Hacker News Reader

Comment by MarkusWandel | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Unclear whether this is due to environment (grew up with no sugar) or genetics (parent‘s genes induced no sugar craving -> you have no craving).

There is a genetic component to disinterest in sweet food. It quite evidently runs in some families. These are people who never eat any sugary food or often even fruit regardless of availability because they actively dislike things that taste sweet. It isn't a matter of environment or self-control. To them, a donut is about as enticing as a bowl of plain oatmeal.

Anecdotally, people that don't eat any sweet food always seem to gravitate toward salty/bitter flavors instead.

I've not got much of a sweat tooth, but love me some salty snacks and dark, bitter tea

People are always surprised that I don't put sugar in my coffee or my chocolate.

Don't get me wrong, I love sugary treats. But I like the bitterness in coffee and chocolate.

People who add sugar to coffee miss out on the sweetness of everything else by contrast.

The bitterness itself is enjoyable, but the natural sweetness of everyday foods is also magnified.

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.

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.

Anywhere else we'd call that an addiction.

Adaption is just how the body works though. From the perspective of someone living in the mountains, descending to sea level is "addictive" in that they will get air withdrawals (altitude sickness) when coming back.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com