Babies born under sugar rationing grew into adults with lower cancer risk

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.

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 neurochemical parallels to drug addiction (such as bingeing and loss of control) are well-documented in preclinical models and supported by human neuroimaging studies.

I'd imagine alcohol & tobacco as well as other things were in short supply / coming back to normal supply around the same time period

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.

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.

Must be almost impossible to determine it was from lack of sugars or something else correlated.

A mother’s sugar intake while pregnant also has quite an effect on long term health outcomes for a baby.

Our understanding of reproductive health is pretty frustratingly limited. Hopefully that changes soon

So were children who grew up under sugar rationing actually eating less sugar in the first 1000 days of life? As the article points out, I don't remember being 2 years old, but I have sisters young enough that I remember them being 2 years old. I also know I was weened maybe around 18 months, not leaving much space in the first 1000 days. From what I remember of the sisters, kids that young are still eating pureed peas and carrots and mashed potatoes and what not. Probably still a lot of milk. They're still teething. The candy bars, Lucky Charms, and Twinkies we worry about being marketed to kids are marketed to elementary school children, not kids who can still barely walk and are wearing diapers half the time.

If you don't see the article's link to the research - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2610287123 (yes, paywalled):

"Sugar rationing" is far too simplistic a description of the historical situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdo...

Time to dust off this oldie but goodie:

Correlation is not causation.

Total slop.

I'm planning to take the cohort of people who lived under sugar rationing then find all of the population differences and publish how "people born under sugar rationing had x lower/higher y".

Seems lots of people are doing this with cancer, dementia, heart disease, etc, but I'm confident there's more to be milked from this trend with some AI-assisted research.