Literature DB >> 30576280

Daily Intake of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Among US Adults in 9 States, by State and Sociodemographic and Behavioral Characteristics, 2016.

Elizabeth A Lundeen1, Sohyun Park2, Liping Pan2, Heidi M Blanck2.   

Abstract

We examined associations between sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake - a chronic disease risk factor - and characteristics of 75,029 adults (≥18 y) in 9 states by using 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data. We used multinomial logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios for SSB intake categorized as none (reference), fewer than 1 time per day, and 1 or more times per day, by sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics. Overall, 32.1% of respondents drank SSBs 1 or more times per day. We found higher odds for 1 or more times per day among younger respondents, men, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black respondents, current smokers, respondents residing in nonmetropolitan counties, employed respondents, and those with less than high school education, obesity, and no physical activity. Our findings can inform the targeting of efforts to reduce SSB consumption.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30576280      PMCID: PMC6307838          DOI: 10.5888/pcd15.180335

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis        ISSN: 1545-1151            Impact factor:   2.830


Objective

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) — nondiet soda, fruit drinks that are not 100% juice, sweet tea, sports drinks, and energy drinks — are the largest source of added sugars in the diet of US adults (1). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data showed that 49.3% of US adults consumed 1 or more SSBs on a given day during 2011–2014 (2). Frequent SSB consumption is associated with increased risk of weight gain, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and dental caries (3–6). The objective of this study was to update data for 9 states on the frequency of SSB intake and its association with selected sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics.

Methods

We analyzed 2016 data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a state-based random-digit–dial telephone survey of US adults, conducted annually to monitor health conditions and behaviors. BRFSS uses multistage, stratified sampling to select a representative sample of noninstitutionalized adults in each state, the District of Columbia, and selected US territories. Nine states included questions from the SSB optional module in 2016: Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia. These states had a median combined landline and cell phone response rate of 43.0% (range, 36.3%–55.2%) (7). SSB questions were 1) “During the past 30 days, how often did you drink regular soda/pop containing sugar? Do not include diet soda/pop.” and 2) “During the past 30 days, how often did you drink sugar-sweetened fruit drinks (eg, Kool-Aid/lemonade), sweet tea, and sports or energy drinks (eg, Gatorade/Red Bull)? Do not include 100% fruit juice, diet drinks, or artificially sweetened drinks.” We converted SSB consumption, reported as number of times per day, week, or month, to daily intake for both questions and then summed to calculate daily SSB intake, categorized as none, more than 0 to fewer than 1 time per day (labeled as <1 time per day), and 1 or more times per day (8). We excluded respondents who were missing SSB data (n = 10,731 [12.5%]), leaving 75,029 adults. Compared with respondents who did not have SSB data, respondents who had SSB data were older, had more education, and were more likely to be non-Hispanic white or female. We used χ2 tests to examine whether frequency of SSB intake differed by population subgroup (significant at P < .05). We performed exploratory multinomial logistic regression, using complete case analysis (n = 67,965) and complex survey design sampling weights, to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for SSB intake of fewer than 1 time per day and 1 or more times per day (reference: none), by all characteristics in the model: state, age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, employment status, weight status, smoking status, alcohol intake, leisure-time physical activity, and metropolitan status (residing in a metropolitan county or nonmetropolitan county [9]).

Results

Of the 75,029 respondents in 9 states, 47.9% were men and 52.1% were women (Table 1). Most were non-Hispanic white (62.8%), married (51.5%), and employed (57.1%) and had completed at least some college or technical school (57.1%). SSBs were never consumed by 26.4% of respondents, consumed fewer than 1 time per day by 41.5%, and consumed 1 or more times per day by 32.1%. SSB intake of more than 2 times per day was reported by 17.1% of respondents. Frequency of SSB consumption 1 or more times per day ranged from 21.5% in New Jersey to 46.8% in Mississippi.
Table 1

Frequency of Sugar-Sweetened Beveragea Intake, by Sociodemographic and Behavioral Characteristics, Among Adults Aged ≥18 in 9 States, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016

CharacteristicTotal, n (%)b Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake, % (95% Confidence Interval)c
None<1 Time per Day≥1 Time per Day
Total sample 75,029 (100.0)26.4 (25.5–27.3)41.5 (40.4–42.6)32.1 (31.0–33.2)
States (n = 75,029)
Delaware3,565 (1.2)29.4 (27.5–31.4)39.6 (37.3–41.9)31.0 (28.9–33.2)
Indiana9,744 (7.9)22.5 (21.5–23.6)39.4 (38.0–40.8)38.1 (36.6–39.6)
Iowa6,296 (3.8)27.7 (26.4–29.0)43.1 (41.5–44.7)29.2 (27.7–30.8)
Mississippi4,549 (3.6)19.1 (17.7–20.6)34.1 (32.2–36.0)46.8 (44.8–48.8)
New Jersey6,464 (10.3)37.0 (35.2–38.9)41.5 (39.5–43.4)21.5 (19.9–23.3)
New York29,547 (22.9)32.3 (31.3–33.4)44.3 (43.1–45.6)23.3 (22.3–24.4)
Ohio3,452 (15.1)25.2 (23.2–27.2)40.7 (38.2–43.2)34.2 (31.7–36.7)
Texas4,773 (32.8)21.4 (19.2–23.8)41.3 (38.4–44.3)37.3 (34.3–40.3)
West Virginia6,639 (2.5)21.3 (20.2–22.4)38.4 (37.0–39.8)40.4 (38.9–41.8)
Age group, y (n = 75,029)
18–243,475 (12.3)9.9 (7.4–13.0)46.7 (42.4–51.0)43.4 (39.2–47.8)
25–346,895 (17.0)13.7 (11.8–15.9)45.2 (42.0–48.4)41.1 (37.9–44.4)
35–448,208 (16.6)18.8 (16.7–20.9)43.5 (40.6–46.5)37.7 (34.8–40.8)
45–5412,183 (17.3)28.7 (26.5–30.9)40.4 (38.0–42.8)30.9 (28.5–33.4)
≥5544,268 (36.9)40.1 (38.9–41.4)37.7 (36.4–39.0)22.2 (21.0–23.4)
Sex (n = 75,029)
Male31,802 (47.9)22.4 (21.1–23.8)42.1 (40.5–43.7)35.5 (33.9–37.1)
Female43,227 (52.1)30.1 (28.9–31.3)40.9 (39.4–42.5)29.0 (27.4–30.6)
Race/ethnicity (n = 73,740)
Non-Hispanic white60,679 (62.8)30.2 (29.2–31.2)39.3 (38.1–40.4)30.5 (29.3–31.8)
Non-Hispanic black5,708 (12.1)18.5 (15.7–21.5)44.3 (40.7–48.0)37.2 (33.7–40.9)
Hispanic4,689 (18.5)18.3 (16.1–20.6)44.1 (40.8–47.5)37.6 (34.3–41.1)
Non-Hispanic other2,664 (6.6)26.2 (21.9–31.1)51.0 (45.8–56.1)22.8 (19.1–27.0)
Education (n = 74,820)
Some high school6,353 (14.2)22.0 (19.4–24.9)33.8 (30.7–37.1)44.2 (40.5–47.9)
High school graduate or GED22,865 (28.7)21.9 (20.6–23.2)38.8 (36.8–40.7)39.4 (37.4–41.4)
Some college or technical school19,494 (30.4)26.7 (24.8–28.6)41.9 (39.7–44.2)31.4 (29.3–33.6)
College graduate26,108 (26.7)33.2 (31.7–34.7)48.0 (46.3–49.8)18.8 (17.3–20.3)
Marital status (n = 74,627)
Married38,400 (51.5)30.0 (28.7–31.2)42.2 (40.7–43.6)27.9 (26.4–29.3)
Single13,671 (28.4)16.7 (15.0–18.5)43.5 (41.1–45.9)39.8 (37.4–42.2)
Divorced/separated/widowed22,556 (20.1)30.9 (29.1–32.8)37.1 (34.9–39.3)32.0 (29.6–34.4)
Employment status (n = 74,554)
Employed35,858 (57.1)22.9 (21.8–24.1)42.5 (41.0–44.1)34.5 (33.0–36.1)
Not employed15,134 (25.4)23.1 (21.2–25.1)41.4 (39.1–43.8)35.5 (33.2–37.9)
Retired23,562 (17.5)42.5 (40.7–44.3)37.9 (36.2–39.8)19.5 (18.1–21.0)
Weight statusd (n = 70,611)
Underweight/normal weight22,269 (32.5)28.4 (26.8–30.0)41.4 (39.5–43.3)30.2 (28.4–32.1)
Overweight25,324 (35.1)26.9 (25.4–28.5)42.5 (40.6–44.4)30.6 (28.8–32.4)
Obesity23,018 (32.4)23.2 (21.6–24.8)39.9 (37.9–42.0)36.9 (34.7–39.2)
Smoking status (n = 74,651)
Nonsmoker40,591 (59.4)26.2 (25.1–27.5)45.1 (43.6–46.6)28.7 (27.2–30.2)
Former smoker21,959 (24.1)33.4 (31.5–35.3)39.5 (37.4–41.6)27.1 (25.1–29.2)
Current smoker12,101 (16.5)16.8 (15.2–18.5)31.6 (29.2–34.1)51.6 (49.0–54.2)
Alcohol intakee (n=74,361)
None36,481 (47.2)26.9 (25.6–28.2)38.4 (36.8–40.0)34.7 (33.1–36.4)
Any33,797 (46.8)25.7 (24.4–27.0)44.7 (43.1–46.3)29.6 (28.1–31.3)
Heavy4,083 (6.0)26.4 (22.5–30.8)41.9 (37.3–46.6)31.7 (27.3–36.5)
Leisure-time physical activityf (n = 74,925)
Participated in physical activity or exercise54,147 (73.6)26.9 (25.9–27.9)43.4 (42.1–44.7)29.7 (28.4–31.0)
Did not participate in physical activity or exercise20,778 (26.4)25.0 (23.4–26.8)36.2 (34.2–38.2)38.8 (36.6–41.0)
Metropolitan status (n = 75,029)
Metropolitan county51,149 (83.0)27.4 (26.4–28.4)42.0 (40.7–43.2)30.6 (29.4–31.9)
Nonmetropolitan county23,880 (17.0)21.5 (19.8–23.3)39.2 (36.7–41.7)39.3 (36.6–42.1)

Includes nondiet soda, fruit drinks that are not 100% juice, sweet tea, sports drinks, and energy drinks.

Unweighted sample size and weighted percentage. Weighted percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

χ2 tests were used for each variable to examine differences across categories. All P values <.001.

Classified based on body mass index (BMI): underweight/normal weight (BMI <25.0 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0 to <30.0 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2).

Alcohol intake was categorized as none, any (≥1 drink of any alcoholic beverage during the past month but not heavy drinking), and heavy (>2 drinks per day for men and >1 drink per day for women).

Leisure-time physical activity was categorized as 1) participating in any or 2) not participating in any physical activity or exercise during the past 30 days other than in a regular job.

Includes nondiet soda, fruit drinks that are not 100% juice, sweet tea, sports drinks, and energy drinks. Unweighted sample size and weighted percentage. Weighted percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. χ2 tests were used for each variable to examine differences across categories. All P values <.001. Classified based on body mass index (BMI): underweight/normal weight (BMI <25.0 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0 to <30.0 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2). Alcohol intake was categorized as none, any (≥1 drink of any alcoholic beverage during the past month but not heavy drinking), and heavy (>2 drinks per day for men and >1 drink per day for women). Leisure-time physical activity was categorized as 1) participating in any or 2) not participating in any physical activity or exercise during the past 30 days other than in a regular job. SSB intake differed by state, age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, employment status, weight status, smoking status, alcohol intake, leisure-time physical activity, and metropolitan status (all P < .001 by χ2 test). The prevalence of SSB intake of 1 or more times per day was higher among men (35.5%) than among women. By age group, it was highest among respondents aged 18 to 24 years (43.4%); by race/ethnicity, it was highest among Hispanic respondents (37.6%) and non-Hispanic black respondents (37.2%); by education, highest among those with some high school education (44.2%); by marital status, highest among respondents who were single (39.8%); by employment status, highest among respondents not employed (35.5%); by smoking status, highest among current smokers (51.6%); by weight status, highest among respondents with obesity (36.9%); by metropolitan status, higher among residents of nonmetropolitan counties (39.3%); by alcohol intake, highest among respondents who consumed no alcohol in the past month (34.7%); and by leisure-time physical activity, higher among respondents who had no physical activity in the past month (38.8%). Adjusted odds of drinking SSBs 1 or more times per day were significantly higher among respondents aged 18 to 54 (AOR range, 1.82–7.84) versus those aged 55 or older; men (AOR = 1.66) versus women; Hispanic (AOR = 1.43) and non-Hispanic black respondents (AOR = 1.65) versus non-Hispanic white respondents; respondents who did not complete college (AOR range,1.67–2.71) versus those who completed college; respondents who were employed (AOR = 1.30) versus those not employed; respondents with obesity (AOR = 1.40) versus those who were underweight/normal weight; current smokers (AOR = 2.44) versus nonsmokers; respondents who did not participate physical activity in the past month (AOR = 1.39) versus those who did participate; and residents of nonmetropolitan counties (AOR = 1.36) versus metropolitan counties (Table 2). Odds for SSB intake of 1 or more times per day were significantly lower among heavy alcohol drinkers (AOR = 0.65) versus those with no alcohol consumption in the past month. We observed somewhat similar patterns among respondents who consumed SSBs fewer than 1 time per day.
Table 2

Adjusted Odds Ratios for Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake ≥1 Time per Day and <1 Time per Day, by Sociodemographic and Behavioral Characteristics Among Adults in 9 States, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016

CharacteristicSugar-Sweetened Beveragea Intake, Adjusted Odds Ratiob (95% Confidence Interval)
≥1 Time per Day<1 Time per Day
State
Delaware1.49 (1.28–1.74)1.05 (0.92–1.20)
Indiana2.28 (2.02–2.57)1.42 (1.28–1.57)
Iowa1.38 (1.20–1.59)1.18 (1.05–1.32)
Mississippi2.69 (2.26–3.20)1.27 (1.09–1.49)
New Jersey0.84 (0.73–0.97)0.86 (0.77–0.97)
New Yorkc 1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Ohio1.81 (1.52–2.15)1.28 (1.10–1.48)
Texas2.16 (1.76–2.66)1.22 (1.02–1.47)
West Virginia2.40 (2.09–2.76)1.52 (1.35–1.72)
Age group, y
18–247.84 (5.11–12.03)4.67 (3.17–6.90)
25–345.13 (3.96–6.65)3.15 (2.50–3.97)
35–443.48 (2.77–4.37)2.12 (1.75–2.58)
45–541.82 (1.50–2.21)1.41 (1.20–1.65)
≥551.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Sex
Male1.66 (1.44–1.90)1.35 (1.20–1.51)
Female1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic white1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Non-Hispanic black1.65 (1.25–2.18)1.70 (1.33–2.17)
Hispanic1.43 (1.12–1.84)1.72 (1.38–2.14)
Other non-Hispanic0.77 (0.54–1.11)1.33 (0.98–1.80)
Education
Some high school2.38 (1.82–3.12)0.88 (0.70–1.12)
High school graduate or GED2.71 (2.29–3.21)1.25 (1.09–1.43)
Some college or technical school1.67 (1.39–2.01)1.02 (0.88–1.18)
College graduate1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Marital status
Married1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Single1.03 (0.83–1.27)0.95 (0.79–1.14)
Divorced/separated/widowed1.14 (0.97–1.34)1.05 (0.92–1.19)
Employment status
Employed1.30 (1.07–1.57)1.08 (0.92–1.27)
Not employed1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Retired0.84 (0.69–1.04)0.93 (0.78–1.10)
Weight statusd
Underweight/normal weight1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Overweight1.06 (0.90–1.25)1.14 (1.0–1.30)
Obesity1.40 (1.18–1.68)1.23 (1.07–1.43)
Smoking status
Nonsmoker1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Former smoker0.94 (0.80–1.10)0.87 (0.76–0.99)
Current smoker2.44 (2.06–2.91)1.13 (0.96–1.34)
Alcohol intakee
None1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Any0.89 (0.76–1.03)1.15 (1.01–1.29)
Heavy0.65 (0.49–0.88)0.94 (0.72–1.23)
Leisure-time physical activityf
Participated in physical activity or exercise1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Did not participate in physical activity or exercise1.39 (1.20–1.61)1.02 (0.89–1.16)
Metropolitan status
Metropolitan county1.00 [Reference]1.00 [Reference]
Nonmetropolitan county1.36 (1.15–1.61)1.25 (1.08–1.44)

Includes nondiet soda, fruit drinks that are not 100% juice, sweet tea, sports drinks, and energy drinks.

A multinomial logistic regression model was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios for adult sugar-sweetened beverage intake <1 time per day and ≥1 time per day (reference: none). The model contained all sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics and included 67,965 adults with data for all variables studied.

New York was chosen as the reference because this state had the largest sample size.

Classified according to body mass index (BMI): underweight/normal weight (BMI <25.0 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0 to <30.0 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2).

Alcohol intake was categorized as none, any (≥1 drink of any alcoholic beverage during the past month but not heavy drinking), and heavy (>2 drinks per day for men and >1 drink per day for women).

Leisure-time physical activity was categorized as 1) participating in any or 2) not participating in any physical activity or exercise during the past 30 days other than in a regular job.

Includes nondiet soda, fruit drinks that are not 100% juice, sweet tea, sports drinks, and energy drinks. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios for adult sugar-sweetened beverage intake <1 time per day and ≥1 time per day (reference: none). The model contained all sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics and included 67,965 adults with data for all variables studied. New York was chosen as the reference because this state had the largest sample size. Classified according to body mass index (BMI): underweight/normal weight (BMI <25.0 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0 to <30.0 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2). Alcohol intake was categorized as none, any (≥1 drink of any alcoholic beverage during the past month but not heavy drinking), and heavy (>2 drinks per day for men and >1 drink per day for women). Leisure-time physical activity was categorized as 1) participating in any or 2) not participating in any physical activity or exercise during the past 30 days other than in a regular job.

Discussion

Daily SSB consumption among adults is high in the United States and varies across states and subgroups. Among 9 states surveyed in 2016, nearly 1 in 3 adults consumed SSBs 1 or more times per day. In the 2013 BRFSS, which included 23 states and the District of Columbia, 29.1% of respondents were daily consumers (10). Our findings were consistent with findings of other studies documenting higher SSB intake among younger adults, males, non-Hispanic blacks, adults with less education, current smokers, and those who are physically inactive (10,11). We found that respondents with obesity had significantly higher odds of consuming SSBs 1 or more times per day than underweight or normal-weight respondents. Longitudinal studies have documented the association between daily SSB intake and weight gain (3,4). Previous analyses of BRFSS SSB data did not explore associations with metropolitan status. Our finding that SSB intake was higher in nonmetropolitan (eg, rural) counties than in metropolitan (eg, urban) counties is novel. A 2006 study in Texas reported higher prevalence of any SSB intake and high SSB intake among rural adults than among urban adults; among rural adults, high SSB intake (≥3 cans or glasses of SSBs per day) was associated with poverty, food insecurity, and fast food consumption (12). Our study has several limitations. BRFSS data are self-reported; however, potential bias in SSB intake data related to self-report or social desirability is not known. Our analysis included only 9 states that asked SSB questions; thus, the findings might not be generalizable to other states. Finally, the amount or calorie intake from SSBs cannot be estimated, because data on SSB intake was captured as frequency rather than volume. Our findings that adult SSB intake varied across states and certain characteristics can be used to help inform efforts to reduce SSB consumption.
  9 in total

1.  Prevalence of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake Among Adults--23 States and the District of Columbia, 2013.

Authors:  Sohyun Park; Fang Xu; Machell Town; Heidi M Blanck
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 17.586

2.  Association of sugar-sweetened beverage intake frequency and asthma among U.S. adults, 2013.

Authors:  Sohyun Park; Lara J Akinbami; Lisa C McGuire; Heidi M Blanck
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Consumption of added sugars among US children and adults by food purchase location and food source.

Authors:  Adam Drewnowski; Colin D Rehm
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 7.045

4.  Sugar-sweetened Beverage Consumption Among U.S. Adults, 2011-2014.

Authors:  Asher Rosinger; Kirsten Herrick; Jaime Gahche; Sohyun Park
Journal:  NCHS Data Brief       Date:  2017-01

5.  Sugar-sweetened beverages and dental caries in adults: a 4-year prospective study.

Authors:  Eduardo Bernabé; Miira M Vehkalahti; Aubrey Sheiham; Arpo Aromaa; Anna L Suominen
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women.

Authors:  Matthias B Schulze; JoAnn E Manson; David S Ludwig; Graham A Colditz; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett; Frank B Hu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-08-25       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Soft drink consumption and risk of developing cardiometabolic risk factors and the metabolic syndrome in middle-aged adults in the community.

Authors:  Ravi Dhingra; Lisa Sullivan; Paul F Jacques; Thomas J Wang; Caroline S Fox; James B Meigs; Ralph B D'Agostino; J Michael Gaziano; Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-07-23       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Less-healthy eating behaviors have a greater association with a high level of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among rural adults than among urban adults.

Authors:  Joseph R Sharkey; Cassandra M Johnson; Wesley R Dean
Journal:  Food Nutr Res       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 3.894

9.  Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among US adults in 6 states: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2011.

Authors:  Sohyun Park; Liping Pan; Bettylou Sherry; Heidi M Blanck
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 2.830

  9 in total
  14 in total

1.  Trends in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among California children.

Authors:  Amy L Beck; Suzanna Martinez; Anisha I Patel; Alicia Fernandez
Journal:  Public Health Nutr       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 4.022

2.  Factors Related to Water Filter Use for Drinking Tap Water at Home and Its Association With Consuming Plain Water and Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Among U.S. Adults.

Authors:  Sohyun Park; Stephen J Onufrak; Angie L Cradock; Christina Hecht; Anisha Patel; Jennifer R Chevinsky; Heidi M Blanck
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  2022-03-02

3.  Weaving Healthy Families Program: Promoting Resilience While Reducing Violence and Substance Use.

Authors:  Catherine E McKinley; Katherine P Theall
Journal:  Res Soc Work Pract       Date:  2021-03-18

4.  Associations of Intake of Free and Naturally Occurring Sugars from Solid Foods and Drinks with Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in a Quebec Adult Population: The PREDISE (PRÉDicteurs Individuels, Sociaux et Environnementaux) Study.

Authors:  Amélie Bergeron; Marie-Ève Labonté; Didier Brassard; Catherine Laramée; Julie Robitaille; Sophie Desroches; Véronique Provencher; Charles Couillard; Marie-Claude Vohl; Mathieu Bélanger; Benoît Lamarche; Simone Lemieux
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.798

5.  Factors Influencing the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake of Caregivers of Adolescents in Appalachia.

Authors:  Kathleen J Porter; Wen You; Brittany M Kirkpatrick; Esther J Thatcher; Annie L Reid; Maryam Yuhas; Jamie M Zoellner
Journal:  J Nutr Educ Behav       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 3.045

6.  A Comparative Analysis of Rural versus Urban Preschool Children's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption, Body Mass Index and Parent's Weight Status.

Authors:  Michele Montgomery; Paige Johnson; Patrick Ewell
Journal:  SAGE Open Nurs       Date:  2022-03-09

7.  Junk Food Intake Among Adults in the United States.

Authors:  Elizabeth K Dunford; Barry Popkin; Shu Wen Ng
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 4.687

8.  Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Lipid Profile: More Evidence for Interventions.

Authors:  Elena V Kuklina; Sohyun Park
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 5.501

9.  Perspective: The Role of Beverages as a Source of Nutrients and Phytonutrients.

Authors:  Mario G Ferruzzi; Jirayu Tanprasertsuk; Penny Kris-Etherton; Connie M Weaver; Elizabeth J Johnson
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 8.701

10.  Mobile technology intervention for weight loss in rural men: protocol for a pilot pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Christine M Eisenhauer; Fabiana Almeida Brito; Aaron M Yoder; Kevin A Kupzyk; Carol H Pullen; Katherine E Salinas; Jessica Miller; Patricia A Hageman
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.