Posted on 11/01/2024 4:07:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Limiting sugar intake from conception through early childhood was linked to lower risks of type 2 diabetes and hypertension, a new study found.
Low sugar intake in the womb and during early childhood can protect against diabetes and hypertension later in life, according to a new study.
Analysing data from the UK Biobank, researchers from Canada's McGill University and the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Southern California (USC) in the US examined the influence of sugar rationing during and after World War II by comparing health data of individuals born before and afterwards.
“Studying the long-term effects of added sugar on health is challenging,” Tadeja Gracner, an economist at USC and the study's corresponding author, said in a statement.
“It is hard to find situations where people are randomly exposed to different nutritional environments early in life and follow them for 50 to 60 years. The end of rationing provided us with a novel natural experiment to overcome these problems,” Gracner added.
The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was reduced by 35 per cent on average for children exposed to lower sugar intake during their first 1,000 days (nearly three years) after conception, according to the findings published in the journal Science.
For those who were later diagnosed with diabetes, living through sugar rationing in early childhood delayed the onset of diabetes for four years.
For hypertension, the risk was reduced by 20 per cent and the disease’s onset was delayed by two years.
Sugar restriction in utero (while the mother was pregnant) provided a third of the protective benefits, researchers said.
“Sugar early in life is the new tobacco, and we should treat it as such by holding food companies accountable to reformulate baby foods with healthier options and regulate the marketing and tax sugary foods targeted at kids,” said Paul Gertler, a professor of economics at the University of California and one the study’s authors.
Restrictions compliant with the current dietary guidelines During the UK's sugar rationing which started in 1942 and ended in 1953, sugar intake was about 40 g per day on average.
When it ended, sugar and sweets consumption reached about 80 g per day.
During the rationing, nutrient intake overall remained relatively stable with, for example, protein and fat intake largely unaffected by the rationing policies, according to the study.
Current guidelines by health organisations advise against added sugar for children under two years old and recommend limits for adults.
Dr Hilda Mulrooney, a reader in nutrition at the London Metropolitan University, who wasn’t involved in the study said in a statementthat the findings were “timely” given current high sugar intake levels in the UK.
“This highlights the potential for early childhood diet as a risk factor for chronic disease. Given the high levels of sugar in foods and drinks aimed at toddlers and young children, this is of concern,” she added, underlining that this sort of study couldn’t demonstrate causality.
The research team advocates for clear public guidelines to help parents manage children’s sugar intake and for food companies to offer healthier options in children’s foods.
Ping
It neglects to factor in the weight issue, which I read is the most correspondent aspect related to diabetes. Today, over 70% of Americans are overweight or obese. Yet sugar itself is not a “fattening food.”
My siblings and I were WW2 babies. Twfo of the four girls hav type 2 diabetes, and all of us sublings have some level of hypertension. Well, so much for that theory.
Why isn't it? What exactly is a "fattening food?"
I disagree with your conclusions. I assume you mean you were born during World War II. That means you came of age in the 50’s when they started promoting so much of the processed foods that often contain a lot of sugar.
“World War 2 Sugar Restrictions Linked to Reduced Risks of Diabetes and Hypertension”
Which is EXACTLY WHY the US medical community PUSHED carbs and wouldn’t say anything bad about sugar (until very recently).
“Well, so much for that theory.”
Did your family eat wheat products?
There was MUCH more walking back then as well.
Butter and panko coated, deep fried cat fish.
Do you mean they pushed it because they wanted to make people fat, they were financially remunerated for it, or another motive?
The article was about WWII sugar and other rations. Not about the 1950s, beacuse it is trying to say the die was cast in early childhood.
The benefit of the lack of sugar was probably offset by everyone smoking from 16 years old.
I am sure we did, but the study was not loking at that.
I’m currently watching this Joe Rogan interview with Casey and Calley Means on health.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0lTyhvOeJs
It’s 2:22:40 long and the most informative interview on health and diet that I have heard. It is absolutely fascinating.
And Joe Rogan said very little, mostly asks a few questions.
Utter and absolute BS! T2 diabetes wasn’t even a THING back then, let alone A1C measurements. You can’t make a comparison.
That said - it’s good to eat less sugar - but this bunk story has no real science to validate that.
“I am sure we did, but the study was not looking at that.”
Of course, we all did, and most of us still do. But the modification of wheat has been DRASTIC (as in yields 10 times higher than the past, and much more), that it almost certainly is a major contributor, if not the prime contributor, to Metabolic Syndrome, Obesity, and Diabetes. So my only point is that a lot was going on...and it wasn’t good, and it has swept up huge numbers of people.
“Do you mean they pushed it because they wanted to make people fat, they were financially remunerated for it, or another motive?”
It started innocent enough in the 1950s - increase wheat yields and end starvation, and by the 1980s starvation ended, even in the poorest countries (with the only exception being forced starvation)...and now OBESITY/Diabetes are huge problems, even where people were starving 50 years ago. Something was wrong...
In the 1960s and 1970s, the ability to measure Insulin concentrations in humans was finally developed, and by the 1980s, it was well-known that carbohydrates were the culprit (which includes sugar), and thus Big Food had to swing into action to protect their gravy train - so guess who they hired? The people looking for a job that had run Big Tobacco and were tossed on the street as the lawsuits were filed and the Congressional Hearings took place - and they promptly gave us the “Food Pyramid”, which, if inverted, tells you EXACTLY what to eat.
Obviously it was more than just Big Food, but the entire system is a mess and needs to be fixed. Perhaps RFK will get the chance to do that since he both understands it completely cannot be corrupted.
Recipe: Saved
Yeah, the fact that they worked their asses off from sun-up till sun-down had nothing to do with it.
CC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.