4.4 Article

Self-Reported Academic Grades and Other Correlates of Sugar-Sweetened Soda Intake among US Adolescents

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2011.08.045

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks has been associated with obesity and other adverse health consequences. This cross-sectional study examined the association of demographic characteristics, weight status, self-reported academic grades, and behavioral factors with sugar-sweetened soda intake among a nationally representative sample of US high school students. Analysis was based on the 2009 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey and included 16,188 students in grades 9 through 12. The main outcome measure was daily sugar-sweetened soda intake (eg, drank a can, bottle, or glass of soda [excluding diet soda] at least one time per day during the 7 days before the survey). Nationally, 29.2% of students reported drinking sugar-sweetened soda at least one time per day. Logistic regression analyses showed factors significantly associated with sugar-sweetened soda intake at least one time per day included male sex (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=1.47), Hispanic ethnicity (vs whites; OR=0.81), earning mostly B, C, and D/F grades (vs mostly As; OR=1.26, 1.66, and 2.19, respectively), eating vegetables fewer than three times per day (OR=0.72), trying to lose weight (OR=0.72), sleeping <8 hours (OR=1.18), watching television >2 hours/day (OR=1.71), playing video or computer games or using a computer for other than school work >2 hours/day (OR=1.53), being physically active at least 60 minutes/day on <5 days during the 7 days before the survey (OR=1.19), and current cigarette use (OR=2.01). The significant associations with poor self-reported academic grades, inadequate sleep, sedentary behaviors, and cigarette smoking suggest research should examine why soda consumption is associated with these behaviors to inform the design of future nutrition interventions. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112:125-131.

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