The study drew on health and dietary data from 112,284 participants enrolled in two long-running U.S. research programs: the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Participants periodically reported what they ate and drank, along with information about body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol use, medication, and other health characteristics. Because these cohorts have been followed for decades, researchers were able to compare beverage habits with cancer diagnoses over an extended period. During follow-up, 278 participants developed gastric cancer. The large sample and repeated dietary assessments gave investigators an opportunity to examine relatively uncommon cancer outcomes while accounting for factors that could otherwise distort the results.

Sugar-sweetened beverages in the analysis included carbonated soft drinks, fruit punch, lemonade, and sports drinks. These products commonly contain substantial quantities of added sugars, including fructose, the primary sweetener in many beverages made with high-fructose corn syrup or sucrose. When consumed in liquid form, sugar can be absorbed rapidly because beverages generally provide little fiber, protein, or fat to slow digestion. The researchers found that greater overall fructose intake was also associated with a higher incidence of gastric cancer, strengthening the biological plausibility of the beverage finding. However, fructose is present in many foods, and the study cannot determine whether the risk is specific to beverages, the total dietary pattern associated with them, or another correlated exposure.

The strongest associations appeared among people drinking sweetened beverages every day. Women in the Nurses’ Health Study who consumed more than one such beverage daily had a 3.04-fold higher risk of gastric cancer than women who rarely drank them. The relationship was observed in both women and men, suggesting that it was not confined to one sex or one cohort. Researchers also examined artificially sweetened beverages, defined in this study as low-calorie carbonated drinks. After adjustment for other risk factors, these beverages were not associated with an increased incidence of gastric cancer. That result should not be interpreted as proof that artificially sweetened drinks are universally harmless, because the study evaluated a specific beverage category and was not designed to establish the long-term safety of individual sweeteners.

Gastric cancer develops in the lining of the stomach and remains one of the world’s leading causes of cancer death. Its biology is complex, involving inherited susceptibility, chronic inflammation, infection, diet, smoking, and other environmental exposures. A potential explanation for the beverage association is that repeated exposure to high amounts of sugar could contribute to metabolic dysfunction, including weight gain, insulin resistance, and chronic inflammation. These conditions may influence cellular growth and the tissue environment in which tumors arise. Concentrated sugars might also affect the stomach indirectly by altering the gut microbiome or promoting biochemical changes that increase oxidative stress. Such mechanisms remain hypothetical in this context; the present study did not measure these biological pathways directly.

The investigators paid particular attention to Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium that colonizes the stomach and is one of the best-established risk factors for gastric cancer. Long-term H. pylori infection can cause chronic gastritis, damage the stomach lining, and promote a sequence of changes that may eventually lead to malignancy. In a subset of 940 participants, slightly more than one-third showed evidence of H. pylori infection. Researchers found no association between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and infection status, suggesting that the beverage finding was not simply explained by people who drank more sugary beverages being more likely to carry the bacterium. The subset was small, however, and limited testing meant that the role of H. pylori could not be examined with the same precision as beverage intake.

The results fit within a broader research picture linking sugary beverages with colorectal, breast, and liver cancers, although the strength and consistency of those associations vary. Liquid sugar has attracted scientific interest because it can increase total energy intake without producing the same sense of fullness as solid food. Regular consumption may therefore contribute to excess body weight, a recognized risk factor for several cancers. Yet body weight alone is unlikely to explain every observation, and the Mass General Brigham team adjusted for obesity-related and other potential confounders in its statistical models. Even so, statistical adjustment cannot remove every source of bias, particularly when some relevant factors are measured incompletely or not measured at all.

The study’s observational design is its most important limitation. Participants were not randomly assigned to drink sugary beverages, so their beverage choices may have reflected broader differences in diet, income, health behavior, access to medical care, or underlying disease risk. The researchers had limited information about H. pylori status and family history of gastric cancer, both of which could influence the results. The participants were also predominantly white, restricting the ability to determine whether the association differs among racial and ethnic groups. In addition, dietary questionnaires depend on memory and may not fully capture changes in beverage consumption over time. These limitations mean the findings should be viewed as a signal requiring confirmation, not as evidence that a particular drink inevitably causes cancer.

Andrew T. Chan, a gastroenterologist and epidemiologist at the Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute and the study’s senior author, said the work represents the first study to demonstrate an association between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and gastric cancer in a U.S. population. The researchers say future investigations should test the finding in more diverse populations and explore whether metabolic changes, inflammation, microbial alterations, or other mechanisms connect sugary drinks with tumors of the stomach. For now, the evidence adds another reason for consumers and public-health researchers to scrutinize the role of added sugar in everyday diets. The central message is not that an occasional soft drink determines an individual’s cancer risk, but that sustained daily consumption may be part of a modifiable pattern associated with a serious disease.

Subject of Research: People

Article Title: Association between sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverage intake and gastric cancer incidence

News Publication Date: 17-Aug-2026

References: Gweon TG et al., “Association between sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverage intake and gastric cancer incidence,” Gastro Hep Advances.

Keywords: sugar-sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, gastric cancer, stomach cancer, fructose, Helicobacter pylori, diet, cancer risk, observational study, epidemiology

The investigators drew their findings from three longitudinal cohorts: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II, collectively covering nearly 30 years of participant monitoring. These studies provide a unique window into physical activity patterns and their associations with mortality at a scale rarely achieved in exercise epidemiology. Participants were queried biennially regarding their weekly time allocation to both strength-based and aerobic activities, facilitating a robust temporal characterization of exercise habits against health outcomes.

Strength training, as defined in the study, encompassed activities leveraging external weights or one’s own body weight, such as squats, lunges, and press-ups. Aerobic exercise included a broad spectrum of relatively moderate to vigorous activities, from brisk walking and jogging to swimming and tennis, all quantified using metabolic equivalent tasks (METs). METs serve as a universal metric describing the energy cost of physical activities relative to resting metabolic rate, thus contextualizing exercise intensity and volume objectively.

Analyzing mortality data over 30 years revealed compelling dose-dependent trends. Individuals engaging in 90 to 119 minutes per week of strength training experienced a notable 13% reduction in all-cause mortality risk after adjusting for confounding variables. This protective effect plateaued beyond 120 minutes weekly, suggesting a ceiling effect wherein additional strength training does not yield commensurate mortality benefits. Such nonlinear relationships underscore the complexity of exercise physiology and its interplay with chronic disease etiology.

More granular cause-specific mortality analyses uncovered even more striking associations. Cardiovascular mortality risk was reduced by 19% within the 90 to 119-minute strength training bracket, while neurological disease mortality dropped by 27%. Conversely, reductions in cancer-related deaths emerged primarily at lower doses of resistance training, with a 21% and 18% lower risk observed in those training 1–29 and 30–59 minutes weekly, respectively. This differential suggests that resistance training may exert disease-specific protective mechanisms, potentially mediated through cardiovascular and neuroprotective pathways.

Notably, aerobic exercise maintained its reputation for life preservation, with adherents surpassing the recommended threshold of 7.5 MET hours per week exhibiting a 26 to 43% decreased mortality risk. The study further illuminates the synergistic effects of coupling aerobic and strength training. Those performing substantial aerobic activity alongside approximately 60 to 119 minutes of strength training weekly registered the lowest mortality rates, with risk reductions up to 58%. These findings highlight the additive benefits of multimodal exercise regimens and substantiate public health recommendations advocating for diverse physical activity.

Despite its strengths, the authors candidly acknowledge limitations inherent in observational research. The reliance on self-reported activity data introduces potential misclassification bias, and the absence of precision regarding session duration and intensity precludes nuanced analyses of exercise dose quality. Moreover, specific resistance modalities such as calisthenics and Pilates were omitted, potentially underrepresenting total strength training exposure. These factors caution against overinterpretation and highlight avenues for future controlled interventions to elucidate causality.

The study population’s demographic profile further contextualizes the results. Participants averaged 54 years of age at baseline, with those engaging in more resistance training typically younger, leaner, and possessing healthier lifestyles and aerobic habits. While adjustments were made for confounders, residual lifestyle or genetic variables could partially mediate observed relationships, an endemic challenge to epidemiological inquiry. Nonetheless, the sheer size and duration of the cohorts make these findings highly generalizable and impactful.

From a physiological standpoint, resistance training induces multifaceted adaptations that may underlie its mortality benefits. These include enhanced skeletal muscle mass and strength, improved insulin sensitivity, favorable alterations in blood pressure, lipid profiles, and systemic inflammation, all of which converge to mitigate cardiovascular and metabolic disease risk. Neuroprotective effects may derive from increased cerebral blood flow, neurotrophic factor expression, and improved motor function, collectively contributing to lowered neurological mortality observed.

The complex dose-response patterns observed emphasize that exercise prescriptions must be tailored to maximize health benefits without promoting excessive training that may confer diminishing returns or adverse effects. The plateau identified beyond 120 minutes weekly aligns with emerging literature suggesting an optimal moderate volume of resistance exercise, encouraging careful calibration of training programs within public health guidelines.

Importantly, the synergy with aerobic exercise reinforces a holistic approach to physical activity. Aerobic modalities enhance cardiorespiratory fitness and metabolic regulation, complementing resistance training’s effects on muscular and neurological systems. Integrating both exercise types likely yields complementary biochemical and physiological adaptations, underscoring the imperative for diverse movement practices within lifestyle interventions to reduce mortality risk broadly.

In summary, this landmark study compellingly advocates for incorporating at least 90 minutes of strength training weekly as a strategic element in longevity promotion. While maintaining or exceeding recommended aerobic activity levels, individuals stand to gain maximal survival advantages through combined modality exercise. These data provide critical evidence supporting updated physical activity guidelines prioritizing muscle strengthening alongside cardiovascular health for a comprehensive approach to disease prevention and healthspan extension.

Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Long-term resistance training with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: assessing dose-response and joint associations with aerobic physical activity
News Publication Date: 2-Jun-2026
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2025-110503
Keywords: Physical exercise, Mortality rates