4.3 Article

Intake of Liquid and Solid Sucrose in Relation to Changes in Body Fatness over 6 Years among 8- to 10-Year-Old Children: The European Youth Heart Study

Journal

OBESITY FACTS
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 506-512

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000341631

Keywords

Soft drinks; Obesity; Children; Insulin

Funding

  1. Danish Heart Foundation
  2. Danish Medical Research Council
  3. Health Foundation
  4. Danish Council for Sports Research
  5. Foundation of 17-12-1981
  6. Foundation in Memory of Asta Florida Bolding nee Andersen
  7. Faculty of Health Sciences
  8. University of Southern Denmark
  9. Tryg Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine if intake of soft drinks is more closely associated with weight gain than other energy sources and if these associations are mediated through differences in energy intake or insulin level. Methods: Data derived from the Danish part of the European Youth Heart Study (n = 359). Height, weight, and waist circumference (WC) were measured in 1997-1998 and again in 2003-2004. Results: Intake of liquid sucrose was associated with changes in waist circumference (Delta WC) (beta = 0.226, p = 0.07, R-2 = 0.17) as well as BMI z-scores (Delta BMIz) (beta = 0.031, p = 0.05, R-2 = 0.30). Associations attenuated slightly after adjusting for energy intake, but were substantially reduced when adjusting for insulin. Adjustment for both insulin and energy intake attenuated the effect of soft drinks intake on Delta BMIz, but not on Delta WC. Conclusion: Liquid sucrose seemed more clearly associated with Delta WC and Delta BMIz than other energy sources. For Delta WC, the association seemed to be based on decreases in insulin sensitivity rather than increases in energy intake, whereas for Delta BMIz the association seemed to be based on both increases in energy intake and decreases in insulin sensitivity. Copyright (c) 2012 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available