I would imagine it’s less about the possibility of other healthy choices and more about not putting more things on the overworked teacher’s plates (so to speak). Which is the faster way to tell if kids have a healthy snack: seeing a row of kids eating fruit, or going to each one, looking at the snack’s wrapper, figure out if the ingredients sound healthy enough, hope that you’re not going to have to get into an argument with the kid because their parent found a couple of research papers on the internet, then move to the next one.

Why don’t you go do science yourself instead of deciding you figured it out because of a handful of web searches.

Science also says that fruits and vegetables, not processed with added sugar, are better for your kids’ concentration. See In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan, The China Study by T. Collin Campbell, How Not to Die by Dr. Greger, How to Eat Well and Stay Well the Mediterranean Way by Ancel Key, etc. The argument that “there’s so much evidence that no one can say” isn’t accurate. Epidemiologists use what’s called “the best balance of evidence” when they make these kinds of decisions. That means they weigh the strength of the research on one side versus the strength of the research on the other side. In the case of whole foods, scientists have known for decades that eating plants and vegetables, and not processed foods, is the key to a healthy diet. The book “The Future of Nutrition” by T. Colin Campbell might help you understand why so much bad research contradicts what we’ve known this entire time. Also, just a side note anecdote, this used to just be common sense. Before we had any of this data, parents would refuse to give their kids candy, sodas, and coffees without any evidence at all other than they can see the impact it has on their kids’ behavior with their own eyes.

The first experiment is about college aged males and therefore not directly applicable to children though I suspect it wouldn’t be an outrageous leap to apply it’s findings to children.

The second experiment though is about having confectionary snacks or nothing for breakfast. All it suggests is that having some calories is better than no calories, it doesn’t compare having a healthy snack vs a non-healthy one.

The reality is that there are too many contradictory studies regarding nutrition, especially children’s nutrition. For every advocate for a particular health advice, you’ll find 3 people who argue that it’s terrible for you.

I have nothing of scientific value to add here except to say that if the focus is purely on carbs there is a shitload not being considered. One could argue that a bacon-only diet is fine in that context.

Having seen the lunchboxes full of empty carbs that some kids take though I kinda get why the rule exists, even if how they’ve gone about it has perhaps not been thought through (or is just easier to enforce).

I’m not sure if there is “an” optimal snack as a balanced diet needs to be considered as a whole.

School goes as far as preventing the kids to eat their snack if it’s not a fruit or a vegetable which I find excessive, as many healthy snacks exist today that still contain some carbs

I don’t even know how to parse this statement. Fruit has tons of carbs; so do may vegetables.

And people have such varied dietary needs, I find it shocking that a school would dictate what foods are permissible.

Curious where you’re located, generally.

I think it’s significant that in both of your papers the experiment is performed with 0-calorie snacks as the alternative to processed foods. Personally I think it’s kind of a “no duh” experiment (a snack with no calories has no energy to impart), but scientists still gotta do science to prove science.

I confess I haven’t read any of the papers myself, but there is a growing body of research that points to health risks from processed foods. And when you look at the ultra-processed food that’s cheap and readily available, you’re going to find stuff that’s loaded with sugar, palm oil, and who knows what kind of additives. The vast majority of those foods are also low fibre which isn’t great either.

Nutrition is both highly complex and really simple. It’s complicated because there’s a lot of systems at play within your body, and it can be difficult to definitively assess the benefits or risks of certain ingredients. But it’s simple too because we all know that eating good food is good for you, and eating bad food is bad for you.

I do think it’s excessive not letting the kids eat the snacks their parents give them. The administration will never know how food secure people are (a lot aren’t), and the children are especially vulnerable because they don’t have the autonomy to tell a teacher to fuck off. But at the same time, everyone knows it’s better for your kid to eat carrots than pop tarts.

I’m too lazy to go the Google search, so I’m just going to go off the dome and may be incorrect.

A lot of the research regarding breakfast being important, and justifying free breakfast programs in schools, stemmed from measuring calorie deficit in overall terms instead of satiation. Namely, if kids were hungry in the morning, you should probably feed them since they likely are running low on energy, but a kid saying no to breakfast wasn’t really studied.

I think there were also some studies which indicated that a carbo load similar to endurance athletes may show an improvement in test results. This has led to some teachers and schools getting a bagel day organized during test day so students have an opportunity to carbo load before taking a test. Where carbo loading doesn’t lead to increased test taking abilities hasn’t been studied, so it is unknown whether the improvement is in filling an existing bucket or overfilling the bucket beyond what it normally would take.

Other research may be out there to confirm or deny my recollection, but it seems like complex carbohydrates may be the best option available.

What school would this be exactly? If it’s the primary school you’re currently sending your child to, and you disagree with their snack policy, do you have the right to present a challenge to the school board? Do other parents agree with your assessment and are willing to back you?

I have a theory that this school’s policy stems from a desire to limit the kids’ sugar intake during school hours, which makes it easier to manage behavior. If that’s the case, what “science” says about kid’s nutrition will only go so far. They’ll have their own research to rebut your complaint, and while I’m not trying to discourage you, you might find it to be an uphill battle to get them to modify their policy.