Abstract
Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has been related to metabolic diseases. Our objective was to identify beverage consumption patterns, nutrient intake, and their possible association with the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among Mexican young adults. A cross-sectional survey was conducted. Beverage consumption patterns were obtained by principal components analysis. Logistic regression models were applied to assess the association between the beverage patterns and cardiovascular risk factors. Four beverage patterns were identified. Higher consumption of alcoholic beverages was associated with lower odds for high body fat percent (OR: 0.371; 95% CI: 0.173–0.798), high blood pressure (OR: 0.318; 95% CI: 0.116–0.871), and high glucose (OR: 0.232; 95% CI: 0.061–0.875). Higher consumption of yogurt was associated with lower odds for high glucose (OR: 0.110; 95% CI: 0.22–0.559). In contrast, highest consumption of juice had greater odds for high triglycerides (OR: 1.084; 95% CI: 1.011–4.656). Higher consumption of milk was associated with greater odds for high glucose (OR: 5.304; 95% CI: 1.292–21.773). Beverage consumption habits in Mexican young adults are associated with increased risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Therefore, intervening during young adulthood should be considered in order to improve current health and prevent cardiovascular mortality in later decades.
Keywords: beverage consumption patterns, nutritional intake, cardiovascular risk factors, Mexican young adults
1. Introduction
Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the most common causes of death worldwide, and over 80% of those deaths take place in low- and middle-income countries [1]. Specifically in Mexico, The Global Burden of Disease study estimated that CVD accounted for 22.7% of all deaths. From 2007 to 2017, deaths from CVD increased 51.1%, where trends in mortality had a significant increase in young adults (<35 years old) [1,2].
The increasing rates of CVD in Mexico have been attributed to the high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs), such as obesity (75.2%) [3], high blood pressure (BP) (49.4%) [4], high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (52.3%), high triglycerides (TG) (32.3%), total cholesterol (TC) (19.2%), low density lipoproteins cholesterol (LDL-C) (41.7%), physical inactivity (17.4%), and tobacco smoking (19.9%) [5,6]. Among them, National health surveys in Mexico have identified a body mass index (BMI) above 25 kg/m2, and dyslipidemias as the most prevalent modifiable CVRFs in adults [7]. The prevalence of obesity, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), and stagnation in the improvement of lipid levels in young adults, all are in the setting of suboptimal lifestyle behaviors, such as decreased physical activity and increased rates of smoking, as well as the adoption of poor diet characterized by a high caloric intake [8,9].
Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are among the dietary components that contribute most to the total energy intake in the Mexican population [10]. Mexican adults (>20 years old) have reported an estimated daily consumption of 415 kcal from all beverages, representing a contribution of 22.5% to the energy intake. Alcohol, whole and flavored milk, and soda have been the beverages that have contributed most to the energy intake (16.17, 8.25, 8.04 and 6.60%, respectively) [11]. SSBs are considered the main source of sugars in the Mexican diet, and have been associated with a low intake of important micronutrients, such as vitamin C, vitamin A, riboflavin, magnesium, calcium, and fiber [12,13].
Studies have examined the beneficial or deleterious effects of specific beverage consumption on weight gain, T2DM, and CVRFs among different young populations. A prospective, randomized, controlled crossover trial demonstrated that interventions with low to moderate SSBs significantly increased BMI, waist circumference (WC), GLC, and significantly reduced LDL particle size. In addition, carbohydrate intake increased, while protein, fat, and β-Carotene intake decreased in SSB interventions among Swiss young men [14]. A prospective study reported that higher SSB consumption was associated with higher risk of high WC, high LDL-C, high TG, and hypertension. Whole-fat milk consumption was associated with lower risk of high TG. Consumers of both whole-fat milk and SSBs were more likely to have higher total energy intake, to be current smokers, and to have lower levels of physical activity [15]. A cross-sectional study showed that a greater dairy consumption was associated with a higher prevalence of obesity, a lower prevalence of high BP, greater calorie intake, and greater intake of carbohydrates, protein, total fats, cholesterol, fibers, sodium, calcium, and phosphorous in Brazilian young adults [16]. Du el al. reported that light consumption of beer was associated with lower WC and higher HDL-C levels, and high consumption of wine with higher BP in Australian young adults [17]. Hillesund et al., reported a positive association between increasing alcohol intake and prevalence of obesity, calorie intake, and nutrient intake in both young women and men. An inverse association with energy-adjusted intake of thiamine, phosphate, Fe, Zn and Se in young men, and with vitamin A, β-carotene, vitamin E and C, thiamine, vitamin B6, folate, P, Mg, K, Fe, Zn, and Cu in young women [18].
Most studies focused only on a specific beverage item rather than on the comprehensive consumption pattern of beverages in order to evaluate the risk of obesity and CVRFs. Given that Mexico is the country with the largest consumption of soft drinks, it is possible that these might represent an important contribution to the increase in the obesity and CVD epidemics currently taking place [11,19]. However, a large number of beverages have been introduced into diet, which are either sugar-sweetened or caffeinated, and often both, but many have emerged with reduced caloric levels, a range of flavors, and often caffeine and other food constituents have been added [20]. Therefore, additional studies should examine the beverage consumption patterns rather than consumption of individual beverages in relation to total energy intake, obesity, and CVRFs.
In our study, the hypothesis tested was that beverage consumption patterns with positive high factor loading scores for SSBs would be associated with greater energy intake, obesity, and CVRFs when compared to those with low factor loading scores of SSBs. Therefore, the aims of this study were to identify beverage consumption patterns and to examine their association with energy and nutrient intake, as well as to evalaute the prevalence of obesity and CVRF’s among Mexican young adults from urban areas.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Population
The data for this study were drawn from a cross-sectional epidemiological survey conducted among students from the Autonomous University of Queretaro (UAQ), Mexico between January and November of 2014. Subjects (n = 1160) in the study were recruited by a non-probabilistic sample, including all the freshmen attending the Autonomous University of Queretaro, who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. All participants gave their written informed consent according to the Helsinki Declaration. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at the School of Natural Sciences of the University of Queretaro (23FCN, 2014).
The inclusion criteria used were students in their first year of school between 18 and 25 years of age. The exclusion criteria were participants with current clinical evidence of infectious disease, anemia, pregnancy or lactation, current medical or nutritional treatment, as well as those with missing information derived from a dietary or beverage questionnaire, biochemical measurements, and anthropometric measurements. The final sample consisted of 340 young Mexican adults (184 women and 156 men).
All participants completed detailed food frequency and beverage frequency questionnaires and underwent an extensive clinical and nutritional evaluation including physical examination, fasting blood chemistry analyses, and anthropometric and body composition.
2.2. Dietary and Beverage Consumption Assessment
2.2.1. Dietary Assessment
A semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to assess diet through collecting data on the frequency of consumption of 160 food items. For each food item, a commonly used portion size (e.g., one slice of bread) was specified, and participants were asked how frequently they had consumed the food over the previous year. They were able to choose from ten responses ranging from ‘never’ to ‘six or more times per day’. The total energy, the total consumption of protein, fat, and carbohydrates, as well as their percentage of total energy, was estimated by multiplying the frequency of consumption of each food type included in the FFQ by the nutrient content estimated by a comprehensive database of food contents. The adequacy of macronutrient intake was assessed according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee recommendations [21].
2.2.2. Beverage Assessment
We obtained beverage intake data by using a beverage frequency questionnaire (BFQ) of 50 items. Participants were asked how often they had consumed each beverage over the previous year. They choose from five responses ranges: “never”, “per year”, “per month”, “per week”, and “per day”. Participants were able to choose the beverage portion size from a pre-set list with pictures of various sizes of mugs, glasses, and bowls. Then, we converted portion sizes into volume (mL).
2.2.3. Beverage Patterns
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to assess the reliability of BFQ scores. The Cronbach´s alpha value was 0.819, which was considered good internal consistency (α ≥ 0.7) [11]. Items identified as unnecessary were removed from the scores (n = 22 items).
To estimate energy and nutrient intake by beverage, parameters were calculated using food composition data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) [22], and polyphenol content was calculated using the Phenol-Explorer 3.0 [23].
Since most of the amounts of consumed beverage distributions were skewed toward higher values, all variables were log- (natural) transformed and then energy-adjusted using the residual method [24], which uses the residual from regression models with beverage intake as the dependent variable and energy intake as the independent variable.
Principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed on the beverage-items transformed and adjusted beverages. The patterns described by each component are direct linear relationships between the underlying beverage variables and they may be interpreted by their factor loadings [25]. Large positive or negative factor loadings indicates the beverage that is important in that component. Factors that have eigenvalues greater than 1 were retained for interpretation. Beverages with factor loading values ≥ 0.3 were defined as strong association and used to characterize each pattern. The scores were categorized into tertiles and labelled according to the beverage with high loadings.
2.3. Anthropometric Measurements and Blood Pressure
A trained nutritionist measured all anthropometric variables. Height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a mechanic stadiometer (SECA Mod 216, Hamburg, Germany). Body weight and body fat percent (BF %) were measured simultaneously by using a digital scale Body Composition Analyzed X-Scan plus II (Jawon Medical Mod 514 Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea). WC was measured midway between the lowest rib and the iliac crest using flexible fiberglass measuring bands (SECA Mod 200, Hamburg, Germany) and Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from weight and heigh values according to Quetlet´s score. The BP was recorded 3 times with a 10 min interval between measurements by using a mercurial sphygmomanometer (Medimetrics Mod 5881).
2.4. Biochemical Measurements
Venous blood samples were collected after 8–12 h of overnight fasting. Standard enzymatic colorimetric methods (Spinreact, Girona, Cataluña, Spain) were used to assess serum GLC, TC, TG, LDL-c, and HDL-c concentrations in a Mindray BS120 biochemical automatized analyzer (Shenzhen, China).
2.5. Definition of Cardiovascular Risk Factors
High BMI was defined as ≥25. High BF% was defined according to Gallagher [26] as high BF% (≥20% in men, and 31, 32, and 33% in 18, 19, and ≥20-year-old women, respectively). According to the International Diabetes Federation [27], High BP was defined as ≥130 mmHg of systolic blood pressure (SBP), and ≥85 mmHg of diastolic (DBP); high GLC ≥ 100 mg/dL, high TC ≥ 200 mg/dL, high TG ≥ 100 mg/ dL, high LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL, and low HDL-C ≤ 40 and 50 mg/dL, in men and women, respectively.
2.6. Covariates
Important confounders of the association between beverage consumption and CVRF´s were considered. Among them, smoking status was classified as two groups: nonsmoker or current smoker. Physical activity was estimated by mean of a 24 hr recall questionnaire [28]. According to the Recommendations for adults from the American College of Sport Medicine (ACSM) and the American Heart Association (AHA) [29], they were categorized into two groups: a sedentary group when young people practiced less than 150 min of physical activity in a week, and a physically active group. Gender was classified into two groups: women and men.
2.7. Data Analyses
All analyses were performed with α = 0.05 significance level using SPSS version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous variables were reported as mean ± standard error (SE). Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies with weighted percentages. ANOVA were conducted to test for significant differences in mean values of anthropometric, biochemical, and nutritional variables, with Bonferroni-adjustment for multiple comparisons. The Chi-square (χ2) test was performed in order to compare the prevalence of covariates across tertiles of beverage consumption patterns scores. To assess the association between beverage consumption patterns and the risk of CVRFs, multivariate logistic regression models were applied. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the following models: Model 1 was not adjusted for any covariate; model 2 was adjusted for gender, smoking status, physical activity, and BMI; model 3 adjusted all covariates in model 2 plus total energy intake and percentage of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrates.
3. Results
3.1. Beverage Patterns Description
PCA identified 4 major factors according to the eigenvalue >1.0 criterion applied. These factors accounted for 33.05% of the variance in the beverage (Table 1). Pattern 1, which explained 18.44% of the variance in the sample and was labeled “Alcoholic drink pattern”, showed positive high factor loading scores for tequila, rum, brandy, vodka, whisky, beer, red and white wine, and carbonated and tonic water. Pattern 2 explained 9.38% of the variance and was labeled “Yogurt drink pattern” due to the high positive factor loading on drinkable plain yogurt, drinkable flavored yogurt, and lactic fermented dairy drink. Pattern 3 explained 6.90% of the variance and was labeled “Juicy pattern” because of the positive high factor loading scores with bottled or canned fruit juice, bottled or canned fruit nectar juice, natural juice, and soy juice. Finally, based on the positive high factor loading scores on milkshakes with fruit, milkshake or Skimoo with milk, and atole with milk, pattern 4 explained 6.145 of the variance and was labeled “Milk beverage pattern”.
Table 1.
Assessment of the factor-loading matrix for the four dietary patterns among Mexican young.
| Alcoholic Drink Pattern | Yogurt Drink Pattern | Juicy Pattern | Milk Beverages Pattern | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tequila, rum, brandy, vodka, whisky | 0.897 | |||
| Beer | 0.880 | |||
| Drinkable plain yogurt | 0.907 | |||
| Drinkable flavored yogurt | 0.835 | |||
| Lactic fermented dairy drink | 0.566 | |||
| Bottled or canned fruit juice | 0.853 | |||
| Bottled or canned fruit nectar juice | 0.798 | |||
| Natural juice | 0.549 | |||
| Milkshake with fruit | 0.665 | |||
| Milkshake or Skimoo with milk | 0.557 | |||
| Carbonated water | 0.458 | 0.535 | ||
| Atole with milk | 0.527 | |||
| Black coffee | ||||
| Tea | ||||
| Powdered flavored water | ||||
| Boted flavored water | ||||
| Bottled coffee | ||||
| Soy juice | 0.310 | |||
| Tonic water | 0.338 | |||
| Flavored milk | ||||
| Sport drink | ||||
| Red and White wine | 0.469 | |||
| Bottled tea | ||||
| Smoothie | ||||
| Percentage of variability explained | 18.44 | 9.38 | 6.90 | 6.14 |
Factor loadings are equivalent to simple correlations between food items and dietary patterns, and those less than 0.30 were not shown for simplicity.
3.2. Association of Beverage Consumption Patterns and Energy and Nutrient Intake
Mean total energy and nutrient intake according to tertiles of the beverage consumption pattern scores are presented in Table 2. Total protein, total fat, and total carbohydrates are presented as percentages of energy intake, whereas energy from beverages, protein, fat, carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins, minerals, and polyphenols are given as nutrient intake. Increasing scores of the Alcoholic drink pattern were positively associated with higher protein (20.09 ± 1.93), fat, saturated fat (11.43 ± 1.19), and cholesterol (59.14 ± 6.23) intake, as well as calcium (655.97 ± 62.4), vitamin A (242.98 ± 24.5), vitamin D (4.59 ± 0.42), anthocyanins (7.88 ± 1.28), phenolic acids (2.58 ± 0.28), stilbenes (2.58 ± 0.28), and other polyphenols (7.17 ± 0.75).
Table 2.
Mean total energy and nutrient intake according to tertiles of the beverage consumption pattern scores identified among Mexican young adults.
| Alcoholic Drink Pattern | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tertile 1 | Tertile 2 | Tertile 3 | p-Value a | |
| Total dietary intake | ||||
| Total energy requirement | 2025.50 ± 41.54 | 1987.44 ± 37.39 | 2026.57 ± 37.04 | 0.717 |
| Total energy intake (Kcal) | 2798.17 ± 130.90 | 2935.83 ± 165.04 | 3183.70 ± 154.43 | 0.194 |
| Total protein (%) | 17.75 ± 0.71 | 16.87 ± 0.60 | 17.27 ± 0.55 | 0.600 |
| Total fat (%) | 29.70 ± 0.88 | 30.16 ± 0.87 | 29.25 ± 0.93 | 0.891 |
| Total carbohydrates (%) | 51.26 ± 1.30 | 52.09 ± 1.20 | 51.53 ± 1.23 | 0.779 |
| Total fiber (g) | 46.90 ± 5.42 | 42.31 ± 4.32 | 43.74 ± 3.25 | 0.757 |
| Sugar (g) | 21.98 ± 1.05 | 22.66 ± 1.06 | 22.28 ± 1.05 | 0.895 |
| Energy and nutrient intake from beverages | ||||
| Total energy (Kcal) | 570.57 ± 46.31 | 580.03 ± 34.98 | 605.43 ± 31.16 | 0.799 |
| Energy (%) | 23.31 ± 2.36 | 20.15 ± 1.40 | 22.42 ± 1.79 | 0.470 |
| Protein (g) | 13.9 ± 1.29 | 16.51 ± 1.49 | 20.09 ± 1.93 | 0.024 |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 102.01 ± 7.91 | 120.46 ± 9.15 | 113.2 ± 9.93 | 0.348 |
| Fiber (g) | 1.18 ± 0.13 | 1.45 ± 0.19 | 1.31 ± 0.21 | 0.560 |
| Sugar (g) | 98.94 ± 7.76 | 113.96 ± 8.57 | 110.51 ± 9.62 | 0.441 |
| Fat (g) | 11.66 ± 1.12 | 15.03 ± 1.5 | 18.68 ± 1.92 | 0.006 |
| Saturated fat (g) | 7.07 ± 0.71 | 9.14 ± 0.93 | 11.43 ± 1.19 | 0.007 |
| Monounsaturated fat (g) | 1.52 ± 0.26 | 1.3 ± 0.16 | 1 ± 0.12 | 0.159 |
| Polyunsaturated fat (g) | 0.23 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.267 |
| Cholesterol (mg) | 38.36 ± 3.74 | 49.23 ± 4.93 | 59.14 ± 6.23 | 0.016 |
| Na (mg) | 271.73 ± 21.51 | 342.56 ± 25.04 | 344.89 ± 28.77 | 0.069 |
| K (mg) | 657.71 ± 64.46 | 629.14 ± 54.49 | 586.76 ± 66.78 | 0.720 |
| Ca (mg) | 436.38 ± 40.51 | 525.55 ± 47.62 | 655.97 ± 62.4 | 0.010 |
| Mg (mg) | 45.6 ± 4.54 | 43.25 ± 3.75 | 39.76 ± 4.45 | 0.623 |
| Fe (mg) | 42.87 ± 2.45 | 0.81 ± 0.08 | 1.14 ± 0.14 | 0.158 |
| Zn (mg) | 25.03 ± 8.81 | 25.03 ± 8.81 | 13.93 ± 4.98 | 0.183 |
| P (mg) | 229.34 ± 31.73 | 206.23 ± 21.42 | 169.77 ± 19.46 | 0.232 |
| Se (μg) | 6.11 ± 0.8 | 5.69 ± 0.58 | 4.7 ± 0.52 | 0.285 |
| Vit C (mg) | 66.96 ± 6.63 | 73.19 ± 7.98 | 69.7 ± 8.18 | 0.846 |
| Thiamin (mg) | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 0.43 ± 0.1 | 0.34 ± 0.06 | 0.311 |
| Riboflavin (mg) | 0.49 ± 0.05 | 0.41 ± 0.04 | 0.39 ± 0.05 | 0.267 |
| Niacin (mg) | 3.3 ± 0.37 | 4.2 ± 0.37 | 3.08 ± 0.29 | 0.055 |
| Vit B6 (mg) | 0.35 ± 0.04 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | 0.32 ± 0.04 | 0.524 |
| Folate (μg) | 39.57 ± 4.05 | 42.92 ± 4.56 | 40.8 ± 4.48 | 0.860 |
| Choline (mg) | 43.52 ± 4.69 | 40.58 ± 3.54 | 36.13 ± 3.92 | 0.437 |
| Vit B12 (mg) | 0.99 ± 0.13 | 0.83 ± 0.09 | 0.67 ± 0.08 | 0.073 |
| Vit E (mg) | 0.27 ± 0.03 | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 0.28 ± 0.04 | 0.954 |
| Vit A (μg) | 150.98 ± 12.05 | 195.77 ± 18.86 | 242.98 ± 24.5 | 0.003 |
| Vit D (mg) | 2.44 ± 0.19 | 3.04 ± 0.29 | 4.59 ± 0.42 | <0.0001 |
| Caffeine (mg) | 50.13 ± 5.33 | 44.89 ± 3.18 | 51.91 ± 3.45 | 0.452 |
| Anthocyanins (mg) | 2.68 ± 0.33 | 3.32 ± 0.48 | 7.88 ± 1.28 | <0.0001 |
| Flavonoids (mg) | 59.7 ± 5.3 | 67.67 ± 7.27 | 79.78 ± 7.93 | 0.121 |
| Phenolic acids (mg) | 0.1 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.05 | 2.58 ± 0.28 | <0.0001 |
| Stilbenes (mg) | 0.1 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.05 | 2.58 ± 0.28 | <0.0001 |
| Other polyphenols (mg) | 3.8 ± 0.3 | 4.8 ± 0.39 | 7.17 ± 0.75 | <0.0001 |
| Yogurt pattern | ||||
| Total dietary intake | ||||
| Total energy requirement | 2001.07 ± 39.89 | 1963.81 ± 35.36 | 2074.84 ± 40.11 | 0.117 |
| Total energy intake (Kcal) | 3084.72 ± 155.05 | 3002.16 ± 157.07 | 2809.58 ± 140.35 | 0.407 |
| Total protein (%) | 17.88 ± 0.54 | 17.14 ± 0.63 | 16.88 ± 0.72 | 0.507 |
| Total fat (%) | 30.49 ± 0.83 | 29.12 ± 0.85 | 29.53 ± 1.01 | 0.532 |
| Total carbohydrates (%) | 51.46 ± 1.28 | 52.37 ± 1.08 | 51.45 ± 1.39 | 0.733 |
| Total fiber (g) | 38.36 ± 3.89 | 46.66 ± 4.69 | 48.38 ± 4.96 | 0.246 |
| Sugar (g) | 21.97 ± 1.04 | 22.45 ± 1.05 | 22.49 ± 1.08 | 0.928 |
| Energy and nutrient intake from beverages | ||||
| Total energy (Kcal) | 403.68 ± 25.03 | 564.12 ± 29.77 | 788.38 ± 46.61 | <0.0001 |
| Energy (%) | 17.34 ± 1.2 | 19.98 ± 1.46 | 29.2 ± 2.67 | <0.0001 |
| Protein (g) | 14.13 ± 1.25 | 19.33 ± 2.02 | 17.01 ± 1.42 | 0.071 |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 96.64 ± 7.27 | 123.42 ± 10.65 | 115.59 ± 8.74 | 0.098 |
| Fiber (g) | 1.07 ± 0.15 | 1.67 ± 0.23 | 1.2 ± 0.14 | 0.043 |
| Sugar (g) | 92.25 ± 6.84 | 119.81 ± 10.37 | 111.3 ± 8.3 | 0.071 |
| Fat (g) | 12.36 ± 1.19 | 17.72 ± 2.02 | 15.27 ± 1.31 | 0.052 |
| Saturated fat (g) | 7.47 ± 0.74 | 10.84 ± 1.26 | 9.32 ± 0.82 | 0.050 |
| Monounsaturated fat (g) | 1.11 ± 0.16 | 1.4 ± 0.19 | 1.31 ± 0.22 | 0.557 |
| Polyunsaturated fat (g) | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.03 | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 0.416 |
| Cholesterol (mg) | 39.81 ± 3.81 | 57.68 ± 6.64 | 49.17 ± 4.33 | 0.047 |
| Na (mg) | 277.23 ± 20.75 | 353.04 ± 31.63 | 328.82 ± 22.01 | 0.098 |
| K (mg) | 559.31 ± 47.85 | 717.25 ± 70.59 | 596.28 ± 64.62 | 0.169 |
| Ca (mg) | 454.92 ± 40.62 | 616.11 ± 64.5 | 546.06 ± 45.37 | 0.085 |
| Mg (mg) | 38.37 ± 3.35 | 48.22 ± 4.68 | 41.97 ± 4.57 | 0.253 |
| Fe (mg) | 0.81 ± 0.1 | 1.22 ± 0.16 | 0.98 ± 0.11 | 0.080 |
| Zn (mg) | 9.94 ± 2.42 | 13.55 ± 3.28 | 25.31 ± 9.59 | 0.169 |
| P (mg) | 178.11 ± 20.25 | 224.28 ± 25.33 | 202.8 ± 28.22 | 0.421 |
| Se (μg) | 4.9 ± 0.55 | 6.02 ± 0.66 | 5.57 ± 0.72 | 0.469 |
| Vit C (mg) | 65.88 ± 6.95 | 78.91 ± 8.91 | 65.02 ± 6.76 | 0.351 |
| Thiamin (mg) | 0.26 ± 0.02 | 0.49 ± 0.11 | 0.3 ± 0.03 | 0.044 |
| Riboflavin (mg) | 0.36 ± 0.03 | 0.49 ± 0.05 | 0.44 ± 0.05 | 0.121 |
| Niacin (mg) | 3.4 ± 0.4 | 3.57 ± 0.34 | 3.61 ± 0.31 | 0.901 |
| Vit B6 (mg) | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.05 | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 0.060 |
| Folate (μg) | 38.46 ± 4.03 | 47 ± 5.1 | 37.8 ± 3.81 | 0.250 |
| Choline (mg) | 35.5 ± 3.22 | 44.98 ± 4.37 | 39.7 ± 4.49 | 0.257 |
| Vit B12 (mg) | 0.71 ± 0.08 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.89 ± 0.12 | 0.339 |
| Vit E (mg) | 0.25 ± 0.03 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | 0.29 ± 0.04 | 0.669 |
| Vit A (μg) | 165.03 ± 15.55 | 225.76 ± 24.59 | 198.67 ± 16.46 | 0.085 |
| Vit D (mg) | 2.92 ± 0.29 | 3.68 ± 0.4 | 3.46 ± 0.27 | 0.230 |
| Caffeine (mg) | 37.68 ± 3.23 | 56.58 ± 4.77 | 52.56 ± 3.93 | 0.003 |
| Anthocyanins (mg) | 3.28 ± 0.41 | 3.34 ± 0.42 | 7.26 ± 1.29 | 0.001 |
| Flavonoids (mg) | 55.93 ± 4.42 | 54.89 ± 4.03 | 96.43 ± 10.02 | <0.0001 |
| Phenolic acids (mg) | 0.76 ± 0.12 | 0.93 ± 0.15 | 1.36 ± 0.27 | 0.074 |
| Stilbenes (mg) | 0.76 ± 0.12 | 0.93 ± 0.15 | 1.36 ± 0.27 | 0.074 |
| Other polyphenols (mg) | 5.67 ± 0.71 | 4.94 ± 0.37 | 5.16 ± 0.46 | 0.604 |
| Juicy pattern | ||||
| Total dietary intake | ||||
| Total energy requirement | 2007.04 ± 37.99 | 2043.37 ± 40.02 | 1988.62 ± 37.97 | 0.595 |
| Total energy intake (Kcal) | 3027.41 ± 163.91 | 2731.15 ± 140.54 | 3137.35 ± 146.39 | 0.136 |
| Total protein (%) | 17.32 ± 0.53 | 16.63 ± 0.62 | 17.99 ± 0.74 | 0.324 |
| Total fat (%) | 29.92 ± 0.8 | 29.56 ± 1.00 | 29.65 ± 0.88 | 0.957 |
| Total carbohydrates (%) | 51.8 ± 1.05 | 51.16 ± 1.48 | 51.92 ± 1.2 | 0.899 |
| Total fiber (g) | 38.75 ± 2.46 | 46.71 ± 5.27 | 48 ± 5.37 | 0.290 |
| Sugar (g) | 20.94 ± 0.69 | 22.64 ± 1.24 | 23.4 ± 1.16 | 0.237 |
| Energy and nutrient intake from beverages | ||||
| Total energy (Kcal) | 467.86 ± 25.55 | 492.14 ± 28.03 | 796.81 ± 48.1 | <0.0001 |
| Energy (%) | 18.78 ± 1.6 | 20.48 ± 2.21 | 26.5 ± 1.77 | 0.010 |
| Protein (g) | 15.62 ± 1.35 | 16.22 ± 1.25 | 18.66 ± 2.09 | 0.367 |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 120.4 ± 8.92 | 103.99 ± 7.78 | 111.42 ± 10.28 | 0.438 |
| Fiber (g) | 1.24 ± 0.15 | 1.18 ± 0.160 | 1.52 ± 0.22 | 0.354 |
| Sugar (g) | 115.54 ± 8.37 | 101.21 ± 7.42 | 106.78 ± 10.07 | 0.501 |
| Fat (g) | 13.81 ± 1.31 | 14.54 ± 1.21 | 17.03 ± 2.04 | 0.312 |
| Saturated fat (g) | 8.36 ± 0.82 | 8.86 ± 0.76 | 10.42 ± 1.28 | 0.300 |
| Monounsaturated fat (g) | 1.21 ± 0.17 | 1.24 ± 0.16 | 1.37 ± 0.23 | 0.812 |
| Polyunsaturated fat (g) | 0.2 ± 0.02 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.03 | 0.592 |
| Cholesterol (mg) | 44.46 ± 4.25 | 47.07 ± 3.92 | 55.22 ± 6.73 | 0.302 |
| Na (mg) | 313.26 ± 22.85 | 320.03 ± 21.77 | 326.09 ± 30.9 | 0.939 |
| K (mg) | 642.31 ± 58.88 | 568.90 ± 49.85 | 662.95 ± 74.97 | 0.530 |
| Ca (mg) | 501.1 ± 44.01 | 518.59 ± 40.10 | 598.27 ± 66.63 | 0.366 |
| Mg (mg) | 44.47 ± 4.1 | 38.84 ± 3.47 | 45.34 ± 5.05 | 0.503 |
| Fe (mg) | 1.07 ± 0.13 | 0.86 ± 0.10 | 1.08 ± 0.15 | 0.408 |
| Zn (mg) | 17.17 ± 4.59 | 20.43 ± 9.05 | 11.13 ± 2.26 | 0.542 |
| P (mg) | 197.5 ± 22.4 | 191.44 ± 21.23 | 216.54 ± 30.08 | 0.758 |
| Se (μg) | 5.38 ± 0.59 | 5.18 ± 0.56 | 5.94 ± 0.77 | 0.691 |
| Vit C (mg) | 78.14 ± 8.6 | 60.36 ± 6.09 | 71.47 ± 7.91 | 0.248 |
| Thiamin (mg) | 0.34 ± 0.03 | 0.36 ± 0.10 | 0.35 ± 0.06 | 0.971 |
| Riboflavin (mg) | 0.42 ± 0.04 | 0.42 ± 0.04 | 0.45 ± 0.06 | 0.889 |
| Niacin (mg) | 3.68 ± 0.35 | 3.50 ± 0.41 | 3.40 ± 0.27 | 0.855 |
| Vit B6 (mg) | 0.33 ± 0.03 | 0.31 ± 0.04 | 0.32 ± 0.04 | 0.958 |
| Folate (μg) | 46.42 ± 4.84 | 35.05 ± 3.43 | 41.9 ± 4.66 | 0.178 |
| Choline (mg) | 40.84 ± 3.73 | 36.8 ± 3.37 | 42.61 ± 4.98 | 0.587 |
| Vit B12 (mg) | 0.8 ± 0.09 | 0.83 ± 0.10 | 0.87 ± 0.12 | 0.880 |
| Vit E (mg) | 0.31 ± 0.04 | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 0.358 |
| Vit A (μg) | 187.94 ± 17.77 | 183.64 ± 14.44 | 218.25 ± 24.72 | 0.391 |
| Vit D (mg) | 3.05 ± 0.29 | 3.26 ± 0.27 | 3.76 ± 0.40 | 0.286 |
| Caffeine (mg) | 44.79 ± 3.37 | 37.73 ± 2.87 | 64.47 ± 5.26 | <0.0001 |
| Anthocyanins (mg) | 3.5 ± 0.53 | 3.03 ± 0.33 | 7.35 ± 1.27 | <0.0001 |
| Flavonoids (mg) | 56.87 ± 5.61 | 62.32 ± 5.06 | 88.01 ± 9.17 | 0.003 |
| Phenolic acids (mg) | 1.17 ± 0.2 | 0.50 ± 0.08 | 1.38 ± 0.25 | 0.003 |
| Stilbenes (mg) | 1.17 ± 0.2 | 0.50 ± 0.08 | 1.38 ± 0.25 | 0.003 |
| Other polyphenols (mg) | 6.16 ± 0.73 | 4.53 ± 0.28 | 5.08 ± 0.48 | 0.089 |
| Milk beverages pattern | ||||
| Total dietary intake | ||||
| Total energy requirement | 1987.62 ± 36.73 | 2013.61 ± 40.82 | 2038.75 ± 38.57 | 0.644 |
| Total energy intake (Kcal) | 2833.68 ± 155.24 | 2995.96 ± 133.67 | 3072.41 ± 161.02 | 0.514 |
| Total protein (%) | 17.06 ± 0.66 | 17.81 ± 0.61 | 17.01 ± 0.6 | 0.604 |
| Total fat (%) | 29.15 ± 0.95 | 30.65 ± 0.88 | 29.32 ± 0.78 | 0.421 |
| Total carbohydrates (%) | 51 ± 1.36 | 51.02 ± 1.21 | 53.15 ± 1.05 | 0.408 |
| Total fiber (g) | 40.4 ± 3.64 | 44.55 ± 4.65 | 49.35 ± 5.48 | 0.388 |
| Sugar (g) | 21.51 ± 0.86 | 21.56 ± 1.1 | 24.2 ± 1.22 | 0.139 |
| Energy and nutrient intake from beverages | ||||
| Total energy (Kcal) | 507.92 ± 31.18 | 459.28 ± 24.12 | 788.61 ± 47.1 | <0.0001 |
| Energy (%) | 21.75 ± 2.12 | 17.98 ± 1.20 | 26.4 ± 2.11 | 0.009 |
| Protein (g) | 16.04 ± 1.18 | 17.57 ± 1.86 | 16.93 ± 1.74 | 0.796 |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 97.27 ± 6.83 | 116.61 ± 10.07 | 122.34 ± 9.89 | 0.118 |
| Fiber (g) | 1.26 ± 0.16 | 1.52 ± 0.21 | 1.17 ± 0.16 | 0.369 |
| Sugar (g) | 93.5 ± 6.42 | 111.8 ± 9.36 | 118.61 ± 9.87 | 0.103 |
| Fat (g) | 14.4 ± 1.17 | 16.05 ± 1.89 | 14.95 ± 1.59 | 0.752 |
| Saturated fat (g) | 8.80 ± 0.73 | 9.77 ± 1.18 | 9.09 ± 0.99 | 0.774 |
| Monounsaturated fat (g) | 1.18 ± 0.12 | 1.19 ± 0.18 | 1.45 ± 0.26 | 0.536 |
| Polyunsaturated fat (g) | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.764 |
| Cholesterol (mg) | 46.27 ± 3.82 | 52.55 ± 6.21 | 48.05 ± 5.17 | 0.673 |
| Na (mg) | 290.67 ± 19.14 | 346.41 ± 31.06 | 323.55 ± 25.07 | 0.296 |
| K (mg) | 571.46 ± 44.16 | 608.59 ± 58.00 | 694.73 ± 79.30 | 0.352 |
| Ca (mg) | 513.44 ± 38.81 | 561.06 ± 59.69 | 544.34 ± 55.00 | 0.803 |
| Mg (mg) | 39.66 ± 3.07 | 41.16 ± 3.99 | 47.86 ± 5.40 | 0.348 |
| Fe (mg) | 0.91 ± 0.11 | 1.08 ± 0.15 | 1.02 ± 0.13 | 0.626 |
| Zn (mg) | 15.98 ± 4.35 | 23.57 ± 9.40 | 9.36 ± 1.99 | 0.253 |
| P (mg) | 188.46 ± 16.63 | 191.77 ± 23.2 | 225.33 ± 32.41 | 0.510 |
| Se (μg) | 5.21 ± 0.48 | 5.25 ± 0.60 | 6.04 ± 0.82 | 0.586 |
| Vit C (mg) | 60.72 ± 6.21 | 71.34 ± 7.29 | 78.09 ± 9.08 | 0.263 |
| Thiamin (mg) | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 0.44 ± 0.11 | 0.34 ± 0.03 | 0.240 |
| Riboflavin (mg) | 0.40 ± 0.03 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 0.46 ± 0.06 | 0.696 |
| Niacin (mg) | 3.15 ± 0.27 | 3.92 ± 0.43 | 3.53 ± 0.33 | 0.301 |
| Vit B6 (mg) | 0.30 ± 0.03 | 0.34 ± 0.04 | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 0.776 |
| Folate (μg) | 35.24 ± 3.5 | 40.43 ± 3.98 | 47.78 ± 5.37 | 0.122 |
| Choline (mg) | 37.19 ± 2.92 | 38.34 ± 3.78 | 44.74 ± 5.23 | 0.370 |
| Vit B12 (mg) | 0.79 ± 0.07 | 0.84 ± 0.11 | 0.86 ± 0.13 | 0.874 |
| Vit E (mg) | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.26 ± 0.02 | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 0.153 |
| Vit A (μg) | 185.25 ± 15.51 | 206.61 ± 22.62 | 198.34 ± 19.89 | 0.735 |
| Vit D (mg) | 3.29 ± 0.28 | 3.45 ± 0.37 | 3.33 ± 0.32 | 0.935 |
| Caffeine (mg) | 41.47 ± 3.95 | 45.59 ± 3.76 | 59.97 ± 4.36 | 0.003 |
| Anthocyanins (mg) | 3.33 ± 0.49 | 3.64 ± 0.39 | 6.91 ± 1.28 | 0.003 |
| Flavonoids (mg) | 55.62 ± 4.88 | 66.67 ± 6.02 | 85.15 ± 9.08 | 0.009 |
| Phenolic acids (mg) | 0.61 ± 0.10 | 0.93 ± 0.14 | 1.53 ± 0.28 | 0.002 |
| Stilbenes (mg) | 0.61 ± 0.10 | 0.93 ± 0.14 | 1.53 ± 0.28 | 0.002 |
| Other polyphenols (mg) | 4.75 ± 0.41 | 5.74 ± 0.72 | 5.29 ± 0.42 | 0.417 |
Vit, vitamins; Mg, magnesium; Zn, zinc; Na, sodium; K, potassium; P, phosphorus. a All nutrients were adjusted concerning energy by the residual method.
Total energy from beverages (788.38 ± 46.61), saturated fat (9.32 ± 0.82), and cholesterol (49.17 ± 4.33) intake increased significantly from tertile 1 to tertile 2 of the Yogurt pattern. Thiamine (0.3 ± 0.03), caffeine (52.56 ± 3.93), anthocyanins (7.26 ± 1.29), and flavonoids (96.43 ± 10.02) intake was significant higher with increasing Yogurt pattern scores.
With increasing scores of the Juicy pattern, energy from beverages (796.81 ± 48.1), caffeine (64.47 ± 5.26), anthocyanins (7.35 ± 1.27), flavonoids (88.01 ± 9.17), phenolic acids (1.38 ± 0.25), and stilbenes (1.38 ± 0.25) intake significantly increased with increasing scores of the Juicy pattern.
As for the Juicy pattern, energy from beverages (788.61 ± 47.1), caffeine (59.97 ± 4.36), anthocyanins (6.91 ± 1.28), flavonoids (85.15 ± 9.08), phenolic acids (1.53 ± 0.28), and stilbenes (1.53 ± 0.28) intake increased with significant increasing scores of the Milk beverages pattern.
3.3. Difference of Anthropometric and Biochemical Parameters among Beverage Patterns
Characteristics of Mexican young adults according to beverage consumption pattern scores are presented in Table 3. For the Alcoholic pattern, SBP (113.28 ± 1.15) and TG levels (52.84 ± 1.43) increased significantly in the highest tertile. Compared with participants in the lowest tertile, participants in the highest tertile of Yogurt Pattern had higher TG (104.33 ± 6.06) and TC levels (167.24 ± 2.94). For both Juicy pattern and Milk beverage pattern, all anthropometric and biochemical parameters remained constant across tertiles.
Table 3.
Baseline characteristics according to tertiles of beverages consumption patterns.
| Tertile 1 | Tertile 2 | Tertile 3 | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcoholic pattern | ||||
| Age (years) | 18.71 ± 0.10 | 19.13 ± 0.14 | 19.25 ± 0.15 | 1.510 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.46 ± 0.39 | 22.93 ± 0.39 | 23.55 ± 0.43 | 0.496 |
| WC (cm) | 75.88 ± 1.03 | 74.93 ± 0.95 | 76.09 ± 1.01 | 0.678 |
| BF (%) | 27.22 ± 0.66 | 24.74 ± 0.75 | 24.57 ± 0.79 | 0.653 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 112.53± 1.27 | 112.97 ± 1.23 | 113.28 ± 1.15 | 0.053 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 69.39 ± 0.97 | 69.58 ± 0.80 | 69.80 ± 0.95 | 0.519 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 101.28 ± 7.17 | 89.95 ± 4.13 | 93.06 ± 4.05 | 0.062 |
| HDL-c (mg/dL) | 50.24 ± 1.17 | 53.30 ± 1.27 | 52.84 ± 1.43 | 0.011 |
| LDL-c (mg/dL) | 92.26 ± 2.38 | 95.84 ± 2.37 | 92.71 ± 1.99 | 0.884 |
| GLC (mg/dL) | 91.16 ± 1.64 | 89.47 ±0.82 | 88.47 ± 0.84 | 0.069 |
| TC (mg/dL) | 162.77 ± 3.20 | 167.13 ± 2.85 | 164.21 ± 2.38 | 0.575 |
| Gender (% Female) | 69 | 52.7 | 40.9 | <0.001 |
| Smoking status (%) | 11.5 | 24.1 | 60.9 | <0.001 |
| Physical activity (%) | 81.4 | 82.1 | 80 | 0.836 |
| Yogurt pattern | ||||
| Age (years) | 19.05 ± 0.15 | 19.15 ± 0.16 | 18.89 ± 0.10 | 0.390 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.44 ± 0.4 | 22.94 ± 0.37 | 23.55 ± 0.44 | 0.524 |
| WC (cm) | 75.6 ± 0.94 | 74.51 ± 0.97 | 76.8 ± 1.05 | 0.265 |
| BF (%) | 25.75 ± 0.67 | 24.84 ± 0.76 | 25.93 ± 0.80 | 0.525 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 112.61 ± 1.29 | 112.05 ± 1.15 | 114.15 ± 1.11 | 0.481 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 68.85 ± 0.97 | 69.79 ± 0.85 | 70.12 ± 10.92 | 0.359 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 82.64 ± 3.98 | 96.94 ± 5.47 | 104.33 ± 6.06 | 0.005 |
| HDL-c (mg/dL) | 52.17± 1.21 | 53.12 ± 1.29 | 51.08 ± 1.40 | 0.630 |
| LDL-c (mg/dL) | 90.77 ± 2.27 | 94.61 ± 2.19 | 95.30 ± 2.30 | 0.138 |
| GLC (mg/dL) | 87.64 ± 0.76 | 90.39 ± 1.64 | 88.60 ± 0.77 | 0.681 |
| TC (mg/dL) | 159.51 ± 2.65 | 167.11 ± 2.83 | 167.24 ± 2.94 | 0.047 |
| Gender (% Female) | 59.1 | 48.7 | 54.9 | 0.493 |
| Smoking status (%) | 26.4 | 22.2 | 26.5 | 0.181 |
| Physical activity (%) | 84.5 | 77.8 | 81.4 | 0.532 |
| Juicy pattern | ||||
| Age (years) | 19.13 ± 0.13 | 18.90 ± 0.13 | 19.05 ± 0.15 | 0.759 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.47 ± 0.41 | 23.26 ± 0.36 | 23.21 ± 0.44 | 0.891 |
| WC (cm) | 75.89 ± 0.99 | 75.83 ± 0.93 | 75.19 ± 1.05 | 0.860 |
| BF% | 25.58 ± 0.83 | 25.81 ± 0.66 | 25.10 ± 0.75 | 0.644 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 114.65 ± 1.23 | 111.93 ± 1.17 | 112.21 ± 1.15 | 0.115 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 70.19 ± 0.87 | 68.10 ± 0.91 | 70.50 ± 0.95 | 0.791 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 93.24 ± 4.40 | 96.07 ± 4.92 | 95.00 ± 6.47 | 0.826 |
| HDL-c (mg/dL) | 52.14 ± 1.29 | 52.04 ± 1.32 | 52.22 ± 1.32 | 0.981 |
| LDL-c (mg/dL) | 96.33 ± 2.14 | 92.35 ± 2.13 | 92.12 ± 2.47 | 0.195 |
| GLC (mg/dL) | 88.26 ± 0.72 | 87.58 ± 0.70 | 90.88 ± 1.73 | 0.103 |
| TC (mg/dL) | 167.34 ± 2.56 | 163.42 ± 2.80 | 163.34 ± 3.10 | 0.320 |
| Gender (%Female) | 50.4 | 61.4 | 50.4 | 0.945 |
| Smoking status (%) | 27.4 | 22.8 | 24.8 | 0.707 |
| Physical activity (%) | 79.6 | 80.7 | 83.2 | 0.518 |
| Milk beverages pattern | ||||
| Age (years) | 19.18 ± 0.14 | 18.86 ± 0.12 | 19.05 ± 0.15 | 0.499 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.7 ± 0.39 | 23.43 ± 0.39 | 23.83 ± 0.43 | 0.132 |
| WC (cm) | 74.43 ± 0.97 | 75.73 ± 0.93 | 76.77 ± 1.07 | 0.244 |
| BF% | 26.11 ± 0.77 | 25.74 ± 0.71 | 24.64 ± 0.75 | 0.395 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 112.20 ± 1.06 | 112.83 ± 1.29 | 113.75 ± 1.19 | 0.632 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 70.71 ± 0.81 | 68.52 ± 0.96 | 69.56 ± 0.95 | 0.258 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 90.36 ± 5.40 | 97.59 ± 4.85 | 96.34 ± 5.70 | 0.572 |
| HDL-c (mg/dL) | 52.49 ± 1.34 | 50.94 ± 1.13 | 52.98 ± 1.44 | 0.633 |
| LDL-c (mg/dL) | 94.38 ± 2.24 | 93.66 ± 2.50 | 92.75 ± 2.01 | 0.656 |
| GLC (mg/dL) | 88.19 ± 0.78 | 88.90 ± 0.88 | 89.62 ± 1.62 | 0.558 |
| TC (mg/dL) | 164.94 ± 2.88 | 164.12 ± 3.06 | 165.03 ± 2.54 | 0.939 |
| Gender (%Female) | 56.6 | 57 | 48.7 | 0.200 |
| Smoking status (%) | 26.5 | 23.7 | 24.8 | 0.801 |
| Physical activity (%) | 84.1 | 85.1 | 74.3 | 0.063 |
BF%: body fat percent; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; TG: triglycerides; HDL-c: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-c: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; GLC: glucose; TC: total cholesterol.
3.4. Difference of Covariables among Beverage Patterns
Covariates of Mexican young adults are shown in Table 3. In general, the Alcoholic drink pattern was the only pattern that showed a statistical difference of covariates across tertiles. Compared with individuals in the lower tertile, those in the highest tertile were more likely to be men (59.1%) and to smoke (60.9%).
3.5. Association of Beverage Patterns and Cardiovascular Risk Factor
Unadjusted and adjusted ORs for the cardiovascular risk factor among tertiles of beverage patterns are presented in Table 4. In the unadjusted model, compared to the first tertile, the highest tertile of the Alcoholic pattern was associated with reduced odds of BF% (OR: 0.570; 95% CI: 0.335–0.971). When age, smoking status, physical activity, and BMI were controlled, this association disappeared, but then, participants in the highest tertile showed reduced odds of high BF% (OR: 0.371; 95% CI: 0.173–0.798) than those in the lowest tertile. Subsequently, when total energy intake and percentage of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrates were also controlled, individuals in tertile 2 showed more reduced odds of high GLC (OR: 0.232; 95% CI: 0.061–0.875) than those in the lowest tertile. However, the association of this beverage pattern with high BF% disappeared.
Table 4.
Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) for cardiovascular risk factors across tertiles of beverage patterns.
| Model a | Tertile 1 | Tertile 2 | Tertile 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcoholic pattern | ||||
| High WC | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.695 (0.354–1.367) | 0.948 (0.498–1.802) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.944 (0.311–2.863) | 0.626 (0.216–1.813) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 1.166 (0.138–9.828) | 2.815 (0.394–20.108) | |
| High %BF | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.570 (0.335–0.971) | 0.724 (0.428–1.225) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.597 (0.298–1.199) | 0.371 (0.173–0.798) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.561 (0.225–1.400) | 0.544 (0.209–1.416) | |
| High BP | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.145 (0.541–2.421) | 0.498 (0.202–1.226) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.159 (0.523–2.565) | 0.318 (0.116–0.871) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.742 (0.262–2.105) | 0.327 (0.092–1.160) | |
| High TG | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.628 (0.269–1.464) | 0.498 (0.202–1.226) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.693 (0.280–1.715) | 0.402 (0.154–1.049) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.277 (0.060–1.277) | 0.243 (0.048–1.238) | |
| Low HDL | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.814 (0.472–1.402) | 0.701 (0.403–1.218) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.868 (0.494–1.524) | 0.679 (0.379–1.217) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.772 (0.367–1.622) | 0.557 (0.246–1.259) | |
| High LDL | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.548 (0.902–2.658) | 1.126 (0.649–1.952) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.522 (0.880–2.631) | 1.067 (0.603–1.889) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 1.516 (0.751–3.061) | 0.974 (0.434–2.187) | |
| High GLC | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.809 (0.335–1.956) | 0.556 (0.210–1.468) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.820 (0.329–2.048) | 0.480 (0.173–1.333) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.232 (0.061–0.875) | 0.446 (0.101–1.975) | |
| High COL | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.990 (0.425–2.308) | 0.908 (0.383–2.152) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.075 (0.457–2.527) | 0.963 (0.400–2.318) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.668 (0.225–1.980) | 0.610 (0.173–2.155) | |
| Yogurt pattern | ||||
| High WC | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.650 (0.328–1.289) | 1.000 (0.529–1.892) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.639 (0.217–1.884) | 0.997 (0.323–3.082) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.374 (0.045–3.089) | 0.444 (0.062–3.176) | |
| High %BF | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.794 (0.469–1.343) | 0.721 (0.424–1.224) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.801 (0.402–1.598) | 0.518 (0.248–1.081) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.903 (0.371–2.195) | 0.492 (0.188–1.288) | |
| High BP | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.682 (0.728–3.884) | 1.457 (0.618–3.432) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.533 (0.630–3.730) | 1.266 (0.521–3.073) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.940 (0.296–2.984) | 0.839 (0.271–2.595) | |
| High TG | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.990 (0.396–2.480) | 1.457 (0.618–3.432) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.135 (0.431–2.991) | 1.224 (0.490–3.056) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.702 (0.144–3.427) | 1.020 (0.274–3.794) | |
| Low HDL | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.112 (0.639–1.934) | 1.172 (0.674–2.036) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.157 (0.655–2.043) | 1.297 (0.723–2.327) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 1.182 (0.545–2.561) | 0.957 (0.441–2.077) | |
| High LDL | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.815 (0.475–1.401) | 0.963 (0.564–1.646) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.786 (0.453–1.366) | 0.897 (0.518–1.553) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.768 (0.369–1.600) | 0.940 (0.446–1.980) | |
| High GLC | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.386 (0.131–1.134) | 1.000 (0.429–2.331) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.317 (0.102–0.987) | 0.805 (0.329–1.974) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.110 (0.022–0.559) | 0.575 (0.169–1.957) | |
| High COL | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.581 (0.231–1.460) | 1.000 (0.429–2.331) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.634 (0.247–1.626) | 1.117 (0.494–2.526) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.563 (0.157–2.014) | 1.112 (0.380–3.255) | |
| Juicy pattern | ||||
| High WC | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.305 (0.524–3.253) | 1.344 (0.577–3.133) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.408 (0.320–6.196) | 2.224 (0.397–12.442) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 2.300 (0.428–12.356) | 1.769 (0.254–12.313) | |
| High %BF | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.015 (0.520–1.982) | 0.854 (0.431–1.692) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.934 (0.369–2.362) | 0.444 (0.161–1.225) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 1.006 (0.373–2.717) | 0.413 (0.145–1.173) | |
| High BP | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.200 (0.435–3.313) | 0.889 (0.321–2.459) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.042 (0.350–3.100) | 0.854 (0.294–2.482) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 1.069 (0.350–3.260) | 0.818 (0.275–2.430) | |
| High TG | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.209 (0.043–1.005) | 3.242 (0.631–16.665) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.155 (1.027–2.885) | 4.444 (0.715–27.629) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 1.084 (1.011–2.656) | 5.974 (0.798–44.73) | |
| Low HDL | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.380 (0.681–2.797) | 0.682 (0.331–1.405) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.284 (0.620–2.660) | 0.702 (0.329–1.495) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 1.386 (0.653–2.941) | 0.731 (0.333–1.602) | |
| High LDL | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.136 (0.568–2.274) | 0.842 (0.415–1.706) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.200 (0.579–2.486) | 0.750 (0.354–1.586) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 1.201 (0.574–2.512) | 0.697 (0.324–1.502) | |
| High GLC | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.242 (0.396–3.900) | 1.181 (0.403–3.459) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.105 (0.312–3.910) | 1.181 (0.374–3.727) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 4.083 (0.841–19.817) | 1.088 (0.321–3.694) | |
| High COL | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.667 (0.224–1.984) | 1.205 (0.383–3.790) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.690 (0.225–2.119) | 1.210 (0.368–3.976) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.716 (0.228–2.250) | 1.358 (0.382–4.829) | |
| Milk beverages pattern | ||||
| High WC | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.821 (0.337–1.997) | 1.895 (0.790–4.548) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.240 (0.284–5.404) | 1.309 (0.229–7.469) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.927 (0.178–4.819) | 4.725 (0.351–63.667) | |
| High %BF | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.662 (0.344–1.274) | 1.224 (0.611–2.455) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.642 (0.270–1.526) | 0.799 (0.288–2.217) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.668 (0.273–1.638) | 0.848 (0.294–2.442) | |
| High BP | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.634 (0.239–1.677) | 0.991 (0.324–3.027) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.612 (0.210–1.788) | 0.844 (0.263–2.705) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.608 (0.206–1.798) | 0.674 (0.199–2.281) | |
| High TG | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.918 (0.254–3.312) | 1.965 (0.591–6.535) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.899 (0.244–3.315) | 1.759 (0.477–6.488) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.645 (0.152–2.731) | 1.871 (0.470–7.457) | |
| Low HDL | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.837 (0.412–1.700) | 1.614 (0.780–3.339) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.803 (0.384–1.682) | 1.687 (0.782–3.638) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.766 (0.359–1.633) | 1.858 (0.835–4.134) | |
| High LDL | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.698 (0.356–1.372) | 1.069 (0.516–2.212) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.717 (0.360–1.43) | 1.030 (0.483–2.196) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.673 (0.331–1.369) | 1.083 (0.500–2.344) | |
| High GLC | 1 | 1(REF) | 1.061 (0.364–3.091) | 0.991 (0.324–3.027) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 1.083 (0.351–3.338) | 0.883 (0.260–3.005) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 5.304 (1.292–21.773) | 0.932 (0.251–3.467) | |
| High COL | 1 | 1(REF) | 0.789 (0.271–2.298) | 1.365 (0.451–4.131) |
| 2 | 1(REF) | 0.797 (0.270–2.349) | 1.510 (0.483–4.716) | |
| 3 | 1(REF) | 0.809 (0.268–2.445) | 1.835 (0.541–6.219) | |
WC: waist circumference; BF%: body fat percent; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; TG: triglycerides; HDL-c: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-c: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; GLC: glucose; TC: total cholesterol; REF: reference value. Bolding denotes statistically significant results. a Model 1 was unadjusted. Model 2 was adjusted for gender, smoking status, and BMI. Model 3 was adjusted for all covariates in model 2 plus total energy intake, and percentage of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrates.
After adjusting for gender, smoking status, and BMI, lower odds of high GLC (OR: 0.317; 95% CI: 0.102–0.987) were observed in tertile 2 of the Yogurt pattern. After additionally adjusting for total energy intake and percentage of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrates, this association was attenuated but remained statistically significant (OR: 0.110; 95% CI: 0.022–0.559).
We also founded that controlling for age, smoking status, physical activity, and BMI, subjects in tertile 2 of the Juicy pattern had higher odds of high TG (OR: 1.155; 95% CI: 1.0.11–1.656) than those in the lowest tertile. Even when additionally controlling for total energy intake and percentage of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrates, this association was attenuated but remained statistically significant (OR: 1.084; 95% CI: 1.011–1.656).
Finally, tertile 2 of the Milk beverage pattern was associated with increased odds of high GLC (OR: 5.304; 95% CI: 1.292–21.773) when age, smoking status, physical activity, and BMI, total energy intake and percentage of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrates were controlled.
4. Discussion
Multiple nutritional epidemiology studies suggest that lifestyle, focused on diet, significantly influences CVD occurrence [30], and it may be particularly important in young adults, because the prevalence of several CVRFs has increased among subsets of young adults [31,32].
In this study, four major beverage consumption patterns were identified: Alcoholic drink pattern, Yogurt drink pattern, Juicy drink pattern, and Milk beverages pattern, and differences among them took into consideration both beverage preferences and their nutrimental composition. The Milk and Juicy patterns showed a positive association with CVRFs, whereas the Alcohol and Yogurt patterns showed an inverse association after adjusting for age, smoking status, physical activity, BMI, total energy intake, and percentage of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrates. Our findings are in line with Rivera et al. [33]. They also identified four major beverage consumption patterns in Mexican adults labeled as Alcohol, Coffee/tea, Soft drinks and Low-fat milk. The first pattern was similar with that obtained in the current study, whereas the last three were different. It was expected that beverage consumption patterns would not be completely in accordance with each other since they were extracted from data obtained in studied populations with different age ranges and morbidities.
Despite the high intake of different types of SSBs, such as fruit drinks, sweetened milk and milk alternatives [13], mainly characterized the Milk, Yogurt, and Juicy patterns, respectively, only the Milk pattern was associated with high risk of GLC. Dietary intervention studies investigating the effects of milk or dairy products and glucose response indicate a wide range of effects, which are likely due to the different types of dairy utilized [34]. Concerning milk and fermented dairy beverages, previous studies have suggested favorable effects of dairy intake on high GLC and the risk of T2DM. For example, epidemiological studies suggest that chronically high consumption of milk is associated with a reduced risk of T2DM. These effects can be hypothetically explained by increased insulinemic response, decreased glycemic fluctuations, and increased secretion of GIP and GLP-1 triggered by milk proteins [35]. Likewise, in the Prevention with Mediterranean Diet (PREDIMED) study, a prospective study conducted on community-dwelling elderly nondiabetics, subjects at high cardiovascular risk observed an inverse association between both low-fat and whole-fat yogurt and the risk of T2DM. However, yogurt consumption was associated with a reduction in risk only when one serving of a combination of biscuits and chocolate confectionary or whole grain biscuits and homemade pastries was replaced with one serving of yogurt. A possible explanation is that, although nutritionally yogurt is comparable to milk, processing, added ingredients, and fermentation improve the nutritional value of yogurt and provide it with unique properties that enhance the bioavailability of flavonoids [36]. Moreover, data from the Maastricht Study showed significant inverse associations of fermented dairy products and yogurt with high GLC [36]. Another cross-sectional study performed among Dutch adults showed inverse associations of fermented dairy products with pre-diabetes [37].
These studies are consistent with our findings that showed a significant inverse association between the Yogurt pattern and high risk of GLC, which can be attributed to the association of this beverage pattern with the high intake of anthocyanins and flavonoids. In contrast, in our current study, we observed that the Milk pattern showed a positive association with high GLC, which was expected because of the association of this beverage pattern with high energy consumption due to SSBs, such as milkshake, Skimoo, and atole, which mainly characterized this beverage pattern, instead of whole-fat and low-fat isolated.
Consistently, previous studies have observed similar results regarding SSBs and a high risk of GLC among different populations. For instance, findings from prospective cohort studies support a strong positive link between the intake of SSBs and the risk of T2DM, in part by incomplete compensation for energy at subsequent meals following intake of liquid calories, and also by contribution to a high dietary glycemic load leading to inflammation, insulin resistance, and impaired β-cell function [38]. Similarly, a review paper, that included searches for clinical and observational studies, provided evidence to prove a positive association between regular SSBs and weight gain, and also the eventual risk for T2DM, due to SSBs, that can alter glucose handling and insulin sensitivity [39]. In another prospective cohort study in the U.S. among female nurses aged 24 to 44 years, high SSB consumption was positively associated with the risk of T2DM [40]. Data from a prospective cohort study in middle-aged adults suggested that regular SSB intake is associated with increased insulin resistance and a greater risk of developing prediabetes [41]. Additionally, the Health Workers Cohort Study in the Mexican states of Morelos and Mexico reported that subjects consuming >2 servings of sweetened beverages daily are at 2.1 times greater risk of raised fasting plasma GLC compared with non-consumers [42]. Likewise, a cross-sectional study among young rural adults in South Africa found that the consumption of SSBs is significantly associated with increased high risk of high GLC [43].
Concerning the Juicy pattern, fruit juices are still widely perceived as a healthier option than SSBs, primarily because they are related to high antioxidant and bioactive substances (including vitamins, minerals, and polyphenols) which have been reported to be protective against adverse health effects [44]. However, the primary components of fruit juices, after water, are free sugars. Among them, the fructose content of most natural fruit juice is quite similar to that of beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, such as commercial fruit juice, which can induce hypertriglyceridemia [45,46].
In our study, the Juicy pattern was inversely associated with high TG, whereas it was positively associated with high energy intake. In agreement, Stanhope et al. provides evidence that postprandial TG was significantly increased in response to a 2 week consumption of 25% of energy as high fructose corn syrup in young, normal-weight, and overweight subjects [47]. The mechanism proposed for this association is that the excessive intake of fructose contained in commercial fruit juices might lead to a significantly enhanced rate of de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride synthesis [48].
In our present study, the Alcoholic pattern showed an inverse association with risk of high BP and high GLC, and a positive association with intake of anthocyanins, phenolic acids, stilbenes and other polyphenols. This is consistent with epidemiological evidence that has pointed out that moderate alcohol consumption is inversely associated with CVRFs [49]. A Japanese cohort of people aged 40–55 years found that light to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of T2DM compared to non-drinkers [50]. Likewise, a review report indicated that daily moderate consumption of alcohol beverages was inversely related to the development of hypertension [51]. The underlying mechanism to explain these protective effects has been attributed to the ethanol content present in all alcoholic beverages, as well as the polyphenolic content present in beer and red wine [52]. Studies have found that polyphenols in wine and beer decrease blood pressure while increasing plasma nitric oxide concentration [53]. The cardio protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption in relation to CVRFs involves a beneficial influence on reverse cholesterol transport, systemic inflammation and oxidative stress, endothelial function and platelet aggregation, reduction in body fat, improvement of insulin sensitivity, and modulation of gene expression involved in inflammation and cholesterol synthesis [54].
The results of the present study might indicate that a Mexican young adults’ preference of beverages is based on taste instead of health considerations since they prefer alcoholic and SSBs, which are related to poor in nutrient intake and high energy density.
Therefore, it is imperative to carry out interventions that provide the health effects of nonalcoholic beverages, such as caloric soft drinks, noncaloric soft drinks, coffee and tea, energy drinks, sport drinks, kombucha, and sparkling water, in order to address the existing nutrient gap, increase phytonutrient intake, and reduce risk of chronic disease [55].
To our knowledge, this is the first cross-sectional epidemiological study with the goal of identifying beverage consumption patterns among urban Mexican young adults. In addition, it provides useful information to elucidate the effect of beverage intake pattern on CVRFs among Mexican young adults. The results suggest performing similar studies in different populations because beverage preferences are dependent on cultural and socio-economics factors, such as smoking status and physical activity. One limitation of the current study was that since it was a cross-sectional design study, the current results cannot provide insight on the causation between beverages patterns and CVRF´s. Subsequent prospective studies are needed to support the findings of the current study.
5. Conclusions
Beverage consumption habits in Mexican young adults are associated with increased risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Therefore, intervening during young adulthood should be considered in order to improve current health and prevent cardiovascular mortality in later decades. However, further longitudinal studies are required to confirm the current results.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the study subjects for their cooperation and participation, as well as the University Health System (SUSALUD-UAQ) for all the support in the recruitment process of participants.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.R.-C., L.M.S. and M.A.A.-L.; Formal analysis, R.G.S.-M.; Funding acquisition, M.A.A.-L.; Investigation, R.G.S.-M. and E.L.-J.; Methodology, E.L.-J.; Resources, R.R.-C. and M.A.A.-L.; Supervision, M.R.-G., R.R.-C. and L.M.S.; Validation, M.A.A.-L.; Visualization, M.R.-G. and L.M.S.; Writing—review & editing, R.G.S.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Natural Science of the Autonomous University of Queretaro (UAQ, 23FCN2014).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants to publish this paper.
Data Availability Statement
Data available on request due to restrictions in privacy or ethical issues. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality and ethical issues.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This research was partially funded by Fondos Mixtos-CONACYT (FCQ-2013-04-FOMIX-QRO 2012), and the Master’s graduste program on Human Nutrition Sciences of the Department of Natural Science at the Autonomus University of Queretaro. And the APC was funded by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Editorial Office.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.Dávila-Cervantes C.A. Cardiovascular disease in Mexico 1990–2017: Secondary data analysis from the global burden of disease study. Int. J. Public Health. 2020;65:661–671. doi: 10.1007/s00038-020-01377-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Arroyo-Quiroz C., Barrientos-Gutierrez T., O’Flaherty M., Guzman-Castillo M., Palacio-Mejia L., Osorio-Saldarriaga E., Rodriguez-Rodriguez A.Y. Coronary heart disease mortality is decreasing in Argentina, and Colombia, but keeps increasing in Mexico: A time trend study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:162. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-8297-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Barquera S., Hernández-Barrera L., Trejo-Valdivia B., Shamah T., Campos-Nonato I., Rivera-Dommarco J. Obesity in Mexico, prevalence and trends in adults. Salud Publica Mex. 2018;62:682–692. doi: 10.21149/11630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Campos-Nonato I., Hernández-Barrera L., Oviedo-Solís C., Ramírez-Villalobos D., Hernández B., Barquera S. Epidemiology of hypertension in Mexican adults: Diagnosis, control and trends. Ensanut 2020. Salud Publica Mex. 2021;63:692–704. doi: 10.21149/12851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hernández-Alcaraz C., Aguilar-Salinas C.A., Mendoza-Herrera K., Pedroza-Tobías A., Villalpando S., Shamah-Levy T., Rivera-Dommarco J. Dyslipidemia prevalence, awareness, treatment and control in Mexico: Results of the Ensanut 2012. Salud Publica Mex. 2020;62:137–146. doi: 10.21149/10520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lanas F., Serón P., Lanas A. Coronary heart disease and risk factors in latin america. Glob. Heart. 2013;8:341–348. doi: 10.1016/j.gheart.2013.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mendoza-Herrera K., Pedroza-Tobías A., Hernández-Alcaraz C., Ávila-Burgos L., Aguilar-Salinas C.A., Barquera S. Attributable Burden and Expenditure of Cardiovascular Diseases and Associated Risk Factors in Mexico and other Selected Mega-Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019;16:4041. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16204041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Opoku-Acheampong A.A., Kidd T., Adhikari K., Muturi N., Kattelmann K. Assessing Physical Activity, Fruit, Vegetable, and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake Patterns of College Students in Kansas. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018;50:977–983. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2018.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Garshick M.S., Vaidean G.D., Vani A., Underberg J.A., Newman J.D., Berger J.S., Fisher E.A., Gianos E. Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control and Lifestyle Factors in Young to Middle-Aged Adults with Newly Diagnosed Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease. Cardiology. 2019;142:83–90. doi: 10.1159/000498891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Torres-Ibarra L., Rivera-Paredez B., Hernández-López R., Canto-Osorio F., Sánchez-Romero L.M., López-Olmedo N., González-Morales R., Ramírez P., Salmerón J., Barrientos-Gutiérrez T. Regular consumption of soft drinks is associated with type 2 diabetes incidence in Mexican adults: Findings from a prospective cohort study. Nutr. J. 2020;19:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12937-020-00642-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Barquera S., Hernandez-Barrera L., Tolentino M.L., Espinosa J., Shu W.N., Rivera J.A., Popkin B.M. Energy Intake from Beverages Is Increasing among Mexican Adolescents and Adults. J. Nutr. 2008;138:2454–2461. doi: 10.3945/jn.108.092163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rivera J.A., Pedraza L.S., Aburto T.C., Batis C., Sánchez-Pimienta T.G., González de Cosío T., López-Olmedo N., Pedroza-Tobías A. Overview of the Dietary Intakes of the Mexican Population: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Survey 2012. J. Nutr. 2016;146:1851S–1855S. doi: 10.3945/jn.115.221275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bawadi H., Khataybeh T., Obeidat B., Kerkadi A., Tayyem R., Banks A.D., Subih H. Sugar-sweetened beverages contribute significantly to college students’ daily caloric intake in jordan: Soft drinks are not the major contributor. Nutrients. 2019;11:1058. doi: 10.3390/nu11051058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Aeberli I., Gerber P.A., Hochuli M., Kohler S., Haile S.R., Gouni-Berthold I., Berthold H.K., Spinas G.A., Berneis K. Low to moderate sugar-sweetened beverage consumption impairs glucose and lipid metabolism and promotes inflammation in healthy young men: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011;94:479–485. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.013540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Duffey K.J., Gordon-Larsen P., Steffen L.M., Jacobs D.R., Popkin B.M. Drinking caloric beverages increases the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010;92:954–959. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Martins M.L.B., Kac G., Silva R.A., Bettiol H., Barbieri M.A., Cardoso V.C., Silva A.A.M. Dairy consumption is associated with a lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome among young adults from Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. Nutrition. 2015;31:716–721. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2014.12.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Du D., Bruno R., Dwyer T., Gall S.L. Associations between alcohol consumption and cardio-metabolic risk factors in young adults. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2017;24:1967–1978. doi: 10.1177/2047487317724008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hillesund E.R., Overby N.C., Valen E.L., Engeset D. Alcohol consumption among students and its relationship with nutritional intake: A cross-sectional study. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24:2877–2888. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020004450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Espinoza-Ortega A., Martínez-García C.G., Rojas-Rivas E., Fernández-Sánchez Y., Escobar-López S.Y., Sánchez-Vegas L. Consumer and food changes in Mexican households during maximal contingency in the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2021;24:100357. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Popkin B.M. Patterns of beverage use across the lifecycle. Physiol. Behav. 2010;100:4–9. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.12.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Institute of Medicine of the National Academes . Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements. National Academies Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.USDA Agricultural Research Service, FoodData Central. [(accessed on 2 June 2014)];2019 Available online: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/
- 23.Phenol-Explorer Database, Database on Polyphenol Content in Foods, Phenol-Explorer Database. 2020. [(accessed on 16 June 2014)]. pp. 1–501. Available online: http://phenol-explorer.eu/
- 24.Willett W.C., Howe G.R., Kushi L.H. Adjustment for total energy intake in epidemiologic studies. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997;65:1220S–1228S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/65.4.1220S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ocké M.C. Evaluation of methodologies for assessing the overall diet: Dietary quality scores and dietary pattern analysis. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2013;72:191–199. doi: 10.1017/S0029665113000013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gallagher D., Heymsfield S.B., Heo M., Jebb S.A., Murgatroyd P.R., Sakamoto Y. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: An approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;72:694–701. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/72.3.694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Grundy S.M., Brewer H.B., Cleeman J.I., Smith S.C., Lenfant C. Definition of Metabolic Syndrome. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2004;24:e13–e18. doi: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000111245.75752.C6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Vanhees L., Lefevre J., Philippaerts R., Martens M., Huygens W., Troosters T., Beunen G. How to assess physical activity? How to assess physical fitness? Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Prev. Rehabil. 2005;12:102–114. doi: 10.1097/01.hjr.0000161551.73095.9c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Haskell W.L., Lee I.-M., Pate R.R., Powell K.E., Blair S.N., Franklin B.A., Macera C.A., Heath G.W., Thompson P.D., Bauman A. Physical Activity and Public Health. Updated Recommendation for Adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2007;116:1081–1093. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.185649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Denova-Gutiérrez E., Tucker K.L., Flores M., Barquera S., Salmerón J. Dietary Patterns Are Associated with Predicted Cardiovascular Disease Risk in an Urban Mexican Adult Population. J. Nutr. 2016;146:90–97. doi: 10.3945/jn.115.217539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Lynch E.B., Liu K., Kiefe C.I., Greenland P. Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Knowledge in Young Adults and 10-year Change in Risk FactorsThe Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2006;164:1171–1179. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gooding H.C., Ning H., Gillman M.W., Shay C., Allen N., Goff D.C., Lloyd-Jones D., Chiuve S. Application of a Lifestyle-Based Tool to Estimate Premature Cardiovascular Disease Events in Young Adults. JAMA Intern. Med. 2017;185:186–191. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Rivera-Paredez B., Muñoz-Aguirre P., Torres-Ibarra L., Ramírez P., Hernández-López R., Barrios E., León-Maldonado L., Denova-Gutiérrez E., Flores M., Salazar-Martínez E., et al. Patterns of beverage consumption and risk of CHD among Mexican adults. Br. J. Nutr. 2018;120:210–219. doi: 10.1017/S0007114518001411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Leary M., Tanaka H. Role of fluid milk in attenuating postprandial hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Nutrients. 2002;12:3806–3826. doi: 10.3390/nu12123806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Visioli F., Strata A. Milk, Dairy Products, and Their Functional Effects in Humans: A Narrative Review of Recent Evidence. Adv. Nutr. An Int. Rev. J. 2001;5:131–143. doi: 10.3945/an.113.005025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Díaz-López A., Bulló M., Martínez-González M.A., Corella D., Estruch R., Fitó M., Gómez-Gracia E., Fiol M., García de la Corte F.J., Ros E.E., et al. Dairy product consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes in an elderly Spanish Mediterranean population at high cardiovascular risk. Eur. J. Nutr. 2016;55:349–360. doi: 10.1007/s00394-015-0855-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Guo J., Givens D.I., Astrup A., Bakker S.J.L., Goossens G.H., Kratz M., Marette A., Pijl H., Soedamah-Muthu S.S. The Impact of Dairy Products in the Development of Type 2 Diabetes: Where Does the Evidence Stand in 2019? Adv. Nutr. 2019;10:1066–1075. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Hu F.B., Malik V.S. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: Epidemiologic evidence. Physiol. Behav. 2010;100:47. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.01.036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Deshpande G., Mapanga R.F., Faadiel Essop M. Frequent Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption and the Onset of Cardiometabolic Diseases: Cause for Concern? J. Endocr. Soc. 2017;1:1372–1385. doi: 10.1210/js.2017-00262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Schulze M.B., Manson J.A.E., Ludwig D.S., Colditz G.A., Stampfer M.J., Willett W.C., Hu F.B. Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women. JAMA. 2004;292:927–934. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.8.927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Ma J., Jacques P.F., Meigs J.B., Fox C.S., Rogers G.T., Smith C.E., Hruby A., Saltzman E., McKeown N.M. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage but Not Diet Soda Consumption Is Positively Associated with Progression of Insulin Resistance and Prediabetes. J. Nutr. 2016;146:2544–2550. doi: 10.3945/jn.116.234047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Denova-Gutiérrez E., Talavera J.O., Huitrón-Bravo G., Méndez-Hernández P., Salmerón J. Sweetened beverage consumption and increased risk of metabolic syndrome in Mexican adults. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13:835–842. doi: 10.1017/S1368980009991145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Seloka M.A., Matshipi M., Mphekgwana P.M., Monyeki K.D. The Association between the Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Metabolic Syndrome Components in Young Rural Adults in South Africa. Appl. Sci. 2022;12:3015. doi: 10.3390/app12063015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Guasch-Ferré M., Hu F.B. Are Fruit Juices Just as Unhealthy as Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? JAMA Netw. Open. 2019;2:e193109. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Pepin A., Stanhope K.L., Imbeault P. Are fruit juices healthier than sugar-sweetened beverages? A review. Nutrients. 2019;11:1006–1022. doi: 10.3390/nu11051006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Dugic A., Kryk M., Mellenthin C., Braig C., Catanese L., Petermann S., Kothmann J., Mühldorfer S. Fructose-induced severe hypertriglyceridemia and diabetes mellitus: A cautionary tale. Endocrinol. Diabetes Metab. Case Rep. 2021;2021:21-0110. doi: 10.1530/EDM-21-0110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Stanhope K.L., Bremer A.A., Medici V., Nakajima K., Ito Y., Nakano T., Chen G., Fong T.H., Lee V., Menorca R.I., et al. Consumption of Fructose and High Fructose Corn Syrup Increase Postprandial Triglycerides, LDL-Cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein-B in Young Men and Women. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2011;96:E1596–E1605. doi: 10.1210/jc.2011-1251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Basciano H., Federico L., Adeli K. Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia. Nutr. Metab. 2005;2:1–14. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-2-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Chiva-Blanch G., Arranz S., Lamuela-Raventos R.M., Estruch R. Effects of wine, alcohol and polyphenols on cardiovascular disease risk factors: Evidences from human studies. Alcohol. 2013;48:270–277. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agt007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Sato K.K., Hayashi T., Harita N., Koh H., Maeda I., Endo G., Nakamura Y., Kambe H., Kiyotaki C. Relationship between drinking patterns and the risk of type 2 diabetes: The Kansai Healthcare Study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2010;66:507–511. doi: 10.1136/jech.2010.109777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Minzer S., Losno R.A., Casas R. The Effect of Alcohol on Cardiovascular Risk Factors: Is There New Information? Nutrients. 2020;12:912. doi: 10.3390/nu12040912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Arranz S., Chiva-Blanch G., Valderas-Martínez P., Medina-Remón A., Lamuela-Raventós R.M., Estruch R. Wine, Beer, Alcohol and Polyphenols on Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer. Nutrients. 2012;4:759–781. doi: 10.3390/nu4070759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.de Gaetano G., Costanzo S., Di Castelnuovo A., Badimon L., Bejko D., Alkerwi A., Chiva-Blanch G., Estruch R., La Vecchia C., Panico S., et al. Effects of moderate beer consumption on health and disease: A consensus document. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2016;26:443–467. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2016.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Suliga E., Kozieł D., Ciesla E., Rebak D., Głuszek-Osuch M., Naszydłowska E., Głuszek S. The Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages and the Prevalence of Cardiovascular Diseases in Men and Women: A Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients. 2019;11:1318. doi: 10.3390/nu11061318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Sikalidis A.K., Kelleher A.H., Maykish A., Kristo A.S. Non-Alcoholic Beverages, Old and Novel, and Their Potential Effects on Human Health, with a Focus on Hydration and Cardiometabolic Health. Medicina. 2020;56:490. doi: 10.3390/medicina56100490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data available on request due to restrictions in privacy or ethical issues. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality and ethical issues.