4.5 Article

Factors associated with sugar intake and sugar sources in European children from 1 to 8 years of age

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 71, 期 1, 页码 25-32

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2016.206

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community [QLRT-2001-00389, QLK1-CT-2002-30582, 007036]
  2. European Union [289346]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The World Health Organization recommends to limit intake of free sugars to 5% of total energy per day because of the great impact of high sugar intake on body fat deposition, adiposity and dental caries. However, little data exist about total intake and sources of sugar in European children. Therefore, this paper aims to describe sugar intake and dietary sugar sources and associated factors. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Three-day weighed dietary records were obtained at eight time points from children 1 to 8 years of age (n = 995) in five European countries. Food items were classified into subgroups according to food composition. Linear mixed models were used to examine associated factors. RESULTS: Total sugar intake increased from 65 g/day (30.0% of energy intake (E%)) at 12 months of age to 83 g/day (20.9 E%) at 96 months of age. Around 80% of children's sugar intake was derived from the following sources: milk and dairy products, fruits and fruit products, confectionary and sugar sweetened beverages (SSB). Total sugar intake and dietary sugar sources varied significantly by country of residence. Boys had a significantly (P = 0.003) higher total sugar consumption than girls. SSB consumption was significantly higher in children from young mothers while sugar intake from fruit products was lower in children from mothers with lower educational status and those with higher birth order. CONCLUSIONS: Sugar intake in our population was lower than in other studies. Total sugar intake was associated with country of residence and gender, while dietary sugar sources varied by country of residence, maternal age, education and birth order.

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

4.5
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