Discrepancies Between Health Professionals’ Understanding and the Evidence For Sugars Related Nutrition Issues in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Media articles often focus on added sugars consumption as being responsible for rising rates of obesity, diabetes and other chronic health concerns. However, meta‐analyses consistently demonstrate that sugars are no more likely to contribute to weight gain than other energy sources when compared on an isocaloric basis. The World Health Organization (WHO) sugars guideline recommends limiting “free sugars” (i.e. added sugars plus 100% fruit juices) to less than 10% of energy based on evidence related to dental caries, not obesity or other chronic diseases. Since health professionals are relied upon to communicate accurate scientific information to both the general public and the media, the objective of this study was to assess Canadian health professionals’ perceptions of added sugars consumption in relation to obesity and their understanding of the scientific basis of the WHO sugars guideline. Two sets of questionnaires were distributed to Canadian health professionals at national dietetics and nutrition conferences in 2013 and 2014, respectively. A total of 511 health professionals, primarily dietitians, voluntarily completed the 2013 survey in which less than half (44%) of respondents held the correct perception that the sugars found in fruits and vegetables are metabolized in the same way as sugars added to foods, and that sugars are no more likely to contribute to weight gain than other energy sources in the diet. Almost half (47%) thought sugars from “other foods” category in Canada's Food Guide contributed 15% of daily energy intake—double the actual contribution (i.e. 7.5% of energy). In the 2014 survey (n=355), two‐thirds (64%) of respondents thought added sugars contribute 21–23% of total energy intake in Canada – twice the actual amount of 11% of daily calories estimated based on total sugars data from the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey. Very few (9%) respondents knew added sugars consumption in Canada is approximately one‐third (30%) less than US consumption. One in ten correctly identified that the WHO 10% guideline for “free sugars” intake was based on evidence related to dental caries only, while the majority (72%) thought the guideline was based on evidence related to all of the listed options: obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and dental caries. In conclusion, a number of knowledge gaps on sugars‐related topics were identified among surveyed health professionals. Further investigation in a larger population is warranted. Future research will also focus on best practices (e.g. tools, resources) to help support the communication of evidence‐based information related to sugars to the general public and the media.
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 | 0.023 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".