Like, access google scholar, type in: effects of glycation on genome expression. Read abstracts of results, form opinion or find the next best review that discusses the issue at length to form an adequate opinion on the consensus of the field.
In Biology they all pretty much agree that glycation and adiposity is bad for health because it destroys the genome. They have numerous reasons for that believe (it's a theory, but it has plenty of evidence: I refer to the DNA = broken you'll get cancer theory).
I personally read a summary by Amen (2016), but that one is privately published so IDK if you want to give me a 10 minute mail so that I can send the PDF to you.
Alternatively, if you really really really want to know I'll provide you with a list of references that Amen used in his paper.
It's mostly rodent, mammal and bird studies though. Obviously cannot lock humans into cages and feed them diets that are suspected to cause cancer or vice verse study effect of diets that prevent cancer (human lifespan is a serious limitation for those, rodents are much better because you can have a few generations in a decade and publish results). However, the AMEN paper mostly addresses diet and the physiological mechanisms that destroy the body when you are on a 'bad' diet.
Nonetheless, you can extrapolate some of the research findings to bio-physiological processes and then speculate that they would also affect the psyche in a detrimental way. Speculate because there is currently no consensus in neuroscience.
There is consensus on certain things, like facilitation of neurogenisis in the hypothalamus of rats that are exercised with some evidence supporting this claim in humans (e.g.: elderly patients in a nursing home after 12 week light exercise program), but of course you cannot claim that this can HEAL a disorder.
It can merely reverse some of the physiological deterioration that occurs in old age and with the (somewhat) limited restoration of the system there is a possibility of the reversal of symptoms (more or less).
I recently wrote a paper on the topic of exercise and self-regulation. Exercise seems to improve self-regulation because it improves blood flow which increases blood flow to the PFC which is the decision making center. The PFC is furthest away from the heart and thus more likely 'just because of the distance' to be cut off from blood flow compared to say the brain stem which is actually connected to the two main arteries going into the brain which basically means its never starved for blood. On the other hand the PFC is only connected to one artery and thus could be more easily starved from blood if the heart muscle is not able to move sufficient volume of blood to the brain. Exercise makes this less likely because exercise grows the heart muscle and improves blood circulation (sheer volume increases per pump, larger heart muscle pumps more blood per beat, larger heart muscle can pump at higher frequency if necessary, etc.)
You can start by reading the paper from Reynard, Gervitz, Berlow et. al (2011) in Psychophysiological Biofeedback. The article is called Heart Rate Variability as a Marker of Self-Regulation.
The article itself summarizes a lot of the finding, BUT it obviously links to a long list of articles who explain the biological, physiological and psychological background at length. Please don't ask me to link all the articles I have on that topic individually and research it for yourself a little. The articles cited in this article are a good start, but there are much better biological papers I have to admit.
My offer for the Amen article and its content list still stand. I'll have to find the email with his article but I know I still have it. However, it's like 2 AM here already and I think I won't look that up tonight. So get back to me tomorrow and I'll see what I can find for you.