Sugar: why some people experience side-effects when they quit

Aug 23, 2021

4 min

It might surprise you to learn that sugar consumption has actually been steadily decreasing since 2008. This could be happening for any number of reasons, including a shift in tastes and lifestyles, with the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets, like keto, increasing in the past decade. A greater understanding of the dangers of eating excess sugar on our health may also be driving this drop.



Reducing sugar intake has clear health benefits, including reduced calorie intake, which can help with weight loss, and improved dental health. But people sometimes report side-effects when they try eating less sugar – including headaches, fatigue or mood changes, which are usually temporary. The reason for these side-effects is poorly understood. But it’s likely these symptoms relate to how the brain reacts when exposed to sugary foods – and the biology of “reward”.


Carbohydrates come in several forms – including as sugars, which can naturally occur in many foods, such as fructose in fruits and lactose in milk. Table sugar – known as sucrose – is found in sugar cane and sugar beet, maple syrup and even honey.


As mass production of food has become the norm, sucrose and other sugars are now added to foods to make them more palatable. Beyond the improved taste and “mouthfeel” of foods with high sugar content, sugar has profound biological effects in the brain. These effects are so significant it’s even led to a debate as to whether you can be “addicted” to sugar – though this is still being studied.


Sucrose activates sweet taste receptors in the mouth which ultimately leads to the release of a chemical called dopamine in the brain. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, meaning it’s a chemical that passes messages between nerves in the brain. When we’re exposed to a rewarding stimulus, the brain responds by releasing dopamine – which is why it’s often called the “reward” chemical.


The rewarding effects of dopamine are largely seen in the part of the brain involved in pleasure and reward. Reward governs our behaviour – meaning we’re driven to repeat the behaviours which caused dopamine to be released in the first place. Dopamine can drive us to seek food (such as junk food).


Experiments in both animals and people have shown how profoundly sugar activates these reward pathways. Intense sweetness surpasses even cocaine in terms of the internal reward it triggers. Interestingly, sugar is able to activate these reward pathways in the brain whether it’s tasted in the mouth or injected into the bloodstream, as shown in studies on mice. This means its effects are independent of the sweet taste.


In rats, there’s strong evidence to suggest that sucrose consumption can actually change the structures in the brain that dopamine activates as well as altering emotional processing and modifying behaviour in both animals and humans.


Quitting sugar

It’s obvious that sugar can have a powerful effect on us. So that’s why it’s not surprising to see negative effects when we eat less sugar or remove it from our diet completely. It’s during this early “sugar withdrawal” stage that both mental and physical symptoms have been reported – including depression, anxiety, brain fog and cravings, alongside headaches, fatigue and dizziness. This means giving up sugar can feel unpleasant, both mentally and physically, which may make it difficult for some to stick with the diet change.



The basis for these symptoms has not been extensively studied, but it’s likely they’re also linked to the reward pathways in the brain. Although the idea of “sugar addiction” is controversial, evidence in rats has shown that like other addictive substances, sugar is able to induce bingeing, craving and withdrawal anxiety. Other research in animals has demonstrated that the effects of sugar addiction, withdrawal and relapse are similar to those of drugs. But most of the research that exists in this area is on animals, so it’s currently difficult to say whether it’s the same for humans.


The reward pathways in the human brain have remained unchanged by evolution – and it’s likely many other organisms have similar reward pathways in their brains. This means that the biological impacts of sugar withdrawal seen in animals are likely to occur to some degree in humans too because our brains have similar reward pathways.


A change in the brain’s chemical balance is almost certainly behind the symptoms reported in humans who remove or reduce dietary sugar. As well as being involved in reward, dopamine also regulates hormonal control, nausea and vomiting and anxiety. As sugar is removed from the diet, the rapid reduction in dopamine’s effects in the brain would likely interfere in the normal function of many different brain pathways, explaining why people report these symptoms. Although research on sugar withdrawal in humans is limited, one study has provided evidence of withdrawal symptoms and increased sugar cravings after sugar was removed from the diets of overweight and obese adolescents.


As with any dietary change, sticking to it is key. So if you want to reduce sugar from your diet long term, being able to get through the first few difficult weeks is crucial. It’s important to acknowledge, however, that sugar isn’t “bad” per se – but that it should be eaten in moderation alongside a healthy diet and exercise

Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

3 min

New research partnership to develop biodegradable gloves from food waste for healthcare sector

Knowledge Transfer Partnership between Aston University and PFE Medical to develop a biodegradable clinical glove from food waste The gloves will provide a low-cost, convenient and sustainable alternative to the 1.4bn disposable gloves used in the NHS each year The innovation will reduce clinical waste and costs and help the NHS reach its net zero goals. Aston University and Midlands-based company PFE Medical are teaming up to create biodegradable gloves made from food waste for use in the NHS. They will offer a low-cost, convenient alternative to disposable gloves without compromising patient safety. More than 1.4bn disposable gloves are used by the NHS each year. They create large volumes of clinical waste which has both an environmental and economic cost. The Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) project will develop a more sustainable alternative made from polymers derived from food waste such as orange peel, able to degrade naturally. The gloves will initially be for use during low-risk tasks such as ultrasound scans, rather than in more critical situations such as operating theatres. The gloves would be designed to not only reduce clinical waste and costs in the NHS, but also carbon emissions, helping the NHS reach its goal to be the world’s first net-zero health service. With most personal protective equipment (PPE) currently sourced from Chinese manufacturers, the goal is to develop a biodegradable glove that can be manufactured using a UK supply chain. The challenging project draws on Aston University’s expertise in sustainable polymer chemistry, centred at Aston Institute for Membrane Excellence (AIME). Aston University has one of the largest research groups of polymer chemists in the UK. The project will be led at the University by Professor Paul Topham, director of AIME, and Dr James Wilson, AIME associate member. The research team have chosen to focus on polymers from food waste in order to ensure that the final product can be manufactured sustainably. Most polymers are currently made from petroleum. Polymers made from food waste, ranging from fruit waste to corn or dairy products, have the potential for antioxidant and antibacterial properties if designed appropriately. The team will manipulate the polymer molecules so that they include the right monomers (the smaller units which make up the molecules) in the right location to achieve the properties they require. Critical to the success of the project will be PFE Medical’s commercial and clinical experience of taking new innovations into medical use. It will be the third KTP between Aston University and PFE, following on from successful projects to develop an automated endoscope cleaner, now in use across University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHB). Professor Topham said: “At Aston University, we have a long history of working with industry, of translating fundamental research into solutions for real world problems. This project with PFE Medical provides us with that route, to take our science and engineering and make a difference to peoples’ lives. That’s exactly where, as researchers, we want to be.” Rob Hartley, CEO of PFE Medical, said: “Our previous KTP with Aston University was a phenomenal success, thanks to the brilliant team we had on board. I’m just as excited by this project, which is looking to solve an equally long-standing problem. If we can achieve our goal, then the implications are huge, going far beyond the NHS to all the other situations where people are wearing disposable gloves.” KTPs, funded by Innovate UK, are collaborations between a business, a university and a highly qualified research associate. The UK-wide programme helps businesses to improve their competitiveness and productivity through the better use of knowledge, technology and skills. Aston University is a sector-leading KTP provider, ranked first for project quality, and joint first for the volume of active projects. For further details about this KTP, visit the webpage: www.aston.ac.uk/business/collaborate-with-us/knowledge-transfer-partnership/at-work/pfe-medical.

2 min

Aston University’s Professor Gina Rippon wins British Psychological Society book award for The Lost Girls of Autism

Gina Rippon, professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University, has won an award for her book, The Lost Girls of Autism The book won the 2025 British Psychological Society Popular Science Award It explores the emerging science of female autism, and examines why it has been systematically ignored and misunderstood for so long. The Lost Girls of Autism, the latest book from Gina Rippon, professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment (IHN), has won the 2025 British Psychological Society (BPS) Popular Science Award. The annual BPS Book Awards recognise exceptional published works in the field of psychology. There are four categories – popular science, textbook, academic monograph and practitioner text. With the subtitle ‘How Science Failed Autistic Women and the New Research that’s Changing the Story’, The Lost Girls of Autism explores the emerging science of female autism, and examines why it has been systematically ignored and misunderstood for so long. Historically, clinicians believed that autism was a male condition, and simply did not look for it in girls and women. This has meant that autistic girls visiting a doctor have been misdiagnosed with anxiety, depression or personality disorders, or are missed altogether. Many women only discover they have the condition when they are much older. Professor Rippon said: “It's such a pleasure and an honour to receive this award from the BPS. It’s obviously flattering to join the great company of previous winners, but I’m also extremely grateful for the attention drawn to the issues raised in the book. “Over many decades, due to autism’s ‘male spotlight’ problem, autistic girls and women have been overlooked, deprived of the help they needed, and even denied access to the very research studies that could widen our understanding of autism. This book tells the stories of these girls and women, and I’m thrilled to accept this prize on their behalf.”

3 min

New book from Aston University academic shows that Christmas tasks mostly fall on women

New book by Dr Emily Christopher shows differences in how household tasks are divided by men and women Book highlights that women tend to buy the Christmas presents and send cards Men often see women as being more thoughtful or having better knowledge of what people would like. A new book from Aston University’s Dr Emily Christopher reveals that when it comes to sending Christmas cards and buying Christmas presents, women are still mostly doing the work as they are perceived to have better knowledge of what people would like. Dr Emily Christopher, a lecturer in sociology and policy at Aston School of Law and Social Sciences, has recently published her book Couples at Work: Negotiating Paid Employment, Housework and Childcare, which look at how household tasks are divided by men and women and the reasons behind these divisions. The data for the book has been collated over an eight-year period with couples being interviewed twice to provide a robust set of results. It looks at how different sex parent couples combined paid work, housework and childcare. The research revealed how gender norms continue to shape how certain daily household jobs are divided. Women were more likely than men to clean the house, especially bathrooms, wash clothes and put clothes away. Men still tend to do tasks like mowing the lawn and DIY but now are also more likely to do the cooking and the grocery shopping. The research shows that the key to understanding how household tasks are divided lies in the meaning they hold for partners. With the festive season upon us, the book reveals that woman are largely responsible for the Christmas present buying and sending cards with 100% of those taking part in the research saying that women mostly carried out these tasks. This also included buying for the male partner's relatives. In instances where men had a 'helping' role in these tasks, this included being involved in the discussion or consulting on choice of presents, especially for children, with only a small minority buying presents for their own family. The data revealed that where women didn't choose and buy presents for their partners family, they were still involved in reminding their partners that this needed to be done or advising on choice of gifts, showing that women were still taking on the mental load of planning for the festive season. The book reveals that when men were questioned about why they didn't get involved in present buying, they drew on gender norms. Women were often described, by the men, as being more thoughtful or having better knowledge of what people would like. Men often described how family members wouldn’t receive presents at all if it relied on them. Although much of the gift giving and organising represented love and affection for the women, which many found enjoyable, many still saw it as work and expressed that they would like their partners' to be more involved. Dr Christopher said: “This book takes an in-depth look at the way in which everyday roles around the household are divided between men and women. “The research shows that over a period of eight years fathers increased their role in childcare tasks but this did not always extend to housework. “The pandemic was an opportunity to change how couples share housework but women were still more likely to carry out tasks like cleaning, washing clothes and putting clothes away and overwhelmingly remained responsible for the mental orchestration of family work.”

View all posts