FX uses the scientific method better then JAMA?

U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu
Thu Dec 7 19:47:39 EST 1995

The breakfast time show on the cable channel FX today showed
something which just about every mother everywhere knows... but
apparently the editors (and peer-reviewers) of JAMA does not?

That sugar does indeed cause hyper-activity in children!

They didn't give the direct reference... but according to a doctor
on the show this morning... JAMA had published an article this week
which states that sugar has no effect on the hyper-activity of

To test this premise... the breakfast time show decided to run
their own experiment (using the scientific method).  They had two
children who had not yet eaten breakfast... one was feed a high
protein breakfast of sausage and eggs, and the other one a high
sugar breakfast of cereal and donuts.

Within 15 mins. the high sugar child was running around and
screaming; while the high protein child played nicely with her toys
and drawing.

There was a definite (obvious) difference in these two children's

Another interesting thing they showed (at the end of about an hour
and a half) was both children's drawings before and after

Both children, before breakfast, drew drawings which were focused
and detailed.  But after breakfast... the high sugar breakfast
child's drawing was just a scribble of colors; where the high
protein breakfast child's drawings remained detailed and focus.

So...  as the doctor in the program pointed out... many would
criticize this short study because it wasn't done as a blind study
(we knew which child was which and there may have been bias).

But my god... the difference was so pronounced - I really don't see
how that would matter.  It certainly shows something is going on...
and it's not what JAMA reports!

About the only question this FX breakfast time analysis failed to
go into was... exactly who paid for this study presented in JAMA
this week?  Could such a study (paper) have been funded by the
sugar industry?

How could the people at JAMA publish such an obvious false premise?

What does this tell us about the process of peer review and

And isn't it sad when a cable channel breakfast show can use the
scientific method better then the publishers of JAMA?

Just some food for thought,


More information about the Bioforum mailing list