Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Health CIA-Harvard Menus of Change National Leadership Summit June 10, 2014 Cambridge, MA General Session IV Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH Department of Nutrition Harvard School of Public Health
What are Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? Examples Sodas Fruit Drinks Energy Drinks Coke Pepsi Mountain Dew Orange Soda Root Beer Sprite 7-Up Capri Sun Fruitopia Hawaiian Punch Hi-C Kool-Aid Minute Maid Snapple juices Adrenaline Rush Full Throttle MDX No Fear RockStar EnergyVault Sports Drinks Gatorade Powerade
SSBs Ingredients Energy: 12-14 kcal/ounce or ~120-150 kcal/12 ounce can Sugars: 3.1-3.6 g/ounce (~10 tsp/12 ounce can) Sweetened by US: High fructose corn syrups (55% fructose and 42% glucose) Europe: Sucrose (50% fructose and 50% glucose)
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption Energy in liquid form Displacement of more satiating foods High glycemic load Alteration of taste preferences Sugar Incomplete calorie compensation Passive calorie overconsumption when drinking to satisfy thirst Increased energy intake Increased hunger Insulin resistance Metabolic Syndrome (low HDLC, high triglyceride, hypertension, hyperglycemia coagulopathy, chronic inflammation) Postprandial hyperglycemia & hyperinsulinemia B-cell dysfunction Increased intake of sugary foods; decreased intake of vegetables, fruits, etc Lower intake of fiber micronutrients, antioxidants and other phytochemicals Obesity Diabetes CHD Dental caries 29.273
Nurses Health Study (n=121,700) 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Ocs Smoking Weight/Ht Med. Hist. Diet Diet Diet Diet Blood Health Professionals Follow-up Study (n=52,000) Nurses Health Study II (n=116,000) Diet Diet Blood Diet Investigators: Frank Speizer, Bernie Rosner, Meir Stampfer, Graham Colditz, David Hunter, JoAnn Manson, Sue Hankinson, Eric Rimm, Edward Giovannucci, Alberto Ascherio, Gary Curhan, Charlie Fuchs, Fran Grodstein, Michelle Holmes, Frank Hu 0.198R Nails Diet 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Diet Nails Diet Diet Blood 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Diet Diet
Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Malik et al. AJCN 2013
Children: All Cohort Studies Study Change in BMI (95% CI) % Weight (D+L) Ludwig, 2001 (16) Berkey, 2004, Boys (17) Berkey, 2004, Girls (17) Newby, 2004 (8) Phillips, 2004 (20) Blum, 2005 (7) Mundt, 2006, Boys (9) Mundt, 2006, Girls (9) Striegal-Moore, 2006 (10) Viner, 2006 (18) Johnson, 2007 (11) Laurson, 2008, Boys (15) Laurson, 2008, Girls (15) Libuda, 2008, Boys (12) Libuda, 2008, Girls (12) Vanselow, 2009 (19) Carlson, 2012 (21) Laska, 2012, Boys (14) Laska, 2012, Girls (14) Olsen, 2012 (13) D+L Overall (I-squared = 91.6%, p = 0.000) I-V Overall NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis 0.20 (0.10, 0.30) 0.04 (0.00, 0.08) 0.03 (-0.01, 0.07) -0.12 (-0.59, 0.35) 0.18 (0.07, 0.28) -0.08 (-0.30, 0.14) -0.06 (-0.13, 0.01) -0.09 (-0.20, 0.02) 0.04 (0.00, 0.08) 0.17 (0.16, 0.18) -0.16 (-0.59, 0.27) -0.26 (-0.51, -0.01) 0.60 (0.23, 0.97) 0.03 (-0.07, 0.13) 0.10 (-0.02, 0.22) 0.08 (-0.37, 0.53) 0.20 (-0.05, 0.44) 0.25 (0.05, 0.45) -0.09 (-0.40, 0.22) 0.26 (-0.03, 0.55) 0.07 (0.01, 0.12) 0.16 (0.15, 0.16) 6.86 8.25 8.25 1.27 6.64 3.88 7.64 6.58 8.29 8.57 1.47 3.19 1.86 6.86 6.30 1.36 3.41 4.29 2.41 2.64 100.00-0.97 0.00 0.97 Inverse association Positive association Change in BMI (95% CI) per 1 serving per day increase in SSB during the time period specified in each study, from prospective cohort studies in children
Children: RCTs % Weighted Mean Weight Study Difference, BMI (95% CI) (D+L) James, 2004 (61) -0.10 (-0.29, 0.09) 24.62 Ebbeling, 2006 (63) -0.14 (-0.54, 0.26) 14.88 Sichieri, 2008 (62) 0.10 (-0.06, 0.26) 25.64 de Ruyter, 2012 (65) -0.36 (-0.55, -0.17) 24.63 Ebbeling, 2012 (64) -0.57 (-1.12, -0.02) 10.23 D+L Overall (I-squared = 74.6%, p = 0.003) -0.17 (-0.39, 0.05) 100.00 I-V Overall -0.12 (-0.22, -0.02) NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -1.12 0.00 1.12 intervention reduces weight intervention increases weight Weighted mean difference in BMI change (95% CI) between intervention and control regimens from RCT s in children. Interventions evaluated the effect of reducing SSB.
Adults: Change vs. Change % 1 year change in Weight Study weight, kg (95% CI) (D+L) French, 1994, Men (23) 0.17 (-0.11, 0.45) 11.36 French, 1994, Women (23) 0.13 (-0.18, 0.44) 10.00 Nooyens, 2005 (24) 0.12 (0.00, 0.24) 21.57 Palmer, 2008 (25) 0.17 (0.03, 0.32) 19.80 Stookey, 2008 (28) 0.60 (0.17, 1.04) 6.26 Chen, 2009 (26) 1.09 (0.46, 1.72) 3.39 Mozaffarian, 2011 (29) 0.11 (0.09, 0.13) 26.79 Barone Gibbs, 2012 (27) 2.12 (0.78, 3.46) 0.83 D+L Overall (I-squared = 70.2%, p = 0.001) 0.22 (0.09, 0.34) 100.00 I-V Overall 0.12 (0.10, 0.14) NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -3.46 0.00 3.46 Inverse association Positive association 1-year change in weight (kg) per 1 serving per day increase in SSB, from prospective cohort studies in adults using a change vs. change analysis strategy
Changes in Food and Beverage Consumption and Weight Changes Every 4 Years, According to Study Cohort 23.059 (Mozaffarian D et al., NEJM 2011)
Adults: RCTs % Weighted Mean Weight Study Difference, kg (95% CI) (D+L) Tordoff, 1990, Men (69) 0.99 (0.41, 1.57) 36.29 Tordoff, 1990, Women (69) 0.72 (0.14, 1.30) 36.04 Reid, 2007 (66) 1.37 (0.38, 2.36) 12.51 Reid, 2010 (67) 0.43 (-0.84, 1.70) 7.62 Aeberli, 2011 (70) 0.30 (-1.12, 1.72) 6.09 Maersk, 2012 (68) 0.66 (-2.25, 3.57) 1.45 D+L Overall (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.780) 0.85 (0.50, 1.20) 100.00 I-V Overall 0.85 (0.50, 1.20) NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -3.57 0.00 3.57 intervention reduces weight intervention increases weight Weighted mean difference in weight change (kg) between intervention and control regimens from RCT s in adults. Interventions evaluated the effect of adding SSB
Relative Risk Regular Soft Drinks & Type 2 Diabetes, NHS2 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.11 1.50 1.85 1.39 1.41 <1/mo 1-4/mo 2-6/wk >=1/d Sugar-sweetened soft drink consumption multivariate adjusted P<0.001 for trend multivariate + BMI 25.080 (Schulze et al. 2004)
Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies on Sugar- Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Malik et al. Diabetes Care 2010
Relative Risk of CHD RR for Sweetened Beverages & Risk of CHD 1.4 1.2 P=0.004 1 0.8 0.6 <1/mo 1-4/mo 2-6/wk 1- <2/d 2+/d Quintiles of Sweetened Beverage 8.124 (Fung et al. 2008)
Adjusted HRs of CVD Mortality by Categories of SSBs Consumption NHANES 1988-2006 Servings of SSBs Consumption Per Week Age-sex-race adjusted HRs <1 1 to <3 3 to <7 7 0.99 1.01 1.37 1.00 (0.70-1.38) (0.73-1.38) (1.09-1.71) Fully Adjusted* 1.00 1.04 (0.74-1.46) 1.05 (0.74-1.49) 1.32 (1.04-1.66) * Adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption, BMI, physical activity, family history of CVD, Healthy Eating Index, antihypertensive medication use, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and total calorie intake
Conclusions: Adverse effects of soda/ssb consumption on risks of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, gout, and dental caries well documented Tide has turned in the US, and soda consumption is declining Big soda, like big tobacco, is looking elsewhere for future growth Nevertheless, big soda still uses every tactic possible to promote sales in US and obstruct public health progress Food services can play a critical role by offering attractive alternative beverages
SSB and BMI in Children Change in BMI per 1 serving/d increase in SSB, during the time period specified for each study Forshee, RA et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2008
SSB and BMI in Children: Re-analysis Fixed Effects: 0.03 (0.01, 0.04) Malik VS et al. Am J Clin Nutr, 2009
SSB and BMI in Children: Re-analysis, Removing Studies that Adjusted for Total Energy Fixed Effects: 0.03 (0.02, 0.05) Malik VS et al. Am J Clin Nutr, 2009
Drinking caloric beverages increases the risk of cardiometabolic outcomes in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study N= 2774, 20 yr follow-up RR (95% CI) P trend High WC 1.09 (1.04, 1.15) <0.001 High Fasting glucose 1.03 (0.95, 1.12) 0.4600 High TG 1.06 (1.01, 1.13) 0.033 High LDL 1.18 (1.02, 1.36) 0.018 Low HDL 1.06 (0.97, 1.16) 0.192 Hypertension 1.06 (1.01, 1.12) 0.023 RR associated with each increase in quartile of SSB consumption Am J Clin Nutr 2010;92:954 9.
SSB and Biomarkers: Evidence from Short Term Trials Parallel, 10 wks: Sucrose-rich diet increased postprandial glucose, insulin, and lipids compared artificial sweeteners in overweight healthy subjects. Food Nutr Res 2011;55. Parallel, 10-wks: Sucrose-rich diet increased serum levels of haptoglobin, transferrin and CRP compared artificial sweetener in overweight healthy subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82(2):421-7 Cross-over, 3 wks: SSB (fructose, sucrose) consumed in small to moderate quantities impaired glucose and lipid metabolism and promoted inflammation in normal-weight healthy men. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94(2):479-85