National trends in beverage consumption in children from birth to 5 years: analysis of NHANES across three decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the epidemic of childhood obesity, it is crucial to assess food and beverage intake trends. Beverages can provide a large number of calories and since consumption patterns seem to develop at a young age we examined beverage consumption trends over three decades. The objective of this study was to assess the beverage (milk, fruit juice, fruit drinks, tea, soy beverages, and soft drinks) consumption trends in children <1-5 years of age. METHODS: Data from individuals ages <1-5 years participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1976-1980, 1988-1994 and 2001-2006 were used to assess beverage consumption and associated calorie and nutrient intakes. RESULTS: During the NHANES 1976-1980 and 1988-1994 periods, approximately 84-85% of children were consuming milk, whereas only 77% were consuming milk during NHANES 2001-2006. Flavored milk intake was relatively low, but increased to 14% during the last decade (p < 0.001). Fruit juice consumption increased dramatically during NHANES 2001-2006 to more than 50% of the population compared to about 30% in the older surveys (p < 0.001). No significant changes were observed in fruit drink intake across all three decades with 35-37% of this population consuming fruit drinks. At least 30% of children consumed soft drinks. Milk was the largest beverage calorie contributor in all three decades surveyed and was the primary contributor of calcium (52-62%), phosphorus (37-42%), magnesium (27-28%), and potassium (32-37%). Fruit juice and fruit drinks each provided 8-10% of calories with soft drinks providing 5-6% of calories. Fruit juice was an important provider of potassium (16-19%) and magnesium (11%). Fruit drinks provided less than 5% of nutrients examined and soft drinks provided very little of the nutrients evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Given concerns about childhood obesity and the need to meet nutrition requirements, it is prudent that parents, educators and child caretakers replace some of the nutrient poor beverages young children are currently consuming with more nutrient dense sources like low-fat and fat-free milk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".