response 1 of 14:

Jun 16 08:19 UTC 2001

Myth Number One: "Don't give Sheldon that candy- sugar makes him so 
hyper!"

May parents and teachers report that childrens' consumption of sugar 
results in hyperactivity. But the empirical research is clear: 
consumption of sugar has no effect on children's behavior as rated by 
objective observers (Milich, Wolraich, and Lindgren 1986). So why are 
parents and teachers convinced it has such devastating effects? They 
are not aware of the need to *control for covariates." A covariate is 
another variable that is associated with the variable of interest, in 
this case sugar consumption, but that might be as noticeable. What 
variables might be overlooked by parents and teachers in judging the 
effects of sugar? Well, think about the situations in which children 
eat a lot of sugar, like birthday parties and Halloween- these are 
situations that are likely to excite children.

There's another possible covariate too. Children whose parents don't 
restrict sugar at all, letting their children eat whatever they want 
whenever they want it, are also more likely to let their children run 
wild in other ways. And parents who restrict sugar (it is bad for your 
teeth, after all) are also more likely to teach self-restraint and 
obedience. But we often see the child without seeing the parenting. So 
we see an association between the sugar and the behavior, instead of an 
association between parenting style and behavior.

response 3 of 14:

Jun 16 08:37 UTC 2001

Myth Number Three: "Tanisha is just immature. If we have her repeat 
first grade, she'll do better in school."

Many parents and teachers are convinced that some children are too 
young or too immature for their grade placement, and that retention 
will help them catch up. But the empirical research indicates the 
opposite- retention not only has no long-term benefits, it can actually 
harm children emotionally (Jimerson, et al. 1997). In fact, children 
rate retention as the third most horrible thing they can imagine 
happening to them- after losing a parent and going blind (Yamamoto, et 
al. 1987). So why are parents and teachers convinced that it is 
helpful? Lack of long-term followup and lack of a control group. In 
most cases, a teacher judges the outcome of retention the next year, 
when the child is actually repeating the same grade. At that point, the 
child may be doing well academically. But the following year, when the 
child starts to fall behind again, the teacher isn't following up any 
more. And the parent says, "Well, the retention helped for a while, but 
now we need to try something else." And without a comparison to 
children who weren't retained, it's hard to see the benefits of 
promotion- and the costs of retention.

response 5 of 14:

Jun 16 08:54 UTC 2001

Myth Number Five: "I was spanked as a kid and I turned out okay."

Many parents and teachers are convinced that occasional spanking is 
necessary, or at least not harmful. But the empirical research 
indicates that, while most children who are spanked do turn out all 
right, children who are not spanked do better, and for a significant 
minority of children, spanking is harmful and abusive (Hyman 1990; 
Straus, Sugarman, and Giles-Sims 1997). So why are parents and teachers 
convinced? They aren't aware of the necessity of an appropriate 
comparison group. They look at their own experience without 
considering "what would I have been like if I hadn't been spanked as a 
child?" Of course, children can't be exactly equated. But when you 
randomly select large groups of children, you can compare the groups 
and draw some conclusions. As a group, children who are never spanked 
are in better shape psycholgically- they are less likely to be 
aggressive or depressed later in life. There is even some evidence that 
they may be smarter (Straus and Paschall undated). Of course, we don't 
know if parents who spank are different in other ways from parents who 
don't- they might reason verbally with their children instead of 
spanking, or be more educated overall. The only way to directly test 
the effects of just spanking would be to randomly assign children to be 
spanked- and we couldn't ethically do that.

response 7 of 14:

Jun 16 09:21 UTC 2001

Myth Number Seven: "We're in the middle of an ADHD epidemic! Ten to 
twenty percent of all children should be on Ritalin!"

This myth is the converse of the above. Because there is no objective 
test for ADHD, actually diagnosing it can be tricky. Many pediatricians 
diagnose ADHD based on a short office visit and good response to a 
trial of Ritalin (Copeland, et al. 1987). This process overlooks many 
common problems that can mimic ADHD, including depression, anxiety, 
medication side effects, abuse, lead poisoning, hearing impairment and 
more. True, ADHD isn't caused by bad parenting, but children from a 
chaotic home may never have learned to focus and pay attention. Making 
the diagnosis based on a good response to Ritalin can be especially 
dangerous, since some of the disorders that mimic ADHD can be made 
worse (including tic disorders and anxiety disorders).

In addition, since Ritalin is a stimulant, it can improve performace in 
*anyone* who takes it, and up to 30 percent of children properly 
diagnosed with ADHD do not have a positive response (Barkley 1998). The 
diagnosis of ADHD is as much a process of ruling everything else out as 
it is a process of identifying ADHD. We don't really know if there is a 
physical difference in the brain wiring or chemical makeup of a child 
with ADHD; we just rule out every other possible cause of the 
inattention, impulsivity, and the hyperactivity. So if a child gets a 
diagnosis of ADHD from a professional who has only seen the child 
briefly, or if a physician suggests trying Ritalin "just to see if it 
works," or if a well-meaning teacher says that she "knows" a child has 
ADHD because she's seen it so many times, a parent should remain 
skeptical and request a comprehensive evauluation. And even if a full 
evaluation identifies a child as having ADHD, a rush to Ritalin isn't 
necessarily called for.

response 9 of 14:

Jun 16 12:54 UTC 2001

ADHD can also be mimiced by chemical intolerance.  We had Damon tested at
Child Physc when he was 3.5 because of behavioral problems.  Not ADHD, just
boredom.  We had been treating him like an intellegent 3 year but
developmentally he was around 5-6.  When he started school at public school
in the second half of 1st grade we started having problems again.  Second
grade was particularly bad and ADHD with Ritalin was suggested.  I told them
no way it had to be something else and refused to have him put on any drugs
just because the teacher couldn't cope.

This was re-enforced when he started 3rd grade with no problems.  When the
school called one day to have me come and deal with this child that is out
of control STeve put two and two together.  The previous week or so had been
extremely hectic at home and I had gone from cooking from scratch to
pre-packaged foods.  We went back to from scratch and the out of control
behavior went away.  (The period of the testing was also bad cooking time as
Staci had just been born.)  This was just before Winter break so during break
we did some experimenting.  Within a matter of hours of ingesting food
containing artificial ingredients, particularlly red dyes, Damon would go
completely out of control.  It would take between 12-48 hrs to come back to
his normal happy self.

Almost every episode of control problems since then can be traced straight
back to artificial color, artificial flavor or preservatives in something he
ate.  We have talked to him about the problem since discovering it and he
stated that he knew he was out of control, didn't like being out of control,
but that no matter how hard he tried to get back into control he just
couldn't.  It was like someone outside him had taken over and was pulling the
strings, and he couldn't cut them loose.

Chemicals aren't always the answer, sometimes they are the problem.

response 11 of 14:

Jun 20 11:24 UTC 2001

We just sorted it out for ourselves.  We shop at the Co-op and Whole Foods
mostly, though we have added Hiller's to the main list.  We cook almost
everything from scratch.  It wasn't too big a deal since that was the way we
did things at home when I was a kid.  The only problems we run into are when
I get to tied up with things like evening classes.

Damon is now 17 and pretty much monitors things himself.  We have taught him
how to read labels and say "No thank you" and to add "I am allergic" if
pushed.

It is amazing how many simple things have dyes and artificial flavors in them.

response 13 of 14:

Jun 21 05:26 UTC 2001

Hillers?

We're having a bit of trouble with the guys, around "self monitoring"- they're
8 and 11, and don't always recognize when they're having a reaction to a poor
food choice, rather than the world being obnoxious.  They really want to eat
school breakfast and lunch, and assured me that they had found enough "safe"
food there.  Somehow, I doubt that. But I hate to be on their cases all the
time, about what's ultimately a personal choice. <sigh>