4.4 Article

Dietary intake and food sources of added sugar in the Australian population

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 115, Issue 5, Pages 868-877

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114515005255

Keywords

Total sugars; Added sugar; Free sugar; Food sources; Australian population; National surveys; Australian Health Survey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies in Australian children/adolescents and adults examining added sugar (AS) intake were based on now out-of-date national surveys. We aimed to examine the AS and free sugar (FS) intakes and the main food sources of AS among Australians, using plausible dietary data collected by a multiple-pass, 24-h recall, from the 2011-12 Australian Health Survey respondents (n 8202). AS and FS intakes were estimated using a previously published method, and as defined by the WHO, respectively. Food groups contributing to the AS intake were described and compared by age group and sex by one-way ANOVA. Linear regression was used to test for trends across age groups. Usual intake of FS (as percentage energy (%EFS)) was computed using a published method and compared with the WHO cut-off of < 10 %EFS. The mean AS intake of the participants was 60.3 (SD 52.6) g/d. Sugar-sweetened beverages accounted for the greatest proportion of the AS intake of the Australian population (21.4 (SD 30.1) %), followed by sugar and sweet spreads (16.3 (SD 24.5) %) and cakes, biscuits, pastries and batter-based products (15.7 (SD 24.4) %). More than half of the study population exceeded the WHO's cut-off for FS, especially children and adolescents. Overall, 80-90% of the daily AS intake came from high-sugar energy-dense and/or nutrient-poor foods. To conclude, the majority of Australian adults and children exceed the WHO recommendation for FS intake. Efforts to reduce AS intake should focus on energy-dense and/or nutrient-poor foods.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available