Anyone who has experienced this will tell you the difficulties of rationing during the war.
But restricting sugar early in life may protect against diabetes and hypertension as a person ages, a study suggests.
Researchers have found that a reduced sugar intake during the first 1,000 days of life (from conception) can protect against diabetes and hypertension in later years.
And it shows how the period up to two years is essential for long-term health.
In the first years of life, children are exposed to large amounts of sugar through what their mothers eat during pregnancy, while breastfeeding, and through formula and baby foods.
Research also suggests that most babies and young children consume sweetened foods and drinks daily.
To study the long-term health impacts of early sugar consumption, researchers at the University of Southern California took advantage of a natural experiment in the United Kingdom: the end of a decade-long rationing of sugar and sweets after the Second World War. World War in 1953.
During rationing, adults typically received 8 ounces (0.5 pounds) of sugar per week and 12 ounces (0.75 pounds) of candy every four weeks.
The sugar allowance was comparable to current UK dietary guidelines, including those for pregnant women and young children.
Experts tracked the health of people in Britain before and after rationing to examine how access to sugar affected disease risk.
However, the end of rationing caused an immediate, almost doubling, increase in sugar consumption almost overnight.
The team examined health data from people who spent their first 1,000 days after conception either during the rationing years or after they ended.
The analysis revealed that early exposure to sugar rationing had long-term health benefits.
According to the findings, people’s risk of developing diabetes and hypertension decreased by 35 to 20 percent when they were between 50 and 60 years old.
The onset of these diseases was also delayed by four years for diabetes and two years for hypertension among those who lived during the “rationing” years.
In an article in the journal Science, the researchers said: ‘For the average adult, daily sugar consumption rose sharply from 41 g in 1953 to about 80 g in 1954, and this equally high level was maintained for several years.
“These data are for adults, but others have shown that children’s sugar intake more than doubled after rationing and that their oral health also deteriorated.”
Commenting on the study, Dr Hilda Mulrooney, reader in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, said: “This is a really interesting and timely paper, given the current high consumption of sugar in the UK population and the prevalence of chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes. diabetes and hypertension.
People in the US consume almost five and a half sugary drinks a week on average, while people in the UK drink around four and a half. This includes colas, lemonade, energy drinks and fruit-flavored drinks, according to the latest data available for 2018 (shown in the chart).
“The potential of diet in utero to affect long-term health risks has long been recognized, and there are a number of plausible mechanisms to explain how they may occur.
‘In this study, the authors used data from what could be considered a natural experiment: rationing in response to World War II.
‘When comparing individuals exposed and not exposed to sugar rationing in utero and early childhood, a significant effect was observed.
‘Early childhood was especially important; Only one-third of the increased risk of type 2 diabetes and hypertension is explained by in utero exposure. This highlights the potential of early childhood diet as a risk factor for chronic diseases.
“Given the high levels of sugar in foods and drinks intended for young children, this is cause for concern.”
Earlier this year, a report warned that British children face a lifetime of poor health as junk food diets have stunted their growth and fueled a rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The Food Foundation says children grow up in an environment that makes feeding them healthy “an almost unbelievably difficult challenge.”
He blames the “aggressive promotion” of foods high in fat, sugar and salt and “shocking” levels of poverty that put healthier alternatives out of reach for some families.