Sugar rationing in early life linked to lower cancer risk decades later
Babies born under sugar rationing grew into adults with lower cancer risk
A study of over 64,000 Britons born around 1953 found that those who experienced sugar rationing in their first 1,000 days had lower rates of five cancers, including breast and liver, and showed signs of slower biological aging. The effect persisted into adulthood, with these individuals consuming less sugar and having healthier diets even at age 50.
Children may not remember what they ate before age two. But their later health, their bodies and even their taste preferences may still carry the imprint of those very early-life experiences.
- jjk166
While I want to believe the result, it seems like the method is far too susceptible to confounding cohort effects. I'd be curious if a similar trend is seen in other countries that ended rationing at different times, and if any such change is seen in countries that didn't ration. The cancer rates may not be directly comparable due to other differences, but if the rate change is consistently centered around whenever sugar consumption changed, that would be much more compelling evidence; whereas if post-1953 children have higher cancer rates across the board it's probably something else.
- steveBK123
I'd imagine alcohol & tobacco as well as other things were in short supply / coming back to normal supply around the same time period
- waterheater
Sugar is not a harmless substance but actively changes the brain with repeated exposure (that is, eating sugar regularly). Here's a few links from various venues which discuss the neurobiological effects of sugar:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/brb3.70338
https://www.texasinstituteforneurologicaldisorders.com/uncat...
https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-...
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/heres-what-happens-to-your...
I'll even throw in an AI-generated answer from the less-than-eloquent prompt "sugar addiction brain":
> Sugar addiction triggers neurobiological changes in the brain’s mesolimbic dopamine pathway, specifically affecting the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex. Consuming sugar causes a surge in dopamine and endorphins, creating a pleasurable "high" that reinforces consumption. Over time, this repeated stimulation leads to neuroadaptation, characterized by:
> Downregulation of D2 receptors: The brain reduces its dopamine receptors, requiring more sugar to achieve the same effect (tolerance).
> Altered gene expression: Changes in receptor availability in the midbrain and frontal cortex.
> Hippocampal damage: High sugar intake can reduce new neuron production, impairing memory and learning.
>These mechanisms drive compulsive intake, cravings, and withdrawal-like symptoms (such as anxiety and irritability) when sugar is removed. While not formally classified as a substance use disorder in humans, the behavioral and ne […]
- MarkusWandel
The article mentions several times that early sugar exposure affects sugar craving for a lifetime. Did they correct for that? I.e. people born during sugar rationing who later developed normal sugar consumption patterns compared to people not born during rationing who consume similar amounts?
I was born into a traditional food culture without excessive sugar, but I sure as heck developed a sugar craving later, to the detriment of my diet. I'm guessing this cancels out the early healthy effect.
- epistasis
I first heard of the connection between breast cancer rates and performing use more than a decade ago, and it took a lot to convince me it was true, but a lot of it was seeing the connection the the insulin receptor protein. Here they find a list of cancer types that could seem connected to sugar, especially the liver, but it still leaves lots of questions for me.
The bookmakers measured here are quite different, like telomere length.
> We found that people who experienced sugar rationing early in life still consumed less sugar in adulthood, around age 50. They also ate less overall, and their diets were healthier and more diverse. This suggests that the level of sweetness people are exposed to very early in life may shape their taste preferences for a long time.
This life long behavior makes the connection far more plausible than an effect from just 1000 days at the beginning of life! But they can't lead with something so mundane, I guess..
This is science in formation, not established fact, so it's interesting to see an article about it aimed at a popular audience. Definitely something to keep an eye on, but the conclusions shouldn't be filed away as established facts quite yet.