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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Yeah the article doesn't mention how they account for all the other changes in people's diet, stress, environment and what not that happens during and after a war...
But causation requires correlation. In general, I think it's unhelpful to point out something so basic to or about professional research, researchers are well aware of it.
Researchers are aware of it, but the press and the general public don't appear to be. Studies showing some association or another are regularly reported, and the public eats it up.
Oh, pretty sure journalists and headline writers are also well aware of it, if for no other reason that every comment thread must be mentioning it. Their incentives are just to publish trash and generate engagement, that's all.
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.
I can't look it up right now, but calorie restriction also shows this correlation, so maybe it is not sugar at all.
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.
> 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.
"Sugar rationing" is far too simplistic a description of the historical situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdo...
Correlation is not causation.
Others in the thread point out how it's not easy to implement, but there is a methodological attempt at casual inference in the design.