Babies who grew up with strict sugar limits saw less disease, including cancer, in later years and aged more slowly. By Peter Dockrill at Science Alert.
Sugar rationing [in the UK] ended abruptly in September 1953, after which average consumption levels quickly doubled.
By focusing on the 1951–1956 period straddling the cut-off, the researchers were able to compare the adult health of babies who spent their first 1,000 days (from conception to the age of two) under sugar rationing with babies who were born directly after and did not experience the limits….
Previous studies have shown the sugar-rationed babies face lower chronic disease risks, along with lower chances of developing Alzheimer’s, and they seem to enjoy better cardiovascular health. …
The new study [shows] the babies who were sugar-rationed for their first 1,000 days were 69 percent less likely to develop liver cancer in their adult lives. They also saw reduced incidence of prostate cancer (52 percent lower), lung cancer (41 percent lower), rectal cancer (40 percent lower), and breast cancer (36 percent lower).
The sugar-rationed babies also tended to show longer telomeres – the caps at the ends of chromosomes that protect our genetic material, which are linked to longevity.
According to the researchers, the telomere length of the sugar-rationed babies equated to about 2.2 years less biological aging, suggesting they aged more slowly throughout their lives, enjoying better overall health than the non-sugar-rationed participants.
Another interesting finding was that the sugar-rationed babies appeared to show persistent dietary habits that lasted into adulthood, compared to their non-rationed peers.
“Rationed cohorts consume less sugar, eat smaller food quantities, and maintain healthier, more diverse diets five decades after the policy ended,” the researchers write in their paper.
Cane sugar, or indeed large amounts of any sugar, is a very recent addition to human diets. Hmmm.
Kids in the rationing period might have been going without more than sugar.