Dataset Information

Weight discordant siblings' ability to reduce energy intake at a meal as compensation for prior energy intake from sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Insufficient compensation for energy from sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) consumed prior to meals may promote greater overall energy intake. If so, ability to compensate for prior energy intake may account for difference in adiposity between adolescents with and without overweight. Studies of fraternal siblings discordant for weight status control for some genetic and shared within-family factors, which allows for testing how putative non-shared factors, such as parental control of feeding, predicts sibling weight differences.

Aim

To determine whether same-sex weight-discordant (one with, one without overweight) adolescent siblings differ in ability to compensate for prior energy intake.

Methods

Same-sex biological sibling pairs (mean age = 15.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.1, 15.7) (n = 38 pairs; 21 male pairs) consumed a sugar-sweetened (450 kcal) or a non-nutritive-sweetened (10 kcal) liquid preload of equal volumes on separate days, followed by an ad libitum lunch. Multilevel models examined ability to compensate, dietary restraint, and parental control of child's feeding.

Results

Siblings showed insufficient compensation and overate (with overweight = 44 kcal; without overweight = 32 kcal). Siblings shared little within-family similarity in compensation (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.20). Compensation was predicted by parental restriction and general restriction (p = 0.02) Differences in siblings' BMI z-scores were associated with differences in dietary restraint (p = 0.04) not with differences in compensation.

Conclusion

Sibling differences in compensation for energy from sweetened beverages were not associated with differences in their adiposity. Compensation may be determined by a constellation of factors, including age, parental feeding practices, and food characteristics.

SUBMITTER: Ufholz K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8085904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesLatin American (LA) countries have begun to adopt a variety of regulations targeting sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) for public health reasons. Our objective was to characterize the regulatory strategies designed to reduce SSB consumption over the last decade, and assess the available evidence on their enforcement and impact.MethodsWe searched legal and public health databases for public and private SSBs regulations in 14 LA countries and then conducted a systematic review of the available literature. We tracked comparative variations in the type of body issuing the regulations, their scope, and binding status. We present data following a 5-category framework we named NUTRE that classifies SSBs regulations as: (1) restrictions to SSB availability in schools (N), (2) taxes and other economic incentives to discourage consumption (U), (3) restrictions on advertising and marketing (T), (4) regulations on government procurement and subsidies (R), and (5) product labeling rules (E).ResultsSince 2006, 14 LA countries have adopted at least 39 public and private SSB regulatory initiatives across the NUTRE framework. Comprehensive efforts have only been approved by Chile, México and Ecuador, while the rest have comparatively few initiatives. 28 out of the 39 regulatory initiatives were passed by legislative and executive bodies; 11 initiatives represent self-regulatory undertakings by the beverage industries. An 86% (24/28) of public sector regulations are binding; 56% (22/39) contain explicit monitoring or evaluation methods; and 62% (24/39) provide for sanctions. Moreover, 23 regulations specify the body in charge of monitoring the new rules and standards.ConclusionsLA countries are targeting SSB consumption through a variety of mechanisms, particularly via restrictions to availability in schools and through taxes. Interdisciplinary evidence comparing alternative regulatory strategies is scarce, and few studies offer data on impact and implementation challenges. More evidence and further comparative assessments are needed to support future decision-making.