Sweet Inheritance: how children's diet affects their health after 70 years

Limited sugar intake during pregnancy and the first two years of a child's life may be associated with a lower risk of certain cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases decades later. This is indicated by the results of several studies, the authors of which have turned the abolition of post-war sugar rationing in the UK into a long-term natural experiment. About why the first 2 years are considered a critical period of development, whether the love of sweets is really formed in early childhood and whether this means that sugar must be completely excluded from the child's diet — in the material of Izvestia.

How post-war Britain helped to study the effects of sugar

It is almost impossible to verify the long-term effects of early nutrition in a routine clinical experiment. To do this, pregnant women and children would have to be divided into groups with different amounts of sugar, and then monitored for 60-70 years. In addition, it would be unethical to intentionally give one of the groups a potentially unhealthy diet.

An alternative to scientists was provided by the history of Great Britain. Rationing of sugar and sweets has been in effect in the country since 1942, but in September 1953 the restrictions were lifted. After that, the average sugar intake increased from about 41 to 80 grams per day. The consumption of other basic products changed much less during this period.

As a result, children born a few months apart spent different parts of the first 1,000 days of their lives in rationing conditions. This period is understood as the time from conception to the second birthday. It includes intrauterine development, infancy, and the beginning of the transition to regular food. The amount of sugar available during rationing generally corresponded to current recommendations: less than 40 g per day for adults and less than 15 g for children. There was no separate sugar allowance for infants under two years of age.

It was a drastic change in policy that made it possible to compare generations close in age. At the same time, the researchers did not analyze individual nutrition diaries, which did not exist, but the duration of the possible effects of rationing, calculated by date of birth.

Five types of cancer and the difference in biological age

In the new work, scientists studied information about 64,761 participants of the British Biobank, who were born from 1951 to 1956. The more days a person spent in rationing conditions, the lower the risk of the five types of cancer in adulthood.

Participants who were fully affected by the restrictions had a 69% lower risk of liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer. For prostate cancer, the difference was 52%, lung — 41%, rectum — 40%, breast — 36%.

Do not annoy: doctors called the norms of "white poison"

Experts have warned about the importance of limiting yourself to salt and sugar

These percentages show the relative difference between the study groups, not the probability for a particular individual. They do not mean that sugar restriction is guaranteed to reduce your personal cancer risk by the specified amount. The development of cancer depends on many factors, including heredity, age, smoking, body weight, infections, and environmental influences.

Differences between generations did not appear immediately, but decades after the abolition of rationing. This is consistent with the assumption that eating early can gradually affect the likelihood of disease through metabolism, chronic inflammation, and eating behavior. The scientists found additional signs when analyzing biological aging. In the participants who were in the normalization conditions longer, the telomeres of leukocytes were on average 0.05 standard deviation longer. The authors estimated this difference to be the equivalent of approximately 2.2 years of slower biological aging.

A taste that stays for 50 years

One of the most interesting results was the association of early nutrition with eating habits in adulthood. By about the age of 50, participants who had grown up under rationing conditions still consumed less sugar and food in general. Their diets were also more varied and more likely to meet the criteria for a healthy diet.

The authors consider this as a possible behavioral mechanism. The level of sweetness that a child gets used to in the early years of life can influence the subsequent choice of foods. A person can prefer less sweet foods for decades, even without linking this habit with their own early childhood.

At the same time, the results allow for another explanation: the reduction in the risk of diseases could be associated not only with intrauterine development or initial metabolic restructuring, but also with a healthier diet that persisted throughout life.

Thus, the study points to two possible paths at once. The first is related to the programming of metabolism, the immune system, and organs during a critical period of development. The second is related to the formation of stable taste preferences. It is not yet possible to determine the contribution of each of them.

From diabetes to Alzheimer's disease

The new study is a continuation of a series of works based on the abolition of British rationing. In 2024, scientists analyzed data from more than 60,000 people and found that exposure to restrictions in the first 1,000 days was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes and 20% reduction in hypertension.

In those participants who subsequently encountered these diseases, diabetes was diagnosed on average four years later, and hypertension two years later. Restrictions during pregnancy alone were already associated with some reduction in risk, but the most pronounced differences were observed when rationing continued after birth. The work was published in the journal Science.

According to her, the results indicate possible long-term benefits of complying with these standards. In 2025, another group examined information on 63,433 participants in the British Biobank who did not have cardiovascular diseases at the time of the start of follow-up. People who were in rationing conditions from conception to one or two years of age had a 20% lower overall risk of cardiovascular disease.

The risk of heart attack was lower by 25%, heart failure — by 26%, atrial fibrillation — by 24%, stroke — by 31%, death from cardiovascular causes - by 27%. The onset of these conditions could have been delayed by about two and a half years.

In July 2026, a study involving 60,394 people was published in the journal npj Aging. The effects of rationing in the first 1,000 days were associated with a 46% reduction in the risk of Alzheimer's disease, 27% reduction in dementia from all causes, 20% reduction in anxiety disorders, and 11% reduction in depression.

Sweetness is not a joy: which foods contain hidden sugar

Experts told how energy drinks, yoghurts, smoothies and canned food undermine health.

Brain scans of these participants also showed differences corresponding to approximately 0.39 years of slower aging, as well as a larger volume of some subcortical structures, including the hippocampus and thalamus. However, the indicator for Alzheimer's disease should be interpreted especially carefully. Only 123 cases of this disease were registered in the study group, and many participants have not yet reached the age at which its greatest prevalence occurs.

In addition, the listed works cannot be considered completely independent confirmations. They used overlapping generations and data from a single British biobank. In fact, scientists have repeatedly analyzed the consequences of a single historical event, choosing different health indicators.

Why Eating Early Can Have Lasting Effects

Nutrition during pregnancy and the first two years of life can be especially important for future health. It is during this period that organs, the brain and the immune system are actively developing, as well as metabolic regulation mechanisms are being formed.

According to the concept of the origin of health and diseases in the process of development, the body can adapt to the conditions in which it finds itself in the early stages of life. If the diet changes dramatically after that, the initial metabolic adjustment can theoretically affect the risk of obesity, insulin resistance, and inflammatory processes.

Excessive consumption of free sugars can also increase the total calorie content of the diet, contribute to weight gain and affect glucose metabolism. These conditions, in turn, are associated with the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular and some cancers.

At the same time, studies of British rationing have not proved that the differences found arose precisely because of one universal mechanism. They show a long-term relationship, but they do not allow us to trace all the changes in the body from birth to old age.

Bittersweet: The CIA poisoned Cuban sugar supplied to the USSR

In the USA, along with the "Kennedy case", other secrets of the special services were revealed.

What kind of sugar should be limited

The findings of the work do not mean that the child needs to completely eliminate any foods containing sugar. The recommendations usually distinguish between free sugars and sugars naturally found in whole foods.

The World Health Organization recommends against giving sweetened beverages to children aged six to 23 months and limiting foods with high sugar content. The WHO general recommendation for adults and children suggests reducing free sugars to less than 10% of daily calories, and an additional reduction to 5% may bring additional benefits.

In the UK, children aged one year are recommended to consume no more than 10 grams of free sugars per day, and children aged two to three years - no more than 14 grams. It is not recommended to add sugar to food and drinks for infants under one year of age. In this case, the specific diet of the child should be made taking into account the age, health status and recommendations of the pediatrician.

What the study has not yet proved

Despite the unusual design, British rationing was not a controlled medical experiment. The amount of sugar that specific pregnant women and children actually consumed is unknown. The impact was calculated based on date of birth, government policy, and average consumption data.

People who lived before and after rationing could differ in other characteristics, such as diet, physical activity, financial status, and access to medical care. The authors tried to take into account possible differences, but it is impossible to completely exclude the influence of extraneous factors.

However, she called the work strong due to the large sample and consideration of a number of possible distorting factors. Studies do not confirm the need to return state rationing or completely ban sugary foods for children. They also do not mean that changing the diet in adulthood will reduce the risk of cancer or Alzheimer's disease by exactly the specified percentages.

The main conclusion is much more cautious: the food environment during pregnancy and the first two years can leave a mark that is noticeable decades later. Limiting added sugar during this period is consistent with current recommendations and has the potential to bring long-term benefits, but the exact size of the effect and the mechanisms behind it have yet to be confirmed in other populations.