4.6 Article

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption Is Associated with Abdominal Fat Partitioning in Healthy Adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 144, 期 8, 页码 1283-1290

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.113.188599

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Framingham Heart Study [N01-HC-25195]
  2. Boston University School of Medicine
  3. USDA [58-1950-0-014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abdominal adiposity, particularly visceral adipose tissue (VAT), is independently linked to the pathogenesis of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Emerging evidence suggests that greater intake of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) may be associated with abnormal fat accumulation in VAT. We examined whether habitual SSB consumption and diet soda intakes are differentially associated with deposition of body fat. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using previously collected data in 2596 middle-aged adults (1306 men and 1290 women) from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring and Third Generation cohorts. VAT and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) were measured using multidetector computed tomography. Habitual intake of SSBs and diet soda was assessed by a validated food frequency questionnaire. We observed that SSB consumption was positively associated with VAT after adjustment for SAT and other potential confounders (P-trend < 0.001). We observed an inverse association between SSB consumption and SAT (P-trend = 0.04) that persisted after additional adjustment for VAT (P-trend < 0.001). Higher SSB consumption was positively associated with the VAT-to-SAT ratio (P-trend < 0.001). No significant association was found between diet soda consumption and either VAT or the VAT-to-SAT ratio, but diet soda was positively associated with SAT (P-trend < 0.001). Daily consumers of SSBs had a 10% higher absolute VAT volume and a 15% greater VAT-to-SAT ratio compared with nonconsumers, whereas consumption of diet soda was not associated with either volume or distribution of VAT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据