Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Assessment of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and weight change: a prospective cohort study

BMC NutritionBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted20173:57

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795-017-0182-y

Received: 7 March 2017

Accepted: 6 July 2017

Published: 18 August 2017

Abstract

Background

In prospective studies, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) have been associated with weight increase. However, most prospective studies examine changes in body weight over time according to amounts of SSB intake at baseline, generally without considering changes over time in SSB, energy intake and physical activity. The objective of the present study was to examine how SSB intakes influence changes in weight, according to the way SSB intakes are analysed.

Methods

For a prospective cohort study with two nutritional assessments in time, 46 Flemish municipalities were selected by clustered random sampling. Within these municipalities, a random sample of men and women between 18 and 75 years of age was selected and invited to participate. In total, 562 middle-aged Belgian adults were tested in 2002 and 2012 for the same anthropometric, lifestyle, nutrition and physical activity parameters. The main outcome measured were weight changes from 2002 to 2012 were analysed according to various ways to parametrise SSB intakes in 2002 and changes in SSB, energy intake, and physical activity from 2002 to 2012.

Results

In a multivariable model including age, sex, the best predictors of weight changes were the weight at baseline (P < 0.001), then the change in energy intake (p = 0.068). No association was found with SSB intake at baseline (P = 0.267) and the change in SSB intake (P = 0.130).

Conclusions

Results of prospective studies on SSB intake and body weight depend much on the way SSB intakes are analysed, and on the inclusion of changes in energy intake and physical activity in analyses.

Keywords

Nutritional assessment Obesity Sugar-sweetened beverages Weight gain

Background

The relation between added sugar, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) consumption and weight gain has been the subject of a number of observational and intervention studies. The most comprehensive meta-analysis published to date by Te Morenga et al. found that in prospective observational studies, subjects in the highest categories of SSB intake had a 55% greater probability (95% CI: 1.32 to 1.82) to be overweight or obese than subjects in the lowest categories of SSB consumption [1]. The meta-analysis also found that in intervention studies with ad libitum energy intake, the highest consumption category of added sugar intake, a main component of SSB, was associated with a mean weight gain of 0.75 kg (95% CI: 0.30 kg to 1.19 kg) at the end of the intervention. In contrast, intervention studies in which added sugars were exchanged against an iso-energetic amount of other food showed no weight gain associated with increasing added sugar consumption. The contrast between iso-energetic and ad libitum intervention studies indicates that the influence of added sugar in SSB on weight gain would essentially be the energy content and not some physiological effect that would be independent of thermodynamic properties [2].

This contrast also points to the limitations of observational studies on sugar intake, SSB consumption and adiposity. Meta-analyses of prospective observational studies are mostly based on a comparison of changes in body weight (or another maker of adiposity) over time between groups of subjects with the highest and the lowest categories of sugar or SSB consumption. This procedure mixes together studies whose most extreme categories of exposure refer to variable amounts of sugar consumption. Moreover, it ignores how these most extreme exposure categories were formed, i.e., for instance whether they represent the highest and lowest quantiles (e.g., a category for no intake, and then amounts consumed in quartiles) or the way authors decided about category boundaries. Most studies assessed the intake of sugar and/or SSB at baseline only, and their results were thus based on the implicit assumption that changes in the intake of sugar and/or SSB during the 2 to 6 years follow-up had no influence on body weight changes.

In this cohort study, the assessment of food and beverage intakes were done at baseline in 2002 and ten years later in 2012 using the same three-day food record. We prospectively examined how SSB intakes influence weight changes, according to the way SSB intakes are analysed, and according to adjustments for energy and physical activity. We analysed the data in several ways which mimicked analyses done in prospective and intervention studies.

Methods

Subjects

Data were collected by the Flemish Policy Research Centre Sport, Physical Activity and Health [3]. One aim of the Research Centre was to investigate the relationship between nutritional habits, physical health, mental health and physical fitness in an adult population. For this purpose, 46 Flemish municipalities were selected by clustered random sampling. Within these municipalities, a random sample of men and women between 18 and 75 years of age was selected and invited to participate. Detailed establishment and description of this sample have been given elsewhere [4]. Subjects were asked to visit the central test laboratory to have anthropometric measurements taken and to complete questionnaires. A three-day food record was sent about two weeks before their visit to the laboratory, and subjects were requested to bring their completed record on the day of their appointment. The first visit to the test laboratory took place in 2002, and the second visit took place in 2012. Of the original 1569 participants in 2002, 562 (36%; 367 men and 195 women) returned for participation in 2012. In general, men and women from the follow-up study had a lower adiposity than the drop-outs [5]. The study was approved by the ethical and medical committee of the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. All participants signed an informed consent form and received information about the tests and measurements.

Dietary assessment

Participants noted all foods and drinks consumed during two non-consecutive weekdays and one weekend day. The participants were instructed to weigh the amount of foods and drinks consumed. If weighing was not possible, the participants were instructed to estimate the amount of the foods and drinks they consumed by using standard household measures (e.g. a spoon, glass, cup, etc.). All information about the food record was included in the three-day record booklet. Diet records were analysed using the Becel Nutrition software (Unilever Co.; Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Total energy intake (in kcal/day) and macronutrients (in gram/day) were calculated using quantities of foods and beverages consumed. We defined SSB as beverages containing added caloric sweeteners such as sucrose and/or high-fructose corn syrup.

From the nutritional data, two a-priori dietary pattern scores were derived, the Healthy Eating Index and the Mediterranean Diet Score. Both were computed as described before [6, 7]. The possible scores ranged from 0 to 100 for Healthy Eating Index and for Mediterranean Diet Score, with a high score denoting a high adherence to a diet.

Anthropometric measurements

Anthropometric measurements were performed by trained staff using standardized techniques and equipment according to the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry [8]. Participants were measured barefoot and in minimal clothing. Body weight was recorded to the nearest 0.1 kg with a digital balance (Seca 841, Seca GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) and body height with a Holtain stadiometer (Holtain, Crymych, UK) to the nearest 0.1 cm. BMI was calculated using the following formula: BMI = body weight (kg)/(height (m))2.

Physical activity level (PAL)

The PAL was estimated using the Flemish Physical Activity Questionnaire (FPACQ). The FPACQ was found to be a valid and reliable questionnaire for the different components of physical activity during a normal week in adults [9]. The PAL is an indicator of the general activity level expressed in relation to the basal metabolism. A PAL between 1.40 and 1.69 is defined as sedentary, between 1.70 and 1.99 as moderately active and from 2.00 onwards as vigorously active [9].

Smoking behaviour

Smoking behaviour was assessed using the WHO Monica Smoking Questionnaire that enabled dichotomization in current smokers and current non-smokers [10].

Statistical analysis

SPSS 21.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL) statistics software was used for data analysis. Chi-square tests and paired samples t-tests were used for characterization of the participants and to examine differences in BMI, weight, physical activity and nutrition between the two periods (2002 and 2012). Weight change was categorized in weight increase of one kg or more, weight decrease of one kg or more, and stable weight. Weight and BMI differences were calculated by subtracting weight and BMI values at the second visit minus the value at the first visit.

The SSB consumption had a non-normal distribution, with a high number of non-consumers. Four categories of baseline SSB consumption were created, i.e. no consumption, low daily consumption (less than one glass or 200 ml/d), moderate daily consumption (between one and three glasses or 200 and less than 700 ml/d) and high daily consumption (more than three glasses or 700 ml/d and more). Distribution of characteristics of participants between consumption categories were tested by ANOVA. A two-sided 0.05 level of significance was defined.

For examining the influence of factors on weight changes that took place from 2002 to 2012, we defined a multivariable linear regression model with weight in 2012 as the dependent variable and sex, age and weight in 2002 included in the model as a continuous independent variable. Two types of models were then further elaborated: a first type that consisted in the base model with addition of values of physical activity, sugar-sweetened beverages intake and total energy intake in 2002. The second type of model was the base model with addition of the residual values of physical activity, sugar-sweetened beverage intake and total energy intake.

Residual values were created by regression of the measures done in 2012 onto the measures done in 2002. The residual values can be interpreted as the amount of change between the first (2002) and second (2012) visit to the test laboratory. These residual values are independent of values found at first visit in 2002. Residual values are preferable to changes in exposure category over time because they are less affected by auto-correlated error and regression to the mean effects [11].

When SSB consumption was included in models as a continuous variable, a logarithmic transformation was applied in order to soften the skewness of the distribution. In all models, energy intake was expressed in units of 40 kcal, which is the energy content of 10 g of sugar.

Results

Exposure and outcomes were assessed in 2002 and 2012 in 562 middle-aged adults (367 men and 195 women) (Table 1). Over the 10-year period, men and women gained a mean (SD) of 1.0 (5.2) and 1.8 (4.8) kg on average, respectively. However, these averages do not reflect well individual weight changes. While about half men and women experienced weight increase during the decennium, one quarter of men and one fourth of women experienced weight decrease. Physical activity remained stable in women, but decreased significantly in men. Smoking rates reduced from 13.4% to 8.7% in men and from 13.3% to 8.2% in women.
Table 1

Description of the participants to the test periods of 2002 and 2012

 

2002

2012

P for men

P for women

men (n = 367)

women (n = 195)

men (n = 367)

women (n = 195)

mean

SD

mean

SD

mean

SD

mean

SD

Age

46.9

8.4

45.3

8.4

57.4

10.2

55.8

8.4

  

BMI (kg/m2)

25.4

2.7

23.4

3.0

25.7

3.0

24.1

3.4

<0.001a

<0.001a

Weight (kg)

79.3

10.1

63.9

8.7

80.4

10.8

65.7

9.7

<0.001a

<0.001a

BMI difference (kg/m2)

    

0.3

1.6

0.6

1.7

  

Weight difference (kg)

    

1.0

5.2

1.8

4.8

  

Physical activity levelc

1.8

0.2

1.7

0.2

1.7

0.3

1.7

0.2

0.003a

0.297a

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

  

BMI below 25.0 kg/m2

173

47.1

136

69.7

157

42.8

131

67.2

<0.001b

<0.001b

BMI between 25.0 and 29.9 kg/m2

177

48.2

50

25.6

178

48.5

53

27.2

  

BMI more than 30.0 kg/m2

17

4.6

9

4.6

32

8.7

11

5.6

  

Weight decrease

    

118

32.2

49

25.1

  

Weight stable

    

73

19.9

41

21.0

  

Weight increase

    

176

48.0

105

53.8

  

Current smoking

49

13.4

26

13.3

32

8.7

16

8.2

<0.001b

<0.001b

BMI body mass index, SD standard deviation; BMI, and weight difference = measure_2012 - measure_2002; Physical activity level was estimated using the Flemish Physical Activity Questionnaire

a P-value according to paired t-test

b P-value according to chi-square test

cPhysical activity level was estimated using the Flemish Physical Activity Questionnaire [9]

From 2002 to 2012, the mean energetic intake decreased from 2590 to 2421 kcal/d for men and from 2026 to 1958 kcal/d for women (Table 2). Mean total sugar intake decreased from 88 to 80 g/d in men and from 69 to 64 g/d in women. Total fat intake remained stable during this period, and alcohol intake increased in men. Between 2002 and 2012, SSB consumption decreased in men from 4.8 energy-percent to 3.2 energy-percent. This was for women 2.4 and 1.6 energy-percent. In 2002, 40% of men and 34% of women consumed SSB. Ten years later, these proportions were significantly lower at 22% and 15%, respectively.
Table 2

Average nutritional intake calculated from the three-day food records

 

Unit

2002

2012

men

women

men

women

mean

SD

mean

SD

mean

SD

mean

SD

Total energy

kcal

2590a

675

2026

499

2421a

626

1958

542

kJ

10,848a

2825

8482

2089

10,139a

2623

8200

2270

Proteins

g

98.2a

25.7

79.9

22.0

93.3a

25.2

77.0

18.6

%

15.5

3.3

16.0

3.3

15.8

3.7

16.2

3.6

Carbohydrates

g

296.5a

89.8

228.3

64.6

272.1a

82.8

218.5

69.2

%

45.9

7.5

45.2

6.7

45.0

7.8

44.7

7.4

Total sugar

g

88a

45

69

35

80a

42

64

35

%

13.5

5.9

13.7

5.6

13.1

5.7

13.0

5.8

Total fat

g

100.0a

37.4

80.3

29.1

93.5a

35.6

78.8

30.3

%

34.2

7.0

35.2

7.0

34.2

6.9

35.5

6.9

Saturated fat

g

39.5a

15.6

32.0

12.4

36.7a

15.0

30.4

13.3

%

13.5

3.2

14.0

3.2

13.4

3.2

13.6

3.4

Mono-unsaturated fat

g

38.2a

15.4

30.0

12.1

35.6a

15.1

29.7

12.3

%

13.1

3.4

13.2

3.5

13.0

3.4

13.4

3.4

Poly-unsaturated fat

g

16.9

7.6

13.2

6.2

16.1

7.1

13.7

6.5

%

5.8

2.0

5.8

2.0

5.9

1.9

6.3

2.2

Alcohol

g

16.3

16.2

10.0

11.9

17.2

16.6

9.6

10.8

%

4.5a

4.6

3.6

4.4

5.2a

5.1

3.5

4.0

SSB

ml

en-%

129

4.8

240

8.7

51

2.4

151

6.7

83

3.2

198

7.2

31

1.6

107

6.4

Consumers of SSB

n, %

148 (40)

 

43 (22)

 

123 (34)

 

30 (15)

 

En-% energy-percent, SSB sugar sweetened beverages

a P < 0.01 for 2002 versus 2012; paired t-test

We classified subjects according to their consumption of SSB in 2002 (Table 3), with about two-third of subjects who did not drink SSB and 3% of subjects who were heavy SSB drinkers in 2002. Increasing SSB consumption in 2002 was significantly associated with younger age (P < 0.001), progressive decreases of the Healthy Eating Index (P < 0.001) and the Mediterranean Diet Score (P = 0.03). There were 12% current smokers among the low SSB categories and 18% in the moderate and high SSB categories (chi-square, P = 0.024). The energy intake in 2002 and 2012 steadily increased with SSB consumption and these increases also concerned caloric foods and beverages other than SSB. The mean (SD) weight increase was much more marked in subjects with high SSB intake in 2002, 6.5 (7.5) kg compared to 1.0 (5.0) kg for non-consumers. The large SDs of weight differences reflect the variability in changes over time, but most (15 of 18) subjects in the high SSB category gained weight.
Table 3

Nutritional and lifestyle characteristics according to SSB consumption

 

Units

Categories of SSB consumption at baseline

P valuea

Never SSB

Low SSB

Moderate SSB

High SSB

Participants

n (%)

371 (66)

82 (15)

91 (16)

18 (3)

 

SSB consumption 2002

mean (SD) ml/d

0 (0)

103 (42)

336 (122)

1008 (259)

<0.001

Classified in same SSB category 2002 and 2012

%

82

20

30

33

 

Move to category of greater SSB consumption in 2012

%

18

21

0

0

 

Move to category of lower SSB consumption in 2012

%

0

60

70

67

 

Men

%

59

70

84

83

<0.001c

Age 2002

mean (SD) years

47.7 (9.3)

45.7 (8.9)

43.3 (10.1)

36.9 (9.3)

<0.001

Smokers 2002

%

11

16

21

17

0.66c

Healthy Eating Index 2002

mean (SD)

49 (10)

45 (9)

40 (9)

33 (5)

<0.001

Mediterranean Diet Score 2002

mean (SD)

3.9 (1.5)

3.9 (1.5)

3.6 (1.5)

2.9 (1.2)

0.03

Physical activity level 2002b

mean (SD)

1.7 (0.2)

1.8 (0.2)

1.8 (0.3)

1.8 (0.3)

0.004

Physical activity level 2012b

mean (SD)

1.7 (0.2)

1.7 (0.2)

1.8 (0.3)

1.9 (0.3)

<0.001

Physical activity difference 2012 minus 2002b

mean (SD)

−0.03 (0.20)

−0.04 (0.21)

−0.04 (0.27)

0.09 (0.27)

0.03

Energy consumption 2002

mean (SD) kcal/d

2308 (653)

2429 (635)

2552 (646)

3215 (784)

<0.001

Energy consumption 2002 without SSB

mean (SD) kcal/d

2308 (653)

2384 (635)

2404 (640)

2772 (821)

0.02

Energy consumption 2012

mean (SD) kcal/d

2186 (640)

2328 (666)

2399 (532)

2781 (592)

<0.001

Energy consumption 2012 without SSB

mean (SD) kcal/d

2186 (640)

2292 (674)

2356 (519)

2605 (599)

0.003

Energy difference 2012 minus 2002

mean kcal/d

−122

−101

−153

−434

0.257

Energy difference 2012 minus 2002 without SSB

mean kcal/d

−122

−91

−48

−166

0.688

Weight 2002

mean (SD) kg

72.9 (11.7)

75.0 (11.3)

77.2 (13.4)

74.9 (13.1)

0.015

Weight 2012

mean (SD) kg

73.9 (12.2)

76.3 (11.7)

78.4 (13.8)

81.4 (13.4)

0.008

Weight difference 2012 minus 2002

mean (SD) kg

1.0 (5.0)

1.3 (4.5)

1.2 (4.8)

6.5 (7.5)

<0.001

Subjects who gained weight

n (%)

176 (47)

43 (52)

47 (52)

15 (83)

 

Subjects with stable weight

n (%)

80 (22)

16 (20)

16 (18)

2 (11)

 

Subjects who lost weight

n (%)

115 (31)

23 (28)

28 (31)

1 (6)

 

SSB sugar sweetened beverages

Categorization for SSB consumption in 2002: never SSB; low SSB consumption (less than 200 ml/d); moderate SSB consumption (between 200 and less than 700 ml/d); high SSB consumption (700 ml/d and more)

Weight change was categorized in weight increase of one kg or more, weight decrease of one kg or more, and weight stable

aAnova test, but for c that is a Chi-square test

bPhysical activity level was estimated using the Flemish Physical Activity Questionnaire [9]

Compared to non-consumers, the 18 subjects with a SSB intake of 1 L/day on average in 2002 had a weight gain of 4.3 kg (95% CI: 2.0 kg to 6.7 kg). The weight gain was 0.6 kg (95% CI: -0.6 kg to 1.7 kg) when SSB intake of 1 L/day in 2002 was included in models as a continuous variable. In a multivariable model including age, sex, the best predictors of 10-year weight changes were the weight at baseline (P < 0.001), then the change in energy intake (P = 0.068). No association was found with SSB intake at baseline (P = 0.267) and the 10-year change in SSB intake (P = 0.130) (Table 4).
Table 4

Linear regression analysis of weight change over 10 years according to baseline values of SSB, energy intake and physical activity

Independent variables

β-coefficients

Standard error

95% CI

P-value

Lower bound

Upper bound

Model 1

 Constant

9.187

1.698

5.851

12.523

<0.001

 Weight 2002 (kg/m2)

0.961

0.022

0.918

1.003

<0.001

 SSB never

ref

    

 SSB low vs never

0.152

0.600

−1.027

1.330

0.800

 SSB medium vs never

−0.173

0.592

−1.337

0.990

0.770

 SSB high vs never

4.349

1.210

1.971

6.726

<0.001

Model 2

 Constant

9.728

2.618

4.585

14.871

<0.001

 Weight 2002 (kg/m2)

0.960

0.022

0.918

1.003

<0.001

 Physical activity level 2002a

−0.297

1.023

−2.306

1.713

0.772

 SSB never

ref

    

 SSB low vs never

0.157

0.602

−1.025

1.340

0.794

 SSB medium vs never

−0.161

0.597

−1.333

1.012

0.788

 SSB high vs never

4.338

1.246

1.891

6.786

0.001

 Energy 2002 (unit 40 kcal)

0.001

0.014

−0.026

0.028

0.960

Model 3

 Constant

10.196

2.638

5.014

15.337

<0.001

 Weight 2002 (kg/m2)

0.957

0.022

0.915

1.000

<0.001

 Physical activity level 2002a

−0.486

1.030

−2.510

1.538

0.637

 Log SSB 2002

0.190

0.198

−0.198

0.578

0.335

 Energy 2002 (unit 40 kcal)

0.010

0.014

−0.017

0.037

0.485

SSB sugar sweetened beverages

Each model is adjusted for all model-specific variables displayed in the Table plus age and gender

Categorization for SSB consumption in 2002: never SSB; low SSB consumption (less than 200 ml/d); moderate SSB consumption (between 200 and less than 700 ml/d); high SSB consumption (700 ml/d and more)

aPhysical activity level was estimated using the Flemish Physical Activity Questionnaire [9]

The regression model displayed in Table 5 includes weight, physical activity, SSB and energy intake in 2002, plus variables standing for the residual values derived from least square regressions of measures done in 2012 on measures done in 2002. Associations of borderline statistical significance with weight in 2012 were found for changes in energy intake (P = 0.068) and physical activity (P = 0.091). The β-coefficient values indicate increasing weight with increasing energy intake and reduction in physical activity over time. There was no significant relationship between changes in weight and changes in SSB intake, Healthy Eating Index and Mediterranean Diet Score (data not shown).
Table 5

Linear regressions analysis of weight change over 10 years according to changes in SSB, energy intake and physical activity

Independent variables

β-coefficients

Standard error

95% CI

P-value

Lower bound

Upper bound

Constant

10.840

2.635

5.664

16.016

<0.001

Weight 2002 (kg)

0.957

0.022

0.914

0.999

<0.001

Physical activity level 2002a

−0.945

1.038

−2.984

1.093

0.363

Physical activity level residualsa

−1.801

1.063

−3.890

0.288

0.091

Log SSB 2002 (ml/day)

0.220

0.198

−0.169

0.609

0.267

SSB residuals (ml/d)

0.002

0.001

−0.001

0.005

0.130

Energy 2002 (unit 40 kcal /day)

0.014

0.014

−0.013

0.041

0.322

Energy residuals (unit 40 kcal/day)

0.029

0.016

−0.002

0.059

0.068

SSB sugar sweetened beverages

Model including all variables in Table plus age and gender

aPhysical activity level was estimated using the Flemish Physical Activity Questionnaire [9]

Discussion

The present study shows that in prospective studies on SSB consumption and body weight, the use of exposure at baseline or of changes in exposure during follow-up, as well as different statistical analysis modalities may end up in different results and conclusions. Our analysis of quantitative changes in exposure variables over time (Table 5) mimics the analysis of data from randomized trials that compares changes in weight in a group of subjects with increased (or decreased) sugar intake during the trial duration to a group of subject with no change in sugar intake during the trial duration. In this analysis, it is the change in total energy intake that was mainly associated with increase in weight. In addition, while on average body weight tended to increase over time, there was a concomitant decrease in SSB intake. These two results do not support the hypothesis that obesity would be essentially due to an increase in SSB consumption. Rather, adiposity would mainly be the consequence of an imbalance between energy intake and expenditure. Indeed the consumption of SSB (and intake of other sugary foods or beverage) plays a role in adiposity due their energy content, but this role is similar to that played by other foods and caloric beverages.

When our analysis was based on exposure categories at baseline, the 10-year weight change only increased significantly with the highest category of SSB consumption. In many prospective studies on body weight, the excessive SSB intake by a minority of participants is the main contributor to the positive association between SSB consumption and the outcome. Moreover, exposure categories at baseline are often defined so that the categories with lowest and with highest SSB intake include those subjects with the most extreme exposures. For instance, in a prospective study in Singapore [12] the highest (2 or more drinks per week) and the lowest category (almost never SSB consumption) included 10% and 75% of subjects, respectively. In a prospective study of French school teachers [13], the highest SSB consumption category included participants who consumed 359 mL per week or more, which represented 4% of all subjects in the cohort. This category was the only one associated with a statistically significant multivariable adjusted 30% increase of type 2 diabetes.

In contrast with Mozaffarian et al., Pan et al. and Malik et al. [1416], we found no relation with weight increase and SSB consumption. However, in contrast with those others, we adjusted our models for total energy intake and for baseline SSB consumption. Moreover, Mozaffarian et al. and Pan et al. analyzed data from cohorts from the United States, where, in contrast with Europe, SSB are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, with possible different satiety and physiological health effects [17].

Many observational studies do not consider changes in food, energy intake and physical activity during the observation period, thus assuming that dietary and energy intakes as well as energy expenditures are stable during follow-up. Our results show that changes in intakes during follow-up do not necessarily depend on amounts consumed at baseline. We thus contend that the results of many prospective studies would have been different if changes in exposures over time had been considered, and if adjustments for changes in energy intake and physical activity had been made. The consequences of this variability in observational results was emphasized by Tai et al. [18]. Using data from the Nurses’ Health Study, the authors illustrated that published observational hypotheses were not associated with a causal confirmation in the intervention design. For three selected health outcomes, i.e., breast cancer, ischaemic heart disease and osteoporosis, the concordance between the results of the Nurses’ Health Study and randomized controlled trials were recorded. For breast cancer, the concordance was 6/24 (25%), for ischaemic heart disease 2/19 (11%) and for osteoporosis 1/5 (20%).

A limitation of the present study is the limited sample size that led to results of borderline statistical significance. Secondly, of the original 1569 participants in 2002, 36% returned for participation in 2012. However, this participation rate is comparable with the proportions of cohort subjects included in statistical analyses of major prospective studies. For instance, Pan et al. [15] included in their analyses 40 to 45% of the participants of the Nurses’ Health Studies and the Health Professional Follow-up Study. However, the aim of our study was not statistical inference of our results to the general population, but to examine the consequences of the variability in ways exposure data are reported and analyzed. For this reason, the representativeness of the used sample is of less priority. A second limitation of the present study is that nutritional exposure was measured with three days food records in 2002 and in 2012. Two or more non-consecutive administrations are required to estimate usual dietary intake distributions [19].

This cohort strongly indicates that high SSB consumption is associated with a clustering of unhealthy behaviours: the highest SSB consumption in 2002 was associated with the highest total energy intake (with or without SSB included in energy calculations), with more smoking, and with the lowest scores for Healthy Eating Index and Mediterranean Diet Score. In other studies too, a high consumption of SSB has been associated with a less healthy dietary pattern and with less healthy lifestyle habits, like for instance, more frequent fast food consumption, higher energy intake, lower physical activity and lower consumption of fruits and vegetables [2022]. For instance, SSB intake was measured three times in a year in a cohort of 380 US children using food-frequency questionnaires [23]. The authors detected a small group of high SSB consumers, with more than 500 ml a day (n = 46, 12%). This group was the most sedentary, was the most eligible for reduced-price school meal, and had the highest energy intake (1799 kcal/day compared to 1021 kcal/day for non-consumers).

Most prospective studies have collected data on foods and beverages other than SSB intake. However, most did not report results or toned down the possible associations between outcomes and the consumption of beverages and foods other than SSB, or with other risk factors like physical inactivity, television watching or fast-food consumption. This selective reporting, coupled with lack of data concerning behaviours associated with SSB consumption, make it difficult to evaluate the exact role of SSB consumption in weight gain. The clustering of unhealthy dietary habits and lifestyles suggests the existence of an obesogenic behaviour that is the simultaneous presence of risk factors for obesity and other metabolic disorders in the same individuals. Because of the clustering of SSB consumption with a more unhealthy diet and behaviours, observational studies can hardly disentangle the specific influence that each dietary item or lifestyle may have on outcomes.

This obesogenic behaviour implies that acting on a specific factor for preventing or treating weight gain is likely to fail if other factors are left unchanged. For instance, if all efforts are concentrated on the reduction of SSB intake, subjects are likely to adopt compensatory behaviors that will cancel out the benefits expected from reduced SSB intake. In this logic, a reductive single food approach would be poorly effective for preventing adiposity. As a matter of fact, many intervention studies that aimed at reducing weight gain via programmes focusing on SSB intake only obtained modest weight loss [2427].

Conclusion

In conclusion, results of prospective studies on SSB intake and body weight depend much on the way exposure categories are formed, on whether only data collected at baseline are used, and on the inclusion of changes in energy intake in statistical analyses.

Abbreviations

ANOVA: 

Analysis of variance

BMI: 

Body mass index

CI: 

Confidence interval

FPAQ: 

Flemish physical activity questionnaire

PAL: 

Physical activity level

SD: 

Standard deviation

SPSS: 

Statistical package for the social sciences

SSB: 

Sugar-sweetened beverages

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank the participants to the study.

Funding

This research is accomplished by the Policy Research Centre Sport. The Policy Research Centre Sport is funded by the Flemish government. The study funder had no role in the study design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Availability of data and materials

Dataset requests should be sent to the corresponding author. Please contact P Mullie at patrick.mullie@i-pri.org for questions about statistical code.

Authors’ contributions

JL, BD, PC made contributions to the conception and design of the study; EM, SK, RC to the acquisition of longitudinal data; PM, PA, MB, PB to the analyses and interpretations of data; PM, EM, SK, RC have been involved in drafting the manuscript; PM, PA, MB, PB for revising it critically for important intellectual content; and all authors read and approved the final version to be published. PM is guarantor. All authors had full access to all data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the ethical and medical committee of the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. All participants signed an informed consent form and received information about the tests and measurements.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
International Prevention Research Institute
(2)
Department of Human Biometrics and Biomechanics, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
(3)
Erasmus University College
(4)
International Prevention Research Institute
(5)
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University
(6)
Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences
(7)
Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University

References

  1. Te Morenga L, Mallard S, Mann J. Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ. 2013;346:e7492. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7492.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchholz AC, Schoeller DA. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(5):899S–906S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Duvigneaud N, Wijndaele K, Matton L, et al. Socio-economic and lifestyle factors associated with overweight in Flemish adult men and women. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-7-23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Duvigneaud N, Wijndaele K, Matton L, et al. Prevalence of overweight, obesity and abdominal obesity in Flemish adults. Arch Public Health. 2006;64:123–42.Google Scholar
  5. Mertens E, Deforche B, Mullie P, et al. Longitudinal study on the association between three dietary indices, anthropometric parameters and blood lipids. Nutrition & metabolism. 2015;12:47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986-015-0042-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Guenther PM, Kirkpatrick SI, Reedy J, et al. The Healthy Eating Index-2010 is a valid and reliable measure of diet quality according to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. J Nutr. 2014;144(3):399–407. doi:https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.113.183079.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Trichopoulou A, Costacou T, Bamia C, et al. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and survival in a Greek population. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2599–608. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa025039.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Stewart A, Marfell-Jones M, Olds T, et al. International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment. Underdale: The University of South Australia; 2001.Google Scholar
  9. World Health Organisation. Human energy requirements: report of a joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation. Food Nutr Bull. 2005;26(1):166.Google Scholar
  10. Tunstall-Pedoe H. Monitoring trends in cardiovascular disease and risk factors: the WHO “Monica” project. WHO chronicle. 1985;39(1):3–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bland JM, Altman DG. Regression towards the mean. BMJ. 1994;308(6942):1499.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Odegaard AO, Koh WP, Arakawa K, et al. Soft drink and juice consumption and risk of physician-diagnosed incident type 2 diabetes: the Singapore Chinese Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171(6):701–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp452.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Fagherazzi G, Vilier A, Saes Sartorelli D, et al. Consumption of artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages and incident type 2 diabetes in the Etude Epidemiologique aupres des femmes de la Mutuelle Generale de l'Education Nationale-European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97(3):517–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.050997.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, et al. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2392–404. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Pan A, Malik VS, Hao T, et al. Changes in water and beverage intake and long-term weight changes: results from three prospective cohort studies. Int J Obes. 2013;37(10):1378–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2012.225.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Malik VS, Pan A, Willett WC, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analys. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(4):1084–102.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Page KA, Chan O, Arora J, et al. Effects of fructose vs glucose on regional cerebral blood flow in brain regions involved with appetite and reward pathways. JAMA. 2013;309(1):63–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.116975.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Tai V, Grey A, Bolland MJ. Results of Observational Studies: Analysis of Findings from the Nurses’ Health Study. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110403. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110403. eCollection 2014.
  19. Cade J, Thompson R, Burley V, et al. Development, validation and utilisation of food-frequency questionnaires - a review. Public Health Nutr. 2002;5(4):567–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2001318.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. French SA, Story M, Neumark-Sztainer D, Fulkerson JA, Hannan P. Fast food restaurant use among adolescents: associations with nutrient intake, food choices and behavioral and psychosocial variables. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25(12):1823–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pereira MA, Kartashov AI, Ebbeling CB, et al. Fast-food habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year prospective analysis. Lancet. 2005;365(9453):36–42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17663-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Bowman S. Beverage Choices of Young Females Changes and Impact on Nutrient Intakes. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102(9):1234–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-8223(02)90273-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Rompay MI, McKeown NM, Goodman E, et al. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake Is Positively Associated with Baseline Triglyceride Concentrations, and Changes in Intake Are Inversely Associated with HDL Cholesterol Increases over 12 Months in a Multi-Ethnic Sample of Children. J Nutr. 2015; doi:https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.115.212662.
  24. Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Chomitz VR, et al. A randomized trial of sugar-sweetened beverages and adolescent body weight. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(15):1407–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1203388.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Osganian SK, et al. Effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption on body weight in adolescents: a randomized, controlled pilot study. Pediatrics. 2006;117(3):673–80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0983.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sichieri R, Paula Trotte A, de Souza RA, et al. School randomised trial on prevention of excessive weight gain by discouraging students from drinking sodas. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(2):197–202. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980008002644.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. James J, Thomas P, Cavan D, et al. Preventing childhood obesity by reducing consumption of carbonated drinks: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328(7450):1237. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38077.458438.EE.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement