NNNS: Weight (2006)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

The aims of the study were to re-examine existing longitudinal data to:

  1. Determine differences in beverage consumption from baseline to Year Two follow-up in all subjects and based on body mass index (BMI) Z-scores
  2. Examine the relationship between change in milk consumption and change in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption
  3. Identify predictors of BMI Z-score at Year Two.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Data from a convenience sample of elementary school children in Grades Three through Six, who had participated in a previous study
  • Fall 1992 to spring 1996
  • Consisted of only subjects (N=166) who were measured at baseline and again two years later.
Exclusion Criteria:
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

  • The research protocol was approved by the University of Nebraska-Kearney Institutional Board. Subjects and parents signed informed assent or consent prior to any data collection.  

Design

  • Longitudinal cohort.

Statistical Analysis

Means and SD were calculated for all variables. Subjects were categorized into four groups based on BMI Z-score at baseline and Year Two.

  1. Normal weight: BMI Z-score <1.0 at baseline and Year Three (N=99)
  2. Overweight: BMI Z-score ≥1.0 at both baseline and Year Two (N=48)
  3. Gained weight: BMI Z-score <1.0 at baseline and a BMI Z-score ≥ Year Two (N=11)
  4. Lost weight: BMI Z-score ≥1.0 at baseline and a BMI Z-score of <1.0 at Year Two (N=6).

No gender differences in consumption of any type of beverage at baseline, Year Two or change from baseline to Year Two were found. Therefore, results are represented for boys and girls combined. Paired T-tests, repeated measures ANOVA, Pearson product and regression analyses used for analyses.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • Beverage consumption: A 24-hour recall, was used to determine total caloric intake and beverage consumption at baseline and Year Two. Diet recalls represented intakes only on school days. Procedure included interviewing the subject twice during the 24-hour period.
    • First interview: Occurred at noon following the lunch meal. Subjects were interviewed to obtain all foods eaten from the morning through the noon meal. To aid in the recall, a sample meal tray was available for reference. A breakfast tray was also available for those who participated in the school breakfast.
    • Second interview: Occurred the following morning prior to the start of school. Subjects were interviewed to obtain all foods eaten since the previous noon meal. Three-dimensional food models were used to aid in the recall.
  • For a random subsample of subjects, parents were called to verify foods and beverages consumed at home during the 24-hour recall period.
  • Caloric intake was quantified using the Nutrtionist IV diet analysis program. Reliability was established repeatedly between the research nutritionists that conducted the 24-hour recalls and the interclass coefficient was always >0.95.
  • All beverages were reported in fluid ounces. Beverages were classified as follows:
    • Milk (skim, 1%, 2%, whole, chocolate, milkshakes)
    • 100% juice
    • Diet soda
    • Sugar-sweetened drinks (regular soda, HI-C, sports drinks, Kool-Aid, fruit-flavored drinks, iced tea, hot chocolate).

Body Mass Index Z-Score

  • Subjects were weighed to the nearest 0.1kg and height was measured without shoes to the nearest 0.1cm once at baseline and Year Two. These scores were used to compute age- and gender-specific Z-scores of BMI using the EPIInfo program.
  • Subjects were classified as "overweight" if the calculated age and gender-specific BMI Z-score was ≥1.0 and classified as "normal weight" if the calculated age- and gender-specific BMI Z-score was <1.0.
Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: Total eligible sample was about 830 children from Grades Three through Five.
    • N=166: 92 girls and 74 boys.
  • Attrition (final N): Two subjects had outlier values (>2.5SD) on the change in BMI Z-score variable and were excluded from the analysis.
  • Age: Grades Three through Five
  • Ethnicity: About 94% Caucasian.
Summary of Results:

Physical Characteristics

  • Normal weight: 60% (N=99) 
  • Overweight: 29.3% (N=48)
  • Gained weight: 6.7% (N=11)
  • Lost weight: 3.7% (N=6).

Paired T-test to determine differences between baseline and Year Two beverage consumption in all subjects, categorized by BMI Z-score, showed a significant decrease in milk (ounces and percentage) and total caloric intake and a significant increase in diet soda (ounces and percentage) in all subjects and normal-weight subjects.

Beverage Consumption (daily ounces and percentage) and Total Caloric Intake (daily kcal) of All Normal Weight, Overweight, Gained Weight and Lost Weight Subjects at a Baseline, Year Two and Change from Baseline to Year Two

  All Subjects (N=164)   Normal Weight (N=99)  
  Baseline Year Two Change Baseline Year Two
Change
Total 29.4±14.1 27. ±13.3 -2.4±16.3 30.3±14.7 26.8±14.3 -3.6±16.6
Milk 19.5±12.0 (66.9) 16.1±12.0 (60.1) -3.4±14.1a (-6.2a) 19.7±12.1 (28.3) 16.4±13.0 (32.70) 3.3±14.4 (-5.4)
100% Juice 2.1±4.4 (7.7) 2.0±5.3 (5.1) -0.5±6.0 (-2.6) 2.4±4.7 (7.3) 1.8±4.6 (95.5) -0.6±6.4 (-1.80)
Diet Soda 0.3±1.8 (1.4) 2.0±5.3 (7.6) 1.7±5.3a (6.2a) 0.1±0.6 90.2) 1.2±3.8b (4.6b) 1.1±3.9a (4.4a)
Sugar-Sweetened 7.4±9.3 (23.4) 7.4±9.3 (26.1) -0.1±13.3 (2.9) 8.2±10.2 (27.9) 7.4±9.3 (31.2) 0.7±14.0 (2.2)
Total Calories 1,957.7±575.3 1,831.4±578.8 -126.3±710.8a 1,957.3±587.3 1,838.9±590.7 -118.4±724.9a

Continuations of Beverage Consumption (daily ounces and percentage) and Total Caloric Intake (daily kcal) of All Normal Weight, Overweight, Gained Weight and Lost Weight Subjects at Baseline, Year Two and Change from Baseline to Year Two

  Overweight (N=48)   Gained  Weight (N=11)   Lost Weight (N=6)  
  Baseline Year Two Change Baseline Year Two Change Baseline Year Two Change
Total 28.9±14.2 28.4±12.1 -0.5±17.6 24.8±11.2 23.9±12.4 -0.9±9.9 27.0±6.9 26.6±9.1 -0.4±11.9
Milk 20.2±12.8 (67.3) 16.7±10.5 (60.7) -3.5±15.0a (-6.6) 15.6±9.8 (57.2) 12.6±11.0 (32.7) -2.8±10.1 (-9.0) 18.3±7.4 (71.4) 14.0±7.5 (58.6) -4.3±10.4 (-12.8)
100% Juice 1.8±4.3 (6.8) 0.9±3.1 (3.1) -0.9±5.6 (-3.7) 2.7±3.4 (19.0) 2.2±5.2 (8.6) -0.5±4.4 (-10.0) 0.0±0.0 (0.0) 2.3±5.5 (7.6) 2.3±5.5 (7.6)
Diet Soda 0.7±2.8 (3.3) 3.0±7.0 b(10.0b) 2.3±7.3a (6.7) 1.1±3.6 (5.0) 4.7±7.1b (26.56b) 3.6±6.8 (21.5) 0.0±0.0 (0.0) 1.7±4.1 (4.0) 1.7±4.1 (4.0)
Sugar-Sweetened 6.3±7.8 (20.5) 7.8±9.7 (33.5) 1.5±13.3 (5.7) 5.6±6.6 (18.8) 4.4±6.8 (16.7) -1.3±6.8 (-2.2) 8.7±10.9 (28.6) 8.7±11.1 (29.8) 0.0±10.7 (1.2)
Total Calories 1,977.6±605.8 1,812.5±537.6 -165.1±693.1 1,977.0±442.5 1,803.4±703.1 -173.6±592.0 1,771.2±377.8 1,911.5±602.4 140.3±920

Means ± standard deviation
Beverage, daily ounces and percentage; total calories, kcal per day
Not including water
a Statistically significant differences in the means or percentage change from baseline to Year Two, within groups (P<0.05)
b Indicates statistically significant differences in the means or percentages between normal weight vs. overweight and gained weight subjects (P<0.05).
  • Subjects who were overweight significantly increased diet soda consumption (ounces). Subjects who gained weight did not significantly change beverage consumption. However, diet soda consumption (percentage) approached significance (P=0.058), subjects who lost weight (N=6) did not significantly change beverage consumption or total caloric intake.
  • Repeated measures ANOVA to determine diffferences in beverage consumption from baseline to Year Two among subjects categorized by BMI Z-score group revealed no significant differences for milk, 100% juice, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption or total caloric intake.
  • Change in milk consumption was inversely correlated with sugar-sweetened beverage consumption.
  • Significant increase from baseline to Year Two in diet soda consumption was found for all subjects and subjects who were overweight and subjects who gained weight had significantly higher soda consumption than normal-weight subjects.
  • Regresssion analyses indicated that baseline BMI Z-score and Year Two diet soda consumption accounted for 83.1% of the variance in Year Two BMI Z-scores (model, R2=0.83; P<0.001)
  • Higher baseline BMI Z-scores and greater consumption of diet soda at Year Two were associated with a higher Year Two BMI Z-score.
Regression Analysis of the Relationship Between BMI Z-Score at Year Two and Beverage Consumption

Dependent Variable Predictors  B (SE) is an Unstandaridized Coefficient (Standard Error)   R2 F P-Value of Model
BMI Z-Score Year Two          
Full Model     0.831  134.6 <0.001 
  Constant  0.072 (0.130)       
  Baseline BMI Z-Score 0.890 (0.033)      
  Year Two Diet Soda 0.013 (0.006)      

Author Conclusion:
  • This study is a longitudinal design and little data exists reporting associations between beverage consumption and BMI in school-age girls and boys.
  • Shifts in beverage consumption were found in this convenience sample across two years. Diet soda consumption was the only type of beverage associated with the two-year BMI Z-score and consumption was greater in subjects who were overweight and subjects who gained weight, as compared to normal-weight subjects at two years.
  • Additional longitudinal data examining associations between beverage consumption and BMI is needed in children and adolescents, as consumption of regular soda and diet soda has become more of a social norm.
Funding Source:
University/Hospital: University of Nebraska-Kearney, University of Southern Maine, University of Kansas
Reviewer Comments:

Limitations

  • Observational from previously collected data in a small convenience sample of school-age children.
  • Sample was mainly Caucausian and from one rural state, thus generalizability of the study is limited.
  • Data collected for only one school day and did not include weekend days
  • Data collected from fall 1992 through spring 1996 and thus prevents comparisons to beverage consumption intake of children since 1996.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) No
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) Yes
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) N/A
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? Yes
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? No
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? N/A
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? No
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? No
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes