logoalt Hacker News

MarkusWandeltoday at 3:40 PM5 repliesview on HN

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.


Replies

fatnoahtoday at 3:46 PM

I grew up in a house with little to no sugar and never really developed a "craving" for sugar. I'll absolutely eat it if it's there, but really only consume it if it's zero effort, and generally in small amounts since many sweet things taste overly sweet to me.

show 2 replies
ghastmastertoday at 3:44 PM

My thoughts exactly.

> Importantly, these differences only began to appear decades after sugar rationing had ended.

> What is most surprising, however, is not the cancer results or the biological markers of ageing. It’s how early-life sugar exposure continued to affect people’s diets even 50 years later.

jtroybakertoday at 3:45 PM

As with most research, these findings represent a distribution of outcomes. Intuitively, early sugar rationing is likely, but not 100% effective, to discourage future diets which prominently feature sugary foods. And vice versa.

Axsuultoday at 4:05 PM

That's because the body can become desensitized by sugar the more it gets. Poeple often turn to processed food more and more as their tastebuds become more accustomed to tastier foods while natural foods start tasting more bland. It's the same way dopamine works.

show 1 reply
bawolfftoday at 4:13 PM

is that something that should be corrected for? That just sounds like the mechanism for action to me.