What parents think about giving nonnutritive sweeteners to their children: A pilot study

Objective. To evaluate parental attitudes toward providing foods and beverages with nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) to their children and to explore parental ability to recognize NNS in packaged foods and beverages. Methods. 120 parents of children ≥ 1 and ≤18 years of age completed brief questionnaires upon entering or exiting a grocery store. Parental attitudes toward NNS were assessed using an interviewer-assisted survey. Parental selection of packaged food and beverages (with and without NNS) was evaluated during a shopping simulation activity. Parental ability to identify products with NNS was tested with a NNS recognition test. Results. Most parents (72%) disagreed with the statement “NNS are safe for my child to consume.” This was not reflected during the shopping simulation activity because about one-quarter of items selected by parents contained NNS. Parents correctly identified only 23% of NNS-containing items presented as foods or beverages which were sweetened with NNS. Conclusions. The negative parental attitudes toward providing NNS to their children raise the question whether parents are willing to replace added sugars with NNS in an effort to reduce their child’s calorie intake. Our findings also suggest that food labeling should be revised in order for consumers to more easily identify NNS in foods and beverages

The impact of parents\u27 categorization of their own weight and their child\u27s weight on healthy lifestyle promoting beliefs and practices

Objective. To evaluate parents’ beliefs and practices related to childhood obesity and determine if these are influenced by parent’s perception of their own weight or their child’s weight. Methods. Parents of obese (n = 689) or normal weight (n = 1122) children 4–15 years in Georgia, USA, were randomly selected to complete a telephone survey. Frequency of child obesity-related perceptions, beliefs, and practices were assessed, stratified by parent-perceived self-weight and child weight status, and compared using Chi-squared tests and multivariate logistic regression. Results. Most parents, regardless of perceived child weight, agreed that child overweight/obesity can cause serious illness (95%) but only one-half believed it was a problem in Georgia. Many (42.4%) failed to recognize obesity in their own children. More parents who perceived their child as overweight versus normal weight reported concern about their child’s diet and activity and indicated readiness for lifestyle change. Parents’ perception of their own weight had little additional impact. Conclusions. While awareness of child overweight as a modifiable health risk is high, many parents fail to recognize it in their own families and communities, reducing the likelihood of positive lifestyle change. Additional efforts to help parents understand their role in facilitating behavior change and to assist them in identifying at-risk children are required

The Impact of Parents’ Categorization of Their Own Weight and Their Child’s Weight on Healthy Lifestyle Promoting Beliefs and Practices

Objective. To evaluate parents’ beliefs and practices related to childhood obesity and determine if these are influenced by parent’s perception of their own weight or their child’s weight. Methods. Parents of obese ( = 689) or normal weight ( = 1122) children 4–15 years in Georgia, USA, were randomly selected to complete a telephone survey. Frequency of child obesity-related perceptions, beliefs, and practices were assessed, stratified by parent-perceived self-weight and child weight status, and compared using Chisquared tests and multivariate logistic regression. Results. Most parents, regardless of perceived child weight, agreed that child overweight/obesity can cause serious illness (95%) but only one-half believed it was a problem in Georgia. Many (42.4%) failed to recognize obesity in their own children. More parents who perceived their child as overweight versus normal weight reported concern about their child’s diet and activity and indicated readiness for lifestyle change. Parents’ perception of their own weight had little additional impact. Conclusions. While awareness of child overweight as a modifiable health risk is high, many parents fail to recognize it in their own families and communities, reducing the likelihood of positive lifestyle change. Additional efforts to help parents understand their role in facilitating behavior change and to assist them in identifying at-risk children are required

Consumption of Low-calorie Sweeteners in the United States 2009-12

We have previously demonstrated that low-calorie sweetener (LCS) consumption increased in the United States (US) between 1999 and 2008 (from 9% to 15 % in kids and from 27% to 32% in adults), but little is known about current consumption. We therefore analyzed National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data collected in 2011-12 and compared LCS consumption patterns across socio-demographic subgroups. Dietary sources of LCS were identified using NHANES food descriptions. Prevalence of consumption nationally and by age, race, gender, socio-economic status, educational attainment, were estimated using two 24-hour dietary recalls. F-tests were used to evaluate differences in consumption across socio-demographic subgroups. Forty-two percent of the adults and 26% percent of children reported consuming an LCS-containing food or beverage in 2009-12. Thirty-one percent of adults consumed beverages and 11% consumed foods sweetened with LCS. In addition, 14% reported addition of LCS from packets to their foods or beverages. Similar findings were observed among children, with 19% and 8% consuming LCS-containing beverages and foods, respectively. Less than 1% of children reported consuming LCS packets. LCS consumption was highest among non-Hispanic white (47%) compared to non-Hispanic black (29%), and Hispanic (32%) adults (

The widespread presence of non-nutritive sweeteners challenges adherence to beverage guidance for children

Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS), including aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, acesulfame-K, neotame and advantame are food additives approved for use in foods and beverages by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Two additional NNS, steviol glycosides (often referred to as “stevia”) and monk fruit, are considered to have GRAS (“Generally Recognized as Safe”) status and are permitted for specific conditions of use in the food supply. NNS are a heterogeneous group of compounds with different chemical structures, however they are all potently sweet relative to sugar and contain no or few calories, which makes them popular substitutes for added sugars in foods and beverage

Hormonal responses to non-nutritive sweeteners in water and diet soda.

BACKGROUND: Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS), especially in form of diet soda, have been linked to metabolic derangements (e.g. obesity and diabetes) in epidemiologic studies. We aimed to test acute metabolic effects of NNS in isolation (water or seltzer) and in diet sodas. METHODS: We conducted a four-period, cross-over study at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (Bethesda, Maryland). Thirty healthy adults consumed 355 mL water with 0 mg, 68 mg, 170 mg, and 250 mg sucralose, and 31 individuals consumed 355 mL caffeine-free Diet Rite Cola™, Diet Mountain Dew™ (18 mg sucralose, 18 mg acesulfame-potassium, 57 mg aspartame), and seltzer water with NNS (68 mg sucralose and 41 mg acesulfame-potassium, equivalent to Diet Rite Cola™) in randomized order, prior to oral glucose tolerance tests. Blood samples were collected serially for 130 min. Measures included GLP-1, GIP, glucose, insulin, C-peptide, glucose absorption, gastric emptying, and subjective hunger and satiety ratings. RESULTS: Diet sodas augmented active GLP-1 (Diet Rite Cola™ vs. seltzer water, AUC, p = 0.039; Diet Mountain Dew™ vs. seltzer water, AUC, p = 0.07), but gastric emptying and satiety were unaffected. Insulin concentrations were nominally higher following all NNS conditions without altering glycemia. Sucralose alone (at any concentration) did not affect metabolic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Diet sodas but not NNS in water augmented GLP-1 responses to oral glucose. Whether the trends toward higher insulin concentrations after NNS are of clinical importance remains to be determined. Our findings emphasize the need to test metabolic effects of NNS after chronic consumption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The data for this manuscript were gathered from clinical trial #NCT01200940

Buddy Study: Partners for better health in adolescents with type 2 diabetes

AIM: To investigate whether assigning young, healthy and motivated lay volunteer partners (“buddies”) to adolescents with type 2 diabetes improves hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). METHODS: Adolescents with type 2 diabetes were randomized to partnering with a “buddy” or to conventional treatment. During the initial screening visit, which coincided with a routine outpatient diabetes clinic visit, patients with type 2 diabetes underwent a physical examination, detailed medical history, laboratory measurement of HbA1c, and completed two questionnaires (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and Children’s Depression Inventory) to assess their overall quality of life and the presence of depressive symptoms. Patients were then randomized to the intervention (the buddy system) or conventional treatment (standard care). All patients were scheduled to return for follow-up at 3- and 6-mo after their initial visit. HbA1c was determined at all visits (i.e., at screening and at the 3- and 6-mo follow-up visits) and quality of life and depressive symptoms were evaluated at the screening visit and were reassessed at the 6-mo visit. RESULTS: Ten adolescents, recruited from a pool of approximately 200 adolescents, enrolled over a two-year time period, leading to premature termination of the study. In contrast, we easily recruited motivated lay volunteers. We found no change in HbA1c from the initial to the 6-mo visit in either group, yet our small sample size limited systematic assessment of this outcome. Participants repeatedly missed clinic appointments, failed to conduct self-glucose-monitoring and rarely brought their glucometers to clinic visits. Total quality of life scores (72.6 ± 6.06) at screening were similar to previously reported scores in adolescents with type 2 diabetes (75.7 ± 15.0) and lower than scores reported in normal-weight (81.2 ± 0.9), overweight (83.5 ± 1.8), and obese youths without diabetes (78.5 ± 1.8) or in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (80.5 ± 13.1). Among adolescents who returned for their 6-mo visit, there were no differences in total quality of life scores (70.2 ± 9.18) between screening and follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our approach, effective in adults with type 2 diabetes, was unsuccessful among adolescents and emphasizes the need for innovative strategies for diabetes treatment in adolescent patients