Table 2.
Adjusted prevalence of heavy sugar sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption among consumers from 1999–2000 to 2007–2008, by age group and SSB type
| Survey Year By Age Groupc | Total SSB | Regular Soda | Fruit Drinks |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Mean (SE) | Mean (SE) | Mean (SE) | |
| Children | |||
| 1999–2000 | 0.04 (0.03) | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.02 (0.01) |
| 2001–2002 | 0.05 (0.03) | 0.02 (0.02) | 0.03 (0.01) |
| 2003–2004 | 0.05 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.02) | 0.05 (0.02) |
| 2005–2006 | 0.03 (0.02) | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.02 (0.01) |
| 2007–2008 | 0.05 (0.03) | 0.02 (0.03) | 0.02 (0.01) |
| N=6,398 | N=3,959 | N=3,871 | |
| Adolescents | |||
| 1999–2000 | 0.22 (0.10) | 0.15 (0.09) | 0.09 (0.05) |
| 2001–2002 | 0.20 (0.10) | 0.13 (0.08) | 0.09 (0.06) |
| 2003–2004 | 0.18 (0.09) | 0.11 (0.07) | 0.10 (0.06) |
| 2005–2006 | 0.19 (0.09) | 0.11 (0.07) | 0.09 (0.05) |
| 2007–2008 | 0.16 (0.08) | 0.10 (0.06) | 0.06 (0.04) |
| N=7,533 | N=5,726 | N=3,179 | |
| Young adults | |||
| 1999–2000 | 0.29 (0.12) | 0.23 (0.12) | 0.13 (0.07) |
| 2001–2002 | 0.27 (0.11) | 0.18 (0.09) | 0.15 (0.07) |
| 2003–2004 | 0.26 (0.11) | 0.20 (0.10) | 0.12 (0.06) |
| 2005–2006 | 0.20 (0.09) | 0.14 (0.08) | 0.13 (0.06) |
| 2007–2008 | 0.20 (0.09) | 0.16 (0.09) | 0.08 (0.04) |
| N=4,504 | N=3,460 | N=1,624 | |
| Adults | |||
| 1999–2000 | 0.11 (0.08) | 0.09 (0.06) | 0.06 (0.04) |
| 2001–2002 | 0.12 (0.09) | 0.10 (0.08) | 0.06 (0.04) |
| 2003–2004 | 0.11 (0.09) | 0.09 (0.08) | 0.06 (0.06) |
| 2005–2006 | 0.15 (0.11) | 0.11 (0.09) | 0.04 (0.03) |
| 2007–2008 | 0.12 (0.09) | 0.08 (0.07) | 0.08 (0.05) |
| Adults | N=8,965 | N=6,320 | N=3,408 |
Notes:
Heavy consumption of SSBs was defined as intake of 500 or more kcal per day from SSBs.
The data were from the NHANES, nationally representative sample.
Each age group was defined as follows: children (2–11 years), adolescents (12–19 years), young adults (20–34 years), and adults (35 years or older). Only consumers were used for this table, and thus, sample size varied by SSB type within each age group as presented in the Table.
Adjusted prevalence was estimated using logistic regression. Adjusted factors included age, gender, and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and other), household income (per capita household income less than 135%, between 135% and 300%, and 300% or more of the federal poverty level), education level (high school or less versus some college or more). For children and adolescents under age 20 we used their parents or guardians’ socioeconomic characteristics for proxy measures of their own.
SE stands for standard errors.
All estimates were weighted by sampling probability.
All differences between 99-00 and 07-08 were statistically significant at the 5% level.