It is often suggested that coffee causes dehydration and its consumption should be avoided or significantly reduced to maintain fluid balance. The aim of this study was to directly compare the effects of coffee consumption against water ingestion across a range of validated hydration assessment techniques. In a counterbalanced cross-over design, 50 male coffee drinkers (habitually consuming 3-6 cups per day) participated in two trials, each lasting three consecutive days. In addition to controlled physical activity, food and fluid intake, participants consumed either 4×200 mL of coffee containing 4 mg/kg caffeine © or water (W). Total body water (TBW) was calculated pre- and post-trial via ingestion of Deuterium Oxide. Urinary and haematological hydration markers were recorded daily in addition to nude body mass measurement (BM). Plasma was analysed for caffeine to confirm compliance. There were no significant changes in TBW from beginning to end of either trial and no differences between trials (51.5±1.4 vs. 51.4±1.3 kg, for C and W, respectively). No differences were observed between trials across any haematological markers or in 24 h urine volume (2409±660 vs. 2428±669 mL, for C and W, respectively), USG, osmolality or creatinine. Mean urinary Na(+) excretion was higher in C than W (p = 0.02). No significant differences in BM were found between conditions, although a small progressive daily fall was observed within both trials (0.4±0.5 kg; p<0.05). Our data show that there were no significant differences across a wide range of haematological and urinary markers of hydration status between trials. These data suggest that coffee, when consumed in moderation by caffeine habituated males provides similar hydrating qualities to water.
To examine the emotions associated with drinking different types of alcohol, explore whether these emotions differ by sociodemographics and alcohol dependency and whether the emotions associated with different drink types influence people’s choice of drinks in different settings.
We examined whether a sugary drink limit would still be effective if larger-sized drinks were converted into bundles of smaller-sized drinks.
BACKGROUND: Various recommendations exist for total water intake (TWI), yet this is seldom reported in dietary surveys. Few studies have examined how real-life consumption patterns, including beverage type, variety and timing relate to TWI and energy intake (EI). METHODS: We analysed weighed dietary records from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey of 1724 British adults aged 19–64 years (2000/2001) to investigate beverage consumption patterns over 24 hrs and 7 days and associations with TWI and EI. TWI was calculated from the nutrient composition of each item of food and drink and compared with reference values. RESULTS: Mean TWI was 2.53 L (SD 0.86) for men and 2.03 L (SD 0.71) for women, close to the European Food Safety Authority “adequate Intake” (AI) of 2.5 L and 2 L, respectively. However, for 33% of men and 23% of women TWI was below AI and TWI:EI ratio was <1 g/kcal. Beverages accounted for 75% of TWI. Beverage variety was correlated with TWI (r 0.34) and more weakly with EI (r 0.16). Beverage consumption peaked at 0800 hrs (mainly hot beverages/ milk) and 2100 hrs (mainly alcohol). Total beverage consumption was higher at weekends, especially among men. Overall, beverages supplied 16% of EI (men 17%, women 14%), alcoholic drinks contributed 9% (men) and 5% (women), milk 5-6%, caloric soft drinks 2%, and fruit juice 1%.In multi-variable regression (adjusted for sex, age, body weight, smoking, dieting, activity level and mis-reporting), replacing 100 g of caloric beverages (milk, fruit juice, caloric soft drinks and alcohol) with 100 g non-caloric drinks (diet soft drinks, hot beverages and water) was associated with a reduction in EI of 15 kcal, or 34 kcal if food energy were unchanged. Using within-person data (deviations from 7-day mean) each 100 g change in caloric beverages was associated with 29 kcal change in EI or 35 kcal if food energy were constant. By comparison the calculated energy content of caloric drinks consumed was 47 kcal/100 g. CONCLUSIONS: TWI and beverage consumption are closely related, and some individuals appeared to have low TWI. Compensation for energy from beverages may occur but is partial. A better understanding of interactions between drinking and eating habits and their impact on water and energy balance would give a firmer basis to dietary recommendations.
Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages, but the association between coffee consumption and the risk of death remains unclear.
It is unclear whether consumption of low-calorie beverages (LCB) leads to compensatory consumption of sweet foods, thus reducing benefits for weight control or diet quality. This analysis investigated associations between beverage consumption and energy intake and diet quality of adults in the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) (2008-2011; n = 1590), classified into: (a) non-consumers of soft drinks (NC); (b) LCB consumers; © sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumers; or (d) consumers of both beverages (BB), based on 4-day dietary records. Within-person data on beverage consumption on different days assessed the impact on energy intake. LCB consumers and NC consumed less energy and non-milk extrinsic sugars than other groups. Micronutrient intakes and food choices suggested higher dietary quality in NC/LCB consumers compared with SSB/BB consumers. Within individuals on different days, consumption of SSB, milk, juice, and alcohol were all associated with increased energy intake, while LCB and tea, coffee or water were associated with no change; or reduced energy intake when substituted for caloric beverages. Results indicate that NC and LCB consumers tend to have higher quality diets compared with SSB or BB consumers and do not compensate for sugar or energy deficits by consuming more sugary foods.
Caramel color is added to many widely-consumed beverages as a colorant. Consumers of these beverages can be exposed to 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a potential carcinogen formed during its manufacture. California’s Proposition 65 law requires that beverages containing 4-MEI concentrations corresponding to exposures that pose excess cancer risks > 1 case per 100,000 exposed persons (29 μg 4-MEI/day) carry warning labels. Using ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, we assessed 4-MEI concentrations in 12 beverages purchased in California and a geographically distant metropolitan area (New York) in which warning labels are not required. In addition, we characterized beverage consumption by age and race/ethnicity (using weighted means calculated from logistic regressions) and assessed 4-MEI exposure and resulting cancer risks and US population cancer burdens attributable to beverage consumption. Data on beverage consumption were obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, dose-response data for 4-MEI were obtained from the California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment, and data on population characteristics were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. Of the 12 beverages, Malta Goya had the highest 4-MEI concentration (915.8 to 963.3μg/L), lifetime average daily dose (LADD - 8.04x10-3 mg/kgBW-day), lifetime excess cancer risk (1.93x10-4) and burden (5,011 cancer cases in the U.S. population over 70 years); Coca-Cola had the lowest value of each (4-MEI: 9.5 to 11.7μg/L; LADD: 1.01x10-4 mg/kgBW-day; risk: 1.92x10-6; and burden: 76 cases). 4-MEI concentrations varied considerably by soda and state/area of purchase, but were generally consistent across lots of the same beverage purchased in the same state/area. Routine consumption of certain beverages can result in 4-MEI exposures > 29 μg/day. State regulatory standards appear to have been effective in reducing exposure to carcinogens in some beverages. Federal regulation of 4-MEI in caramel color may be appropriate.
Excessive drinking accounted for approximately 4,300 deaths each year among persons aged <21 years during 2006-2010,* and underage drinking cost the United States $24.3 billion in 2010 (1). CDC analyzed data from the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) for the years 1991-2015 to examine trends in drinking by U.S. high school students, and from the 2015 YRBS to assess the usual source of alcohol consumed(†) and binge drinking intensity (i.e., the average number of drinks consumed per binge drinking occasion).(§) During 1991-2007, the prevalence of current drinking(¶) among high school students declined significantly, from 50.8% (1991) to 44.7% (2007), and then significantly declined to 32.8% in 2015. The prevalence of binge drinking** increased from 31.3% in 1991 to 31.5% in 1999, and then significantly declined to 17.7% in 2015. Most high school students who drank were binge drinkers (57.8%), and 43.8% of binge drinkers consumed eight or more drinks in a row. Despite progress, current drinking and binge drinking are common among high school students, and many students who binge drink do so at high intensity (i.e., eight or more drinks in a row). Widespread use of evidence-based strategies for preventing excessive drinking (e.g., increasing alcohol taxes, regulating alcohol outlet density, and having commercial host liability laws) could help reduce underage drinking and related harms.(††).
Artificially sweetened beverage consumption has steadily increased in the last 40 years. Several reviews examining the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes have discrepancies in their results and conclusions.
The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that the daily intake of calories from added sugars not exceed 10% of total calories.* Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are significant sources of added sugars in the diet of U.S. adults and account for approximately one third of added sugar consumption (1). Among adults, frequent (i.e., at least once a day) SSB intake is associated with adverse health consequences, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (2). According to the 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), an in-person and phone follow-up survey, 50.6% of U.S. adults consumed at least one SSB on a given day (3). In addition, SSB intake varies by geographical regions (4,5): the prevalence of daily SSB intake was higher among U.S. adults living in the Northeast (68.4%) and South (66.7%) than among persons living in the Midwest (58.8%). In 2013, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a telephone survey, revised the SSB two-item optional module to retain the first question on regular soda and expand the second question to include more types of SSBs than just fruit drinks. Using 2013 BRFSS data, self-reported SSB (i.e., regular soda, fruit drinks, sweet tea, and sports or energy drinks) intake among adults (aged ≥18 years) was assessed in 23 states and the District of Columbia (DC). The overall age-adjusted prevalence of SSB intake ≥1 time per day was 30.1% and ranged from 18.0% in Vermont to 47.5% in Mississippi. Overall, at least once daily SSB intake was most prevalent among adults aged 18-24 years (43.3%), men (34.1%), non-Hispanic blacks (blacks) (39.9%), unemployed adults (34.4%), and persons with less than a high school education (42.4%). States can use the data for program evaluation and monitoring trends, and information on disparities in SSB consumption could be used to create targeted intervention efforts to reduce SSB consumption.