| Literature DB >> 31583063 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND/Entities:
Keywords: Nutrition education; nutrient density; sugar intake; sugar source
Year: 2019 PMID: 31583063 PMCID: PMC6760979 DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2019.13.5.434
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Res Pract ISSN: 1976-1457 Impact factor: 1.926
Fig. 1Flowchart for study participant selection
Nutrition education program on reducing sugar intake
General characteristics of the subjects
1)n (%)
2)NS: not significant at P < 0.05.
3)Values are means ± SD.
4)Underweight was defined as BMI > 5th percentile, overweight was defined as 85th percentile BMI < 95th percentile, and obesity was defined as BMI 95th percentile by 2017 Korean National Growth Charts for children and adolescents.
Nutrient density of diet by nutrition education intervention
1)Values are means ± SD.
2)*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 ***P < 0.001 by t-test
Fig. 2Percent distribution of sugar intake segment of children by nutrition education intervention
Major sugar source food by nutrition education intervention
1)Percent of total sugar intake
2)Cumulative percent of total sugar intake
3)Percent frequency of population
Major sugar source food by sugar intake status in the non-educated group
1)LS, < 10% (low total sugar intake segment); AS, 10–20% (adequate total sugar intake segment); HS, ≥ 20% (high total sugar intake segment).
2)Percent of total sugar intake
3)Cumulative percent of total sugar intake
4)Percent frequency of population
Major sugar source food by sugar intake status in the educated group
1)LS, < 10% (low total sugar intake segment); AS, 10–20% (adequate total sugar intake segment); HS, ≥ 20% (high total sugar intake segment).
2)Percent of total sugar intake
3)Cumulative percent of total sugar intake
4)Percent frequency of population
Intake frequency of sweetened processed foods by educational intervention
1)Values are means ± SD and frequency per day
2)*P < 0.05 by t-test
Fig. 3Major processed food sources contribution to sugar intake by educational intervention