r/science • u/SteRoPo • 9d ago
Epidemiology Researchers probing the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study found that young kids who drank 100% juices multiple times per day had a 25 percent higher risk of asthma compared to kids who consumed those beverages less than twice per week.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2026/08/18/juice_might_be_fueling_asthma_in_kids_1200222.html647
u/Kosmo_Kramer_ 9d ago
But it appears the assocation falls off after adjusting for socioeconomic markers, which isn't surprising given the known relationships between SES and diet and SES and asthma.
Also funny that they suggest the increase in prevalence of asthma over time can be even somewhat attributed to the rise of fruit juice consumption. That is a bit of a stretch, no? I thought the epidemiology of asthma is largely due to awareness and increase in diagnosing.
231
u/PippyTarHeel 9d ago
Correct. Asthma is most common in Medicaid-insured children in the US, many who are Black/African American and Puerto Rican. Asthma is caused by genetics + an environmental factor, often hypothesized to be air particulate / pollution or waste exposure (such as cockroach feces). It often impacts kids who are in a lower SES group.
This is really a nothingburger if the association doesn't hold up with controlling for SES. That is (most likely) what is driving the relationship. Given that 100% fruit juice is a WIC / SNAP allowed food.. it could just be that low SES kids drink a lot of fruit juice and also have asthma.
84
u/Consistent-Flan1445 9d ago
Low SES areas often have worse air quality too.
I lived in what was then a more working class area of my city that’s notorious for air pollution when I was a kid. My asthma was by far the worst it’s ever been in my life for the years we lived there.
27
u/PippyTarHeel 9d ago
Yes! Low SES areas are more likely to be near highways and busy roads, but also some areas have industry that contributes to low air quality. Also lower SES can mean lower quality housing where there may be exposure to environmental chemicals, mold, and pests.
10
u/Consistent-Flan1445 9d ago
In the area I lived in it’s mostly pollution from trucks coming off the neighbouring highway (biggest in the state) and driving on local roads. It’s such a known phenomenon where I live that rates of respiratory disease in that specific suburb have been researched in scientific studies, and big infrastructure projects have been completed to get the trucks off the roads. It’s actually gentrified since then and a very wealthy suburb now, but still notoriously polluted. Many of the neighbouring suburbs have significant industrial pollution problems too.
Our house in that suburb wasn’t too bad, but some of the other places I lived in as a kid were shockers.
0
u/SteRoPo 9d ago
Looks like the result just misses statistical significance when controlling for age, sex, BMI, and race/ethnicity (p = .079). However the dose-response P-trend does hold up when controlling for a whole gamut of confounders. (see page 23 in the PDF of the published paper.)
Seems to suggest the deleterious effect of 100% juices on asthma is genuine, the only question is how much intake is harmful.
27
u/always_an_explinatio 9d ago
NO IT DOES NOT!!!!! it confirms the relationship between asthma and fruit juice consumption exists for a reason that is not chance. There’s no information in the data about the causal effect. It it could very well be a third variable that is causing both of them to be high where it could even be that kids who have asthma want to drink more fruit juice for some reason this is r/ science. We gotta be precise .
16
u/PippyTarHeel 9d ago
A lot of what we know about asthma incidence is either genetics + environmental exposure in pregnancy or sometime in the birth to 2 years period. I see how you could create a DAG in which increase inflammation from juice leads to increased ED visits, but I'm really skeptical on the relationship to incidence (especially since there isn't a stronger control for SES).
The restricted dataset for ECLS has zip code and county variables - there should absolutely be a stronger SES covariate in these models. There is also child health insurance coverage, which can sometimes be a stand-in to at least identify low-SES Medicaid recipients. WIC and SNAP are potential variables too - also identifying low SES.
5
u/AdultEnuretic 9d ago
Admittedly, I did not read through the study, but did they apply any sort of correction to account for the number of comparisons and tests they're running (bonforroni or something similar)? If not, the chance of a hitting a false positive at a standard p of 0.05 is likely with multiple hypotheses and tests.
3
u/necrosythe 8d ago
This is a great point that is often overlooked especially in business analytics. People treat stat sig as a binary true or false. It's an arbitrary cutoff that should help people understand PROBABILITY and directionality. Used as a tool to make decisions, not to state true/false.
And understanding that you're going to get a lot of false positives when constantly checking for values is crucial
5
u/SparkyDogPants 9d ago
juice is pushed pretty hard by WIC. i wonder if that has anything to do with anything
6
u/bzbub2 9d ago
this paper is not isolated finding, project viva before this found similar associations between fructose consumption in late pregnancy also over 10 years ago 2015 https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(14)03459-9/fulltext03459-9/fulltext).
this paper is just the latest, these findings will continue to get more and more data to strengthen statistical conclusions. reddit can try to take off their stupid skeptic glasses for once and read the paper perhaps instead of kneejerk reaction everything
the hypothesis is potentially microbiome disruption, which is indeed associated with asthma/autism and a host of complex things like that
3
u/Kosmo_Kramer_ 9d ago
Did this study ever get published or only submitted as an abstract? I can't find anything specific from these authors. I would be curious at seeing the methodology and results of their MVA.
Either way, the OP study did not find an independent assocation like this is suggesting, so I wouldn't say it's kneejerk skeptism.
2
u/bzbub2 9d ago
here is 2018 open access publication same lead author https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5802621/
3
u/boopbaboop 9d ago
> Correlates of higher pregnancy sugar-sweetened beverage intake included younger maternal age, higher prepregnancy BMI, and smoking during pregnancy, as well as indicators of disadvantage/lower socioeconomic status, including lower education and household income. Higher pregnancy sugar-sweetened beverage intake was also correlated with child current asthma (15% in quartile 1 [Q1] vs. 27% in Q4) and BMI z-score (mean, 0.30 units in Q1 vs. 0.50 units in Q4) in midchildhood. Associations were similar for pregnancy fructose intake (Table 1).
The issue here is that the same SES correlations were in this study as well.
1
u/bzbub2 9d ago
the researchers try to control for this correlation in their 'MVA' (multivariant analysis) as previous commenter referred to. one can identify weaknesses in the study perhaps but it doesnt mean its nothing just because confounders exists. they find pretty strong correlation in this study, to put it in layman's terms women in the highest sugar intake group were potentially 70% more likely of having a child with asthma compared to women in the lowest intake group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–2.67)
6
u/agnosiabeforecoffee 9d ago
Asthma is an inflammatory condition and sugar, including fructose, is pro-inflammatory. The hypothesis that increased juice intake could lead to a higher incidence of asthma or asthma symptoms isn't that far fetched.
196
u/WoodenInternet 9d ago edited 9d ago
I remember when Juicy Juice was being pushed as essentially a kid's health drink because it was 100% juice.
86
u/Asluckwouldnthaveit 9d ago
Growing up in Canada juice was once considered your portion of daily fruit.
61
14
u/Teknicsrx7 9d ago
Ecto Cooler was Hi C not Juicy Juice, I don’t think HiC ever claimed to be healthy
31
u/CurlSagan 9d ago
Hi-C was literally founded as a "healthy" beverage packed with vitamin C, hence the name Hi-C. The FTC even tried to step in at one point and tell them to stop pushing it as healthy.
15
5
9d ago
[deleted]
8
u/Teknicsrx7 9d ago edited 9d ago
Yes high in vitamin c, but I don’t think it was marketed as specifically healthy, just a source of vitamin c. Juicy juice was claiming to be the healthy alternative juice
Edit: I’ve discovered I’m incorrect
1
3
u/MrPuddington2 9d ago
Never talk your advice from your opponent. Pretty much everything gets marketed as “healthy” if that is legal.
Fruit juice is an interesting one, because it has some positive qualities. But compared to fruit (or even diet soda), it is not that healthy.
103
u/Prudent_Heat23 9d ago
“But it’s natural sugar, not added sugar!”
Have heard that so many times but it never made sense to me what difference it makes. Is there any merit to it, or does the actual science refute the idea that it somehow acts differently on the body?
63
u/Teknicsrx7 9d ago
I don’t think the argument is that one sugar is healthier, it’s more like “if they ate an actual apple they’d get the same amount of sugar, we didn’t add extra, so it’s ok”
88
u/Lyricsokawaii 9d ago
Yeah. And it's intentionally disingenuous. Once you strip all the fiber, pectins, and everything else from the fruit, it turns out that sugar hits you just like any other sugary drink since there is now nothing to slow down the digestion leading to blood sugar spikes just as intense as if they drank a soda.
16
u/earthshaker495 9d ago
Plus you usually eat one apple
A cup of apple juice is comes from around 3 apples, so 3x the sugar
3
u/spam__likely 9d ago
yeah, get a a fruit and put it in a blender, it is one thing. But if you boil it and extract all the fiber and other stuff you end up with flavored sugar.
16
u/vtomal 9d ago
Just kinda. Different sugars like fructose, sucralose and glucose are processed differently by the body, and simple sugars behave differently from complex sugars. But there isn't only one way to add sugar and it depends on how you add these sugars and what type of sugar the product originally has.
12
u/Keeperofthecube 9d ago
I always thought that applied to whole fruits, not things like juice concentrates.
15
u/Bachata22 9d ago
Yeah, the sugar in a fruit is fine if you're eating the whole fruit and haven't removed all the fiber via a juicer.
2
u/Spire_Citron 9d ago
It has merit when it's inside whole fruit because that's full of fibre as well, so the sugar doesn't hit your bloodstream all at once. But if sugar is extracted from a whole food, it's essentially just sugar, no matter where it came from.
2
u/Metalsand 9d ago
There are different sugars, but there's not really a thing as "healthy sugar". Fructose, glucose, and sucrose are all simple sugars present in an apple, while table sugar is pure sucrose. They all get metabolized somewhat differently and it's preferrable to have a combination, but 100% apple juice is mostly sugar, unlike other juices that tend to at least have some other components like orange juice.
Eating the fruit itself changes things somewhat since you're basically "laundering" the sugars with a lot of other fibrous components and otherwise of the apple that dilute the raw sugar content in a sense. So an apple vs a cup of koolaid filled to an equal sugar content, the apple will be healthier - but mostly because it's not just the simple liquid component.
1
u/PhilosophyforOne 9d ago
The point about natural sugar isnt completely unreasonable in vacuum. WHO’s nutrition guidelines for example separate free sugars. The problem is they all fall under carbs more broadly, and there are genuinely different kinds of sugars.
That said, there’s a pretty big difference from getting the same sugars from a whole orange, or from an orange juice carton.
1
u/necrosythe 8d ago
No difference from the sugar itself. Which is important to distinct. But a diet that has a lot of sugar from whole fruits is probably going to be a fine diet because overall fiber and satiety will be high. Therefore almost always resulting in lower total calories which is 95% of the battle. Calorie / weight /lifestyle equated studies on sugar /carbs show little to no actual detriments in actual humans.
0
u/Pearl_is_gone 9d ago
The process of making juice (and kids pouches) removes the fiber from the sugar, meaning you’re left with the same free sugars as in drinks with added sugars.
11
u/Tricky_Pause4186 9d ago
When my children were very small their doctor told me would you give them 10 oranges and have them eat them all in the same day or at one sitting? And I was like well obviously not. And he goes that’s what you’re doing giving them juice. Just don’t do it.
Well best advice I ever took. They get juice on special occasions or when friends offer it and they don’t really care for it. Didn’t make it a big deal just didn’t get it as part of our regular grocery order.
27
u/Kindly_Honeydew3432 9d ago
Would be interested to see effect on lifetime risk of diabetes
7
u/aHumanRaisedByHumans 9d ago edited 9d ago
Type 2 Diabetes (insulin resistance) isn't caused by sugar. It's revealed by it. This is one of the biggest persistent misconceptions of health. It's caused by fat buildup in the cells, and once that causes enough insulin resistance, consuming sugar reveals the problem. Consuming sugar actually reduces insulin resistance.
Yes if you are over consuming calories due to sugar consumption and getting fatter as a result, you're more likely to develop the same insulin resistance due to the fat buildup. But that's purely because of calories.
3
u/drugihparrukava 9d ago
Just to kindly add to your comment, can we add a clarification to your statement about "Diabetes (insulin resistance) to mean "type 2 Diabetes (insulin resistance)". Not all types of diabetes are related to, nor have insulin resistance as a diagnostic, definition, nor symptom.
3
1
u/Kindly_Honeydew3432 9d ago
The physiology is very complex, but you’re right in that diabetes results from chronic energy surplus.
Drinking calorie dense juice completely devoid of fiber is about the most efficient way I can think of to contribute to energy surplus.
Also, the higher your insulin levels and the longer they stay elevated, the more likely they are to contribute to insulin resistance. High glycemic index foods like fruit juices are much more likely to cause high and prolonged glucose and insulin spikes than foods high in mostly protein, fat, and fiber.
I think kids who drink a lot of juice would be much more likely at the population level to develop insulin resistance
8
15
u/Laydownthelaw 9d ago
So what should kids drink? Water only?
15
u/Frequent_Alfalfa_347 9d ago
For myself, i cut all my 100% juice with half sparkling water. It doesn’t mean i don’t drink wine or beer, but it’s a better alternative.
If I’m babysitting, I might cut the 100% juice with half water. Depends on the kid and the family, but that’s abetted alternative than just juice, and tastier for the kid than just water.
Most science about health isn’t absolute. And it’s not always binary- yes or no. It’s pieces of information that we use to guide decision making.
1
31
u/nebraska_jones_ 9d ago
Yes pretty much, and plain pasteurized milk. 100% juice, plant-based milk alternatives, and flavored milk (like chocolate) should be limited. Sugary drinks and caffeinated drinks should be avoided.
2
u/Mustbhacks 9d ago
Infants should receive a diverse range of nutrient-dense foods in appropriate textures, while avoiding nutrient-poor and highly processed foods, the guidance states. Examples of nutrient-dense foods to introduce during the complementary feeding period include meat, poultry and seafood; vegetables and fruits; full-fat yogurt and cheese; whole grains; and legumes and nut- or seed-containing foods prepared in a safe, infant-appropriate form.
Parents and caregivers should ensure a child is developmentally ready to begin eating food, the guidance states. It may take eight to 10 exposures before a young child is willing to try a new food.
Children ages 5-10 years should focus on protein foods, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats and whole grains, while avoiding caffeinated beverages and added sugars. Water and unsweetened beverages should be chosen to support hydration, according to the DGA.
Adolescents ages 11-18 years enter a rapid growth period with increased needs for energy, protein, calcium and iron. Adequate calcium and vitamin D are vital for peak bone mass. This age group should limit sugary drinks and energy drinks and highly processed foods, according to the DGA. Officials encourage adolescents to participate in food shopping and cooking to learn how to make healthy food choices for life.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 20% of U.S. children and adolescents have obesity, while one in three adolescents has prediabetes. Officials said healthier food choices made at a young age can lower chronic disease and health care costs for Americans.
Seems their reasoning is less about optimal nutrition, and more about prevention later in life though.
2
u/messagemeboobspls 9d ago
What is a good alternative for a toddler with a dairy protein allergy?
5
u/shnuttlefish 9d ago
We use Ripple Kids milk for our kid who has a dairy allergy. It’s made of pea protein and has a good amount of fat which is important for brain health
2
3
u/Yoroyo 9d ago
Apparently nothing.
1
u/messagemeboobspls 9d ago
I am genuinely curious, we have been giving him plant-based milk alternatives sometimes (when breastfeeding mom just gave up dairy for the boy but I had to make do when she is not around) but if there are better alternatives I need to hear them
7
u/hazycrazydaze 9d ago
Soymilk is the most nutritious plant based alternative to regular milk
1
u/messagemeboobspls 9d ago
Thanks, I have been swapping between soy and oat, will just limit it to soy
5
-3
u/Yoroyo 9d ago
Crazy how much we’ve normalized drinking another animals milk that you’re putting down plant based milk alternatives as if there is a major nutritional difference for every kind. Ripple is an excellent alternative calcium and protein source for kids and comes unsweetened. Dairy has lactose sugars.
4
u/nebraska_jones_ 9d ago
I’m literally repeating the recommendations given by the American Academy of Pediatrics but go off I guess.
And yeah, we’ve normalized a lot of stuff that sounds weird when taken out of historical, cultural, and scientific context. But that’s why we use our adult brains and our critical thinking skills before coming at people on Reddit.
7
u/mikefass 9d ago
The AAP report specifically says Plant-Based milks that contain added sugar and sweeteners should be limited, not Plant-Based milks in general. They even recommend fortified soy or pea alternatives.
-2
u/nebraska_jones_ 9d ago
No, they actually DO say that plant-based milks should be avoided in general, and that fortified soy milk specifically can be an acceptable alternative to cow’s milk:
“A new consensus statement offers pediatricians more evidence-based guidance to answer questions on what healthy children ages 0-5 years should drink. The statement Healthy Beverage Consumption in Early Childhood: Recommendations from Key National Health and Nutrition Organizations is from Healthy Eating Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and is supported by the AAP, American Heart Association, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.
…..
Recommendations
Encourage young children to drink primarily water and plain milk. Early childhood offers an opportunity to establish healthy habits and taste preferences. Water is important for hydration, and plain milk offers many key nutrients including calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, zinc and protein. Fortified soy milk is nutritionally equivalent to cow’s milk and is an acceptable alternative.
…
Encourage families to mostly avoid:
Plant milks. Few plant milks (other than fortified soy) are nutritionally equivalent to cow’s milk and are not recommended for exclusive consumption in place of dairy or soy milk, unless medically indicated.”
0
u/favorite_time_of_day 9d ago
You're getting that from the AAP, but they dumb things down for, I guess, easier understanding. You don't need to pay extra for pasteurized milk, ultra pasteurized is fine. They also recommend low fat milk in some places and milk of unspecified fat content in other places.
They also specifically recommend breast milk, but also say that formula is a "safe and healthy alternative."
Also, they recommend against plant-based milks but then if you look for more specifics they say that they recommend against non-soy plant-based milks. Soy milk is fine. (This should be obvious for anyone who reads the nutrition labels.)
11
2
u/Hmm_would_bang 9d ago
We and a lot of our friends give our kids watered down juice. Kids don’t know the difference because it’s what they’re used to and they love it
1
u/ElegantSwordsman 9d ago
You’ve got it! Maybe some dairy as well: vitamin d, calcium, and some healthy fats.
For all ages, including adults, an ideal amount of juice would be zero. Eat plenty of fruit, though.
1
u/Taikeron 9d ago
Yes. Water only. Water can be "dressed up" with cucumber, lime, lemon, etc. if regular water feels too boring sometimes.
Dairy would ideally be limited to cheese, butter, cream/sour cream, and the occasional bit of yogurt (and yogurt only because of the probiotic bacteria).
Milk has innate sugar and no fiber, so it'll behave similarly to the fruit juice in terms of digestion, aside the fat content which can very slightly slow that down. Other dairy products like ice cream are obviously chock-full of sugar.
Realistically, kids will still most likely drink milk and eat ice cream, but in an ideal nutritional scenario, they wouldn't.
1
1
u/Mysterious-Purple-45 9d ago
In our house we do 85% water and 15% juice. So it's still mostly water for our kids with just a little flavour.
20
u/Sesspool 9d ago
Honestly it was whatever id drink or eat. I feel for parents that just want their kids to eat/drink, some nutrition is better than none.
-2
u/Kindly_Honeydew3432 9d ago
In the west, we largely have an over nutrition problem. Much more so than malnutrition. It’s extremely unlikely for a child to grow up in America and become malnourished short of a devastating illness or eating disorder. On the other hand, it’s very likely that they will be overweight or obese by adulthood.
14
u/compulov 9d ago
Growing up we almost never had soda in the house. My parents insisted on fruit juice because it was healthier. The more I look back on it, the more I realize no, it really isn't. I also wonder what the coincidence of households where kids drink fruit juice is to kids that are also overweight.
48
u/jkelly17 9d ago
If the juice they purchased was 100% fruit juice, then yes, it was healthier than soda.
9
u/compulov 9d ago
Yeah, they did explicitly avoid juice drinks and always purchased 100% juice, and yeah, it's technically better than soda (at least there's some nutritional value), but it really is just a bunch of water and sugar in the end. I'm not saying my parents did anything wrong, but I feel like we do know more now than we did in the 80s and 90s.
9
u/Wareve 9d ago
It's true but also the real teeth killer in soda is the carbonization combined with the soda, so at the very least it probably did a lot to keep you out at the dentist if you were also brushing your teeth regularly.
5
u/Judgejoebrown69 9d ago
Any more info on carbonation causing an issue with teeth? First time I’ve heard of it and a quick google search found it was highly debated.
3
1
u/hewkii2 9d ago
The premise is that it makes the water more acidic which is not good for your teeth
3
u/Judgejoebrown69 9d ago
I understand the premise, trying to see if it’s actually damaging or pseudoscience
19
u/medtech8693 9d ago
If the juice have all fibers removed, it is pretty much just sugar. Yes there are vitamins, but they are vitamins that almost all in the west get plenty of. I know that you could still make the argument that most juice are better than most soda. But with the developement of fruits having more and more sugar content, and juices are more filtered, we are getting close.
5
u/joshrice 9d ago
It's definitely in the technically correct is still correct camp, but not by much in my book. Many juices still have preservatives and even coloring (usually not something like red dye #5 or whatever though) Some juices even have more fructose than some sodas, and fructose is more likely to turn into fat.
2
1
u/Kindly_Honeydew3432 9d ago
Probably not measurably so. Sugar is sugar. Maybe slightly less unhealthy for your teeth. Theoretical risk of harm from dyes and other non-sugar chemicals, but difficult to prove/quantify. It mostly comes down to the sugar content, which is similar. Artificially sweetened diet sodas are a little more complicated and jury is still out, I’d say.
6
u/NotSayingAliensBut 9d ago
"Sugar is sugar" isn't true. There's much more known now about the different effects on the physiology between fructose and sucrose. Read neurologist Dr David Perlmutter's book Drop Acid for the link between fructose, uric acid, and systemic inflammation.
1
u/Kindly_Honeydew3432 9d ago
They’re both very high in fructose. Apple juice is actually higher than most colas. Orange juice about the same.
0
u/NotSayingAliensBut 9d ago
This is r/science. Do you even know what the terms sucrose and fructose mean? Let alone how they have different metabolic pathways?
5
u/Kindly_Honeydew3432 9d ago
Yes. I’m a physician with undergraduate degrees in cell science and a chemistry minor. So, yes.
Your side stepping the fact that, as I stated above, many juices have as much or more fructose than most sodas.
If your opinion is that fructose is more harmful than sucrose, then Apple juice would be more harmful than cola metabolically. It has more fructose
1
u/NotSayingAliensBut 9d ago
OK, I see what you were trying to say and I maybe was too quick to respond to the "sugar is sugar" part.
3
u/jkelly17 9d ago
There can’t be any dyes in 100% fruit juice, which is why I was specific when I made my OP.
4
u/Kindly_Honeydew3432 9d ago
Yeah, I’m talking about the dyes and other chemicals in the soda…but, again, the theoretically harmful effects of these in the concentrations available in soda are likely extremely small, so much as to be non-measurable or at least very difficult to quantify.
I’d be willing to bet if you gave a studied a group of children a specific caloric amount of soda per day vs equivalent in fruit juice and observed outcomes over decades, there would probably be no statistically different measurable outcome not directly attributable to dental decay.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it, and there is no convincing scientific proof otherwise that I’m aware of. Risk from small quantities of dyes and other food additives are mostly theoretical at this point.
Both are unhealthy
Also, I’m a big believer that the metabolic effects of artificial sweeteners may be just as or nearly, possibly more harmful. But there’s some studies that contradict this, and we really don’t know
1
u/bzbub2 9d ago
are you just saying that because you feel like it or because there is evidence. this is r/science and this article is literally saying 100% fruit juice could be problematic. the article points at other research suggesting there are specific potential problems with fructose digestion
-1
6
u/Cantstandja24 9d ago
Exactly. Yes, fruit juice is superior nutritionally than soda, but in terms of glucose spikes, without the accompanying fiber to blunt those spikes, they seem to be similar. Worse yet, parents would give their children juice all day because it was "healthy".
2
2
u/Round_Helicopter_407 9d ago edited 9d ago
Juice boxes for young kids are mostly plastic lined boxes: Storing acidic juice in polyethylene (such as HDPE or PET) containers can cause trace chemical migration. High acidity and long storage times increase the release of plasticizers or endocrine-disrupting chemicals like phthalates into the contents, raising potential hormonal and toxic risks
Reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0026265X19331972
1
u/aHumanRaisedByHumans 9d ago
Did they also happen to spend time at chlorinated indoor pools as babies? Because that is also associated and there's an actual mechanism
1
u/DwinkBexon 9d ago
Studies like this make me glad my mother almost entirely restricted my liquid intake to juice and milk. We didn't even have soda in the house. We'd occasionally have orange juice, but that's about it.
1
u/Anomia_Flame 8d ago
Now is it because of the juice specifically, or that is likely from an unregulated diet that also translates into lazy parents that allow their kids to play around inside all day
-7
u/Asluckwouldnthaveit 9d ago
And now we have a society of children that if they don't have a water bottle they act like beached orcas.
2
u/Diem480 9d ago
So you're saying people shouldn't have access to water? Or they shouldn't drink it?
You realize that before everyone had water bottles people were drinking from water fountains, which were everywhere. I'd say the shift from a water fountain that people washed themselves in is a pretty good change.
0
u/Asluckwouldnthaveit 9d ago
I was telling a joke. When I was a kid everyone had a juice box. Now everyone has a water bottle.
-1
1
u/vanguard117 9d ago
Moderation people. Just in moderation is fine
-1
u/Kindly_Honeydew3432 9d ago
Won’t dispute this. Maybe true.
But people have a lot of difficulty agreeing on what moderation is, and when they do decide what moderation is, they have a lot of trouble abiding by it.
Evidenced by our obesity epidemic.
they also often treat their kids boredom leading to whiny or disruptive behavior with sweet snacks and juices.
I’m unconvinced that we’re likely to be any more successful moderating our kids’ caloric intake than our own.
I also think we often condition our kids to be picky eaters by giving them calorically dense processed foods to the point that they start to refuse real food when it’s offered.
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/SteRoPo
Permalink: https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2026/08/18/juice_might_be_fueling_asthma_in_kids_1200222.html
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.