A study from the University of Surrey, published in the Journal of Translational Medicine, found that people with a preference for sweet foods ("sweet tooth" group) face higher risks of depression, diabetes, and vascular issues like stroke compared to health-conscious and omnivore groups. Using data from 180,000 UK Biobank participants, researchers employed artificial intelligence to categorize participants into three food preference groups:
Health-conscious: Prefer fruits and vegetables over sweets and animal-based foods.
Omnivores: Enjoy a mix of all food types, including sweets and meats.
Sweet tooth: Favor sugary foods and drinks while avoiding healthier options like fruits and vegetables.
Key Findings:
Sweet tooth group:
31% higher risk of depression.
Elevated inflammatory markers (e.g., C-reactive protein), poor glucose control, and lipid profiles.
Higher risks of diabetes, stroke, and heart disease.
Health-conscious group:
Lower risks of heart failure, stroke, and kidney disease.
Better blood markers, including reduced inflammation and improved metabolic profiles.
Omnivores: Moderate health risks compared to the other groups.
The study emphasizes the link between food preferences and health outcomes, stressing the need to moderate sugar intake for long-term health benefits.
Research Methods:
Blood biochemistry comparisons and analysis of 2,923 proteins and 168 metabolites.
Relative risks (RR) adjusted for demographic factors.
AI-driven classification of food preferences.
Conclusion:Food preferences strongly influence health outcomes. A sweet-heavy diet increases risks for mental and metabolic health issues, while a health-conscious diet promotes better health. The findings highlight the importance of informed dietary choices.
Navratilova, H. F., Whetton, A. D., & Geifman, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence driven definition of food preference endotypes in UK Biobank volunteers is associated with distinctive health outcomes and blood-based metabolomic and proteomic profiles. Journal of Translational Medicine, 22(1), 881. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05663-0
Comments