Foto: Getty Images
It’s St. Martin’s Day on Monday (or the start of the winter candy festival), so it’s good to take a closer look at this research. American research once again shows how important the first 1,000 days are for a child. Children who receive limited sugar intake have a lower risk of diabetes and high blood pressure. According to the researchers, a ban on marketing sweets to children is not such a bad idea.
Read more below the advertisement
First 1000 days
The first 1000 days lay the essential foundation for a healthy life for a child. Professor of early development and health Tessa Roseboom has previously proven this scientifically and wrote her book of the same name ‘The first 1000 days’ about this.
Read more below the advertisement
“Too few building blocks has a negative effect, but so does a lot of sugar. This new research confirms how important nutrition is in the first thousand days. Organs, food preferences and metabolism are formed during this period,” says Roseboom in the NRC.
New research into sugar in the first 1000 days
It is very difficult to prove what the effect of sugar is on the first 1000 days of a child. After all, there are few parents who want to be in the “give your child a lot of sugar” test group. American researchers found a special data set in the UK biobank that allowed them to conduct comparable research.
Read more below the advertisement
Sugar on the coupon vs. sugar freely available
After the war, sugar was rationed in Britain, but this stopped in 1953. This allowed researchers to compare babies born before the sugar ration and babies born after. And guess what? The babies who were not on the sugar ration were more likely to develop diabetes and high blood pressure later in life.
Read more below the advertisement
The sugar ration babies were 35 percent less likely to develop type two diabetes in their 60s. And the risk of high blood pressure was 20 percent lower in the sugar ration babies than in the babies where sugar was no longer rationed.
Babies from 6 to 12 months better protected
The American researchers were also able to draw even more surprising conclusions from the data set. It turned out that the longer children were exposed to the ration, the better protected they were against diseases. In particular, babies who had been given little sugar from six to twelve months turned out to be better protected later.
Read more below the advertisement
Also positive results for pregnant women
The positive results of the ‘sugar tax’ apply not only to babies born before 1953, but also to babies who were still in the womb at the time. The researchers conclude that even if the babies were only exposed to the ration in the womb, the risk of diseases later in life was smaller.
Read more below the advertisement
Revise the ban on children’s marketing of sweets?
A ban on children’s marketing of sweets or a sugar tax is therefore not that crazy, the authors of the study suggest. Roseboom informs this NRC admits: “You often hear that healthy food is your own responsibility. But what you eat in your first thousand days is not your choice. If the government wants to promote public health and give people a good chance to grow up healthy, measures are needed to enforce a healthier food supply, such as a sugar tax.”
The #1 glossy for mothers
To share
To share
Oh, St. Martin’s Day is upon us, folks! Or as I like to call it, “a legitimate excuse for parents to hide sweets from their kids”—like somehow the sugar fairy will get confused and keep the lollipops away forever! But let’s talk about something that’s a bit sweeter than the candy harvest.
So, American research—because nothing says “let’s discuss nutrition” quite like the land of oversized servings—has shed some light on how critical those first 1,000 days are for our little bundles of joy. Apparently, keeping sugar intake low during this period decreases the risk of diabetes and high blood pressure. Who knew? I mean, I thought the only thing that could lower your chances of diabetes was avoiding that donut shop that seems to call your name every Saturday!
Professor Tessa Roseboom, who sounds like she would win the Nobel Prize for suggesting “less cake is good,” is at the heart of this enlightening discovery. She claims our early nutrition has the power to build life’s foundations. Talk about pressure, huh? Can you imagine being a kid who realizes they’re, like, 10% less likely to develop health issues compared to their sugar-fueled peers? That’s the most “let’s put down the red velvet cake” guilt you could ever create!
The Sweet Dilemma of Proving Research
Now, here’s the kicker: confirming the effects of sugar on little ones isn’t exactly straightforward. No one is volunteering their child for the “let’s just dump sugar and see what happens” study. But the American researchers befriended a special data set from the UK biobank, which sounds fancy enough to get invited to dinner parties.
They found a treasure trove of data comparing babies born before and after sugar was rationed in Britain. What’s the conclusion from this sugar saga? The babies born when sugar was rationed were less likely to go on to develop diabetes and high blood pressure. Who would have thought rationing could save lives? Perhaps we should take this concept to the local bakery and explain why we “can’t” have those pastries today!
Sweet Protection from Sugar
Here’s another interesting tidbit: according to their findings, the longer babies were kept away from sugar, the better protected they were against diseases later in life. So if you’re struggling with toddler tantrums and sweets are not working as bribes, remember: you’re just building a stronger little human.
Good News for Mums-to-Be!
And it doesn’t end there! Apparently, even unborn babies who were exposed to sugar rationing had a lower incidence of disease later on. So, expectant mothers beware—those sugar cravings might not just be cravings; they’re a risk you’re imposing on your little sprout!
The Sugar Tax Debate
Now, here comes the cherry on top of this educational sundae: the authors of the study recommend a ban on marketing sweets to children or even a sugar tax. Roseboom’s reasoning? “What you eat in your first thousand days is not your choice.” Talk about wanting to pass the buck! But maybe it’s time the government actually stepped up and made it easier to be healthy. Less sugar could mean fewer sugar-induced brawls over who gets the last chocolate—parents worldwide will sleep better knowing their kids can’t plan a heist for candies.
So, dear parents, remember this little nugget of knowledge as you enter St. Martin’s Day: moderation is key, and perhaps fewer sweet treats could lead to your children being healthier adults. So, instead of candy, why not gift them a robust broccoli bouquet instead? They’ll definitely not forget it! Well, until their first birthday party at least.
Ing could be beneficial for health rather than just an inconvenience? It seems that when it comes to sugar, less really is more!
Sweet Protection: The Age Factor
What’s more, the research revealed that babies aged 6 to 12 months who had less sugar intake were even better protected against these health issues later in life. It’s almost like this age group had some form of superpower, dodging the sugary pitfalls the rest of us stumble into.
This brings us to a rather delicious thought: if steering clear of sugar in those first few months can make such a difference, should we be rethinking how we introduce sweet treats to our kids? Maybe it’s time for parents to pull out the carrot sticks instead of gummy bears at parties!
Womb Wisdom: Are Pregnant Women Included?
The findings don’t just stop with newborns; even pregnant women have a stake in this sugary saga. Babies exposed to sugar rationing in utero were found to have a lower risk of developing health problems later on. Talk about a win-win for prenatal nutrition!
Which begs the question—if reducing sugar in pregnancy can be so beneficial, it’s time to have some major conversations about what’s on the menu for expectant mothers!
The Sugar Tax: A Sweet Solution?
In light of all this sugar talk, it’s unsurprising that the research authors propose exploring measures like a ban on children’s marketing for sweets or implementing a sugar tax. Professor Roseboom is vocal about the importance of government intervention to promote healthy eating habits during those critical first 1,000 days.
It seems that if we want to set our kiddos up for a healthier future, we might need to enlist some help from those in charge. Because face it, parents are juggling a lot—making sure our kids don’t turn into sugar-fueled monsters while also managing our own cravings is a full-time job!
So, as St. Martin’s Day approaches and the sweet treats come rolling in, let’s contemplate the impact of sugar on our youngest generations and maybe sneak in a few more veggies alongside that candy harvest. After all, the health foundations laid during these early days will last a lifetime—even if the allure of the donut shop is hard to resist!