[throw1234651234]

In terms of whether these things actually make a difference in how likely a child is to seem "ADHD" - yes, really. Controlling inhibitions and not being on a constant insulin spike ride from snacking helps stay focused.

I have also had a number of friends with "ADHD" for whom the solution was "cut sugar, sleep enough, go into a room with no electronics (or a user account with nothing else installed), do some cardio".

I am not denying the existence of ADHD, but as a society, we look for shortcuts to problems that have real solutions and are therefore more likely to just pop a pill. See the sister comment, it addresses this too.

And furthermore - yes, cutting screen time in children dramatically increases their ability to focus later in life.

[astrange]

> In terms of whether these things actually make a difference in how likely a child is to seem "ADHD" - yes, really.

The reason parents are holding sugar back from kids is they think they're hyper due to a "sugar rush", which is completely placebo i.e. they're just acting like that because they heard you're supposed to.

[throw1234651234]

That's an extraordinary claim that needs a lot of evidence/support.

[astrange]

It's well known that sugar rushes aren't real.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01497...

[throw1234651234]

Interesting, this is one of those things where I was absolutely convinced that it's true and am having some cognitive dissonance reading the study.

I am not trying to move goalposts with the next statement, but I always assumed sugar has a similar effect to caffeine, in that you get a temporary boost that you pay for later. Study pointing to this quoted/linked below.

For me personally, energy drinks very much do seem to improve alertness, at the cost of crashing later. This is especially evident if drinking them two days in a row, where on the third day you absolutely have no energy left. And that's not even mentioning the absurd blood pressure spikes.

Anyway, this isn't an "argument" - I don't have one other than "that seems inconsistent with my experience." Though your own link seems to be pretty inconsistent as well*

* "Caffeine consistently improved marksman reaction time but did not improve marksmanship accuracy. However, there is some evidence that caffeine attenuates performance decrements in marksman accuracy caused by stress and fatigue if optimal dosing strategies are employed. Dosing strategies timed according to hours of wakefulness and time before testing could prevent performance deterioration. Doses of 100-200 mg every 2 hours may effectively improve accuracy during extended duty; however, further research is needed."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31045484/

* "The literature on CHO effects on cognition suggests that CHOs can improve cognitive functioning, particularly under circumstances where participants are asked to perform cognitively demanding rather than easy tasks (Mantantzis et al., 2017, Scholey et al., 2009, Sünram-Lea et al., 2002). In a similar manner, studies have found the protective effects of CHOs on mood to be more robust when participants perform demanding physical and cognitive tasks. In fact, whereas participants in control groups experience higher levels of tiredness after performing a cognitively demanding task, consumption of CHOs seems to protect subjective ratings of energy against a potential drop-off after high cognitive exertion (Benton and Owens, 1993, Owens et al., 1997). Additionally, exogenous energy supply in the form of CHOs has been shown to increase vigor and reduce fatigue under conditions of increased physical stress (Ali et al., 2017, Lieberman et al., 2002, Markus, 2007, Welsh et al., 2002) and cognitive demands (Owens et al., 1997, Smit et al., 2004). Therefore, it has been hypothesized that, similar to cognition, mood improvement following CHO administration is stronger when participants have to perform demanding cognitive or physical tasks (for a review, see Benton, 2002)."