4.4 Article

Habitual sugar intake and cognitive function among middle-aged and older Puerto Ricans without diabetes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 106, 期 9, 页码 1423-1432

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114511001760

关键词

Added sugar; Sugar-sweetened beverages; Cognition function

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [P01AG023394, R01AG02708]
  2. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of NIH [P50HL105185]
  3. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service [58-1950-7-707]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intake of added sugars, mainly fructose and sucrose, has been associated with risk factors for cognitive impairment, such as obesity, the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. The objective of this analysis was to examine whether habitual intakes of total sugars, added sugars, sugar-sweetened beverages or sweetened solid foods are associated with cognitive function. The present study included 737 participants without diabetes, aged 45-75 years, from the Boston Puerto Rican Health Study, 2004-9. Cognitive function was measured with a battery of seven tests: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), word list learning, digit span, clock drawing, figure copying, and Stroop and verbal fluency tests. Usual dietary intake was assessed with a validated FFQ. Greater intakes of total sugars, added sugars and sugar-sweetened beverages, but not of sugar-sweetened solid foods, were significantly associated with lower MMSE score, after adjusting for covariates. Adjusted OR for cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24) were 2.23 (95% CI 1.24, 3.99) for total sugars and 2.28 (95% CI 1.26, 4.14) for added sugars, comparing the highest with lowest intake quintiles. Greater intake of total sugars was also significantly associated with lower word list learning score. In conclusion, higher sugar intake appears to be associated with lower cognitive function, but longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the direction of causality.

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

4.4
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