TABLE 3.
Percentage of differences (95% CIs) in biomarker concentrations associated with 20 g/d of fructose from SSB, juice, and fruit in the combined cohort1
| SSB fructose | Juice fructose | Fruit fructose | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insulinemic/glycemic markers | |||
| C-peptide (n = 12,433) | |||
| Model 1 | 6.1 (4.2, 8.1)∗∗∗ | 0.0 (−3.0, 3.0) | −11.2 (−13.1, −9.3)∗∗∗ |
| Model 2 | 3.4 (1.7, 5.2)∗∗∗ | 4.1 (1.2, 7.0)∗∗ | −6.9 (−8.9, −4.9)∗∗∗ |
| HbA1c (n = 9912) | |||
| Model 1 | 0.1 (−0.2, 0.3) | 0.3 (−0.1, 0.7) | −0.4 (−0.7, −0.1)∗ |
| Model 2 | −0.3 (−0.5, 0.0)∗ | 0.5 (0.1, 0.9)∗ | −0.2 (−0.5, 0.1) |
| Inflammatory markers | |||
| CRP (n = 16 810) | |||
| Model 1 | 12.7 (9.3, 16.2)∗∗∗ | −8.2 (−13.1, −3.1)∗∗ | −18.9 (−22.1, −15.6)∗∗∗ |
| Model 2 | 6.9 (3.9, 9.9)∗∗∗ | 3.3 (−1.6, 8.4) | −8.6 (−12.1, −4.9)∗∗∗ |
| IL-6 (n = 11 011) | |||
| Model 1 | 5.6 (3.5, 7.8)∗∗∗ | −2.9 (−6.4, 0.7) | −9.9 (−12.4, −7.4)∗∗∗ |
| Model 2 | 2.2 (0.2, 4.2)∗ | 1.9 (−1.6, 5.4) | −3.9 (−6.6, −1.1)∗ |
| TNF-R1 (n = 3314) | |||
| Model 1 | 2.1 (0.5, 3.7)∗ | 0.1 (−2.6, 2.8) | −0.8 (−2.9, 1.3) |
| Model 2 | 0.5 (−1.0, 2.1) | 1.2 (−1.4, 3.8) | 0.6 (−1.6, 2.8) |
| TNF-R2 (n = 10 708) | |||
| Model 1 | 3.1 (2.2, 4.0)∗∗∗ | −1.4 (−2.9, 0.2) | 0.0 (−1.2, 1.2) |
| Model 2 | 1.8 (0.9, 2.6)∗∗∗ | −0.6 (−2.1, 0.9) | 1.4 (0.1, 2.7)∗ |
| ICAM-1 (n = 6248) | |||
| Model 1 | 3.0 (1.9, 4.2)∗∗∗ | −1.2 (−3.0, 0.6) | −4.8 (−6.1, −3.5)∗∗∗ |
| Model 2 | 1.5 (0.5, 2.6)∗ | 0.8 (−0.9, 2.6) | −1.2 (−2.6, 0.2) |
| Adiponectin (n = 13 893) | |||
| Model 1 | −6.2 (−7.6, −4.8)∗∗∗ | −3.9 (−6.2, −1.5)∗∗ | 3.0 (1.1, 4.9)∗∗ |
| Model 2 | −4.2 (−5.6, −2.8)∗∗∗ | −6.7 (−8.9, −4.4)∗∗∗ | 0.7 (−1.2, 2.7) |
| Leptin (n = 9831) | |||
| Model 1 | 5.3 (2.7, 8.0)∗∗∗ | −9.7 (−13.8, −5.3)∗∗∗ | −17.3 (−20.2, −14.4)∗∗∗ |
| Model 2 | 1.8 (−0.2, 3.9) | 1.0 (−2.7, 4.8) | −8.6 (−11.3, −5.8)∗∗∗ |
| Lipid markers | |||
| TC (n = 14 979) | |||
| Model 1 | 0.8 (0.4, 1.3)∗∗∗ | −0.1 (−1.0, 0.8) | −2.2 (−2.9, −1.5)∗∗∗ |
| Model 2 | 0.4 (0.0, 0.9) | 0.2 (−0.6, 1.0) | −1.3 (−2.0, −0.6)∗∗∗ |
| HDL-C (n = 8623) | |||
| Model 1 | −4.3 (−5.4, −3.2)∗∗∗ | 0.5 (−1.4, 2.4) | 0.3 (−1.0, 1.7) |
| Model 2 | −2.0 (−3.1, −1.0)∗∗∗ | 0.2 (−1.5, 1.9) | 0.2 (−1.2, 1.6) |
| LDL-C (n = 7169) | |||
| Model 1 | 2.4 (1.1, 3.6)∗∗∗ | 0.6 (−1.4, 2.7) | −2.1 (−3.5, −0.6)∗∗ |
| Model 2 | 1.6 (0.4, 2.7)∗ | 0.7 (−1.2, 2.6) | −1.1 (−2.6, 0.3) |
| TG (n = 10 234) | |||
| Model 1 | 6.1 (4.4, 7.8)∗∗∗ | 1.0 (−1.9, 4.1) | −6.0 (−8.2, −3.7)∗∗∗ |
| Model 2 | 2.9 (1.4, 4.5)∗∗∗ | 4.9 (2.1, 7.7)∗∗∗ | 0.0 (−2.4, 2.4) |
| TG/HDL-C ratio (n = 6092) | |||
| Model 1 | 10.6 (7.3, 14.1)∗∗∗ | 1.7 (−3.4, 7.2) | −4.3 (−8.0, −0.5)∗ |
| Model 2 | 6.4 (3.4, 9.5)∗∗∗ | 4.5 (−0.3, 9.5) | 1.0 (−2.8, 5.0) |
HDL-C, HDL cholesterol; LDL-C, LDL cholesterol; ref, reference; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverage; TC, total cholesterol.
∗0.005 ≤ P < 0.05, ∗∗0.001 ≤ P < 0.005, ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
1
Models were adjusted for the same set of covariates as in Table 2, and each fructose source was mutually adjusted for other sources.