Abstract P152: Joint Association of Sugar- and Artificially-Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Physical Activity and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in US Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) or artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) and physical activity are independently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk; however, it is unknown whether there is an interaction of SSB/ASB intake and physical activity on risk of T2D. Methods: We examined the independent and joint associations between habitual SSB/ASB intake and physical activity with incident T2D risk among 196,101 women and men from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS, 1980-2016), NHSII (1991-2017), and Health Professional’s Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2016), who were free from chronic diseases at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (HR; CI), adjusting for demographic and lifestyle T2D risk factors. Results: There were 20,430 incident T2D cases over follow-up of 36, 26, and 30 years in NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively. In multivariable-adjusted models, we confirmed that participants with higher SSBs, ASBs and lower physical activity were independently at higher T2D risk, compared to lower intakes and higher activity levels. In joint analyses for these exposures, participants who did not meet physical activity guidelines and consumed gt 2 servings/day of SSBs had a significantly higher risk of T2D than those who met physical activity guidelines and never/rarely consumed SSBs (1.51; 1.43, 1.60); we observed similar findings for ASBs: 1.29; 1.23, 1.36). Among participants who met physical activity guidelines, those who consumed gt 2 servings/day of SSBs had a HR of 1.23 (1.16, 1.30); the HR for ASBs was 1.07 (1.02, 1.13). Consistent results were observed for women and men. Conclusions: Long-term habitual intake of SSBs or ASBs combined with lower physical activity was associated with higher risk of T2D in three large prospective cohort studies. These findings suggest that even when individuals are physically active, higher consumption of SSBs is associated with a higher risk of T2D. Our results support recommendations and policies to limit the intake of SSB and increase physical activity levels.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".