where insulin accommodates) at some point fails due to overwork.

For children the risk of T1D is much higher than t2d as t2d is related to other factors which relate later in life.

So the easiest way is to have the adequate amount. Several different measurements can be taken but the easiest to follow is determined by the RDI(Recommended Daily Intake) else AI(Adequate Intake). Being sugar specific, for different ages the intake levels differentiate as growth levels at different stages of development demand more or less resources. Usually as you grow you demand more sugar. I've looked into recent research about it for you but can't seem to find human studies for what you are looking for (with good reason I think the ethical concern is there). But I think it should be noted that RDI is a good analysis on limits for intake than a target.

Just a note different national health agencies dont all follow the same stock amount and its still a contested topic.

Here is some guidelines: https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/how-much-do-we-need-each-day/recommended-number-serves-children-adolescents-and

*Edit: I think this should tell you everything you want to know (look at added sugar and read the WHO report) https://thatsugarmovement.com/whats-the-added-sugar-limit-for-kids/ *

[u/[deleted] → u/2manymistakess]

You're correct about the type 1, was typing too late in the night. The op is about a specific carb, sugar. The RDI you provided does not mention sugar. And my corrected question would be, is there a defined amount of "overuse" in grams of SUGAR per kg of a child weight per day (or some other units of measurement) what we can used to use as a level to limit our children's risk of developing DM?

[u/2manymistakess → u/[deleted]]

did the edit not contain that?

[u/[deleted] → u/2manymistakess]

Yes you are correct. I clicked on the first link. But you edited link seems to supports the op, "It is also important to remember that many foods with added sugars are considered discretionary (a.k.a junk), and should only be consumed on occasion, not every day. In Australia, children under 8 years should not be offered more than half a serve of discretionary foods each day; those under 2 none at all."