3 ms·

From the beginning of the article... > Although previous studies have found an increased risk of depression with higher consumption of added sugars, none exami

From the beginning of the article... > Although previous studies have found an increased risk of depression with higher consumption of added sugars, none examined the role of ‘reverse causation’. If people with anxiety and/or depression tended to consume more sugary foods and drinks, this could be the real reason why a link between sugar intake and poorer mental health is observed. Although the study looked for this link, it was not seen in the data: men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar. As a result, the evidence that mental health is adversely affected by a high sugar intake is strengthened.

QuercusMax 9y ago
Mental disorders are also correlated with sleep problems; sleep-deprived brains often crave sugar. This might also be another avenue for causation.
- boombip 9y ago
  > This might also be another avenue for causation. If people with mental disorders were more sleep-deprived and then consumed more sugar, wouldn't that also show up in the data? > Although the study looked for this link, it was not seen in the data: men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar. A causal A > B > C link would look similar (data-wise) to a A > C link.
  - tylerhou 9y ago
    Not if A => B for only a small population of A. But in that case, you still might see a C => A link.
Regist 9y ago
That really doesn't mean much. Let group S be sugar eaters. Let group A be all people w/o mental disorders. Let group B be all people w/ mental disorders. We have the main correlation between sugar and mental disorder: p[A/S] <= p[B/S] Using bayes rule: p[A]p[S/A] <= p[B]p[S/B] We also have "men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar": p[S/A] >= p[S/B] Comparing the inequalities gives us: p[A] <= p[B] So you're more likely to have a mental dissorder than not according to this study???
- hexane360 9y ago
  >p[A/S] <= p[B/S] This doesn't follow. Just because mental disorders are correlated with sugar doesn't mean that most sugar eaters have mental disorders.

QuercusMax 9y ago

Mental disorders are also correlated with sleep problems; sleep-deprived brains often crave sugar. This might also be another avenue for causation.

boombip 9y ago
> This might also be another avenue for causation. If people with mental disorders were more sleep-deprived and then consumed more sugar, wouldn't that also show up in the data? > Although the study looked for this link, it was not seen in the data: men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar. A causal A > B > C link would look similar (data-wise) to a A > C link.
- tylerhou 9y ago
  Not if A => B for only a small population of A. But in that case, you still might see a C => A link.

Regist 9y ago

That really doesn't mean much. Let group S be sugar eaters. Let group A be all people w/o mental disorders. Let group B be all people w/ mental disorders. We have the main correlation between sugar and mental disorder: p[A/S] <= p[B/S] Using bayes rule: p[A]p[S/A] <= p[B]p[S/B] We also have "men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar": p[S/A] >= p[S/B] Comparing the inequalities gives us: p[A] <= p[B] So you're more likely to have a mental dissorder than not according to this study???

hexane360 9y ago
>p[A/S] <= p[B/S] This doesn't follow. Just because mental disorders are correlated with sugar doesn't mean that most sugar eaters have mental disorders.