mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
After assassinating San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, Dan White claimed his poor diet—including sugary foods and sodas—increased his depression and ultimately caused him to become homicidal. This strategy, dubbed The Twinkie Defense, convinced the jury to convict White of voluntary manslaughter instead of first-degree murder (ironically Mr. White ate Twinkies in court, though some testified he enjoyed Ho-Hos and Ding Dongs).
Many consider The Twinkie Defense as much of a joke today as it was in 1979. But a recent study by British researchers suggests that children who eat chocolate or sweets daily are more likely to turn into violent adults.
The researchers from Cardiff University looked at data from the 1970s British Cohort Survey. This longitudinal study followed 17,500 children, and the researchers looked at information about the participants at age 5, 10 and 34. Simon Moore and his colleagues discovered that 69 percent of people who were violent at 34 ate sugary treats almost daily when they were 10.
The researchers have a more practical perspective than the experts who pioneered The Twinkie Defense. “Our favoured explanation is that giving children sweets and chocolate regularly may stop them learning how to wait to obtain something they want. Not being able to defer gratification may push them towards more impulsive behaviour, which is strongly associated with delinquency,” Moore says.
Comments (12)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
I wonder what the operational definition of ‘violent’ was in the study…?
posted by Pink Coat on 10-21-2009 at 5:12 pm
“Simon Moore and his colleagues discovered that 69 percent of people who were violent at 34 ate sugary treats almost daily when they were 10.”
What percentage of non-violent people, age 34, also ate sugary treats daily when they were 10? (Tried to look this up but my institution does not subscribe to this journal.)
posted by Teri on 10-21-2009 at 5:22 pm
I agree with you, Teri. This study is definitely lacking. These researchers are quick to draw conclusions.
reCaptcha: anywhere 24
It sounds like a TV show.
posted by Tdl on 10-21-2009 at 6:51 pm
Maybe no one mentioned to these researchers that correlation does not equal causation… My favorite example being the correlation between rates of violent acts and ice cream sales, where the culprit is more likely rising temperatures.
It seems like could be a chance that upbringing has something to do with both a child’s diet and adult violence later in life.
posted by Celare on 10-21-2009 at 7:11 pm
In what world do kids only want sweets? My kids want to play the Wii all day long, to wear their favorite shirt when it’s dirty, to play outside instead of doing their homework…there are many ways teach delaying gratification aside from denying your child a sweet treat. The researchers’ “favored explanation” is oversimplified.
posted by Jen Sweeney on 10-21-2009 at 7:37 pm
Or perhaps kids who are violent tended to have crappy parents, who let them eat sweets on a daily basis. In which case its much more likely that the crappy parenting is behind their violence than their food choices. This is silly.
posted by Ryan on 10-21-2009 at 8:01 pm
I’d read somewhere that the notion of a ‘Twinkie Defense’ was a bit of a misnomer. To wit, White claimed that his diet was a symptom of his depression, not the cause of it.
posted by Sean on 10-21-2009 at 11:30 pm
The Straight Dope actually addressed this. I linked to it.
posted by Sean on 10-21-2009 at 11:33 pm
I think the article is very interesting. As a teacher, you notice how diet affects their learning abilities, so this could be plausible. But like anything else there are other environmental factors that influence the behavior.
posted by Colleen on 10-22-2009 at 6:56 am
Someone asked what the percentage of adults who ate sugar every day at age 10 and were violent at 34–the authors say 42 percent of 34 year-old people who didn’t eat sugar daily were violent. They do also admit that they need to do more research to understand the relationship between sugar and violence.
posted by Meghan Holohan on 10-22-2009 at 8:19 am
You skeptics are quick to dismiss that study. Don’t ignore the reality that sugars aren’t really good for anything, and if they do increase violent behavior, that’d be just another reason against sugar consumption amongst a long list of others.
posted by Joel on 10-22-2009 at 9:12 am
What about the fact that, depressed or not, he committed the crime? Is this man not an adult? What about the fact that the jury bought it as a viable excuse? What were THEY eating?
posted by dso on 10-25-2009 at 1:24 pm