Evidence Hub

Intake of water and beverages of children and adolescents in 13 countries

Guelinckx I, Iglesia I, Bottin JH, De Miguel-Etayo P, González-Gil EM, Salas-Salvadó J, Kavouras SA, Gandy J et al.

European journal of nutrition, 2015

8,109 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe the intake of water and all other beverages in children and adolescents in 13 countries of three continents.

METHODS: Data of 3611 children (4-9 years) and 8109 adolescents (10-17 years) were retrieved from 13 cross-sectional surveys (47 % males). In three countries, stratified cluster sampling design was applied to randomly recruit schools classes. A quota method was applied in the other countries to randomly recruit participants. Details on the intake of all fluid types were obtained with a fluid-specific record over 7 consecutive days.

RESULTS: In the total sample, the highest mean intakes were observed for water (738 ± 567 mL/day), followed by milk (212 ± 209 mL/day), regular soft beverages (RSB) (168 ± 290 mL/day) and juices (128 ± 228 mL/day). Patterns characterized by a high contribution of water, RSB or hot beverages to total fluid intake were identified among the countries with close geographical location. Adolescents had a significantly lower milk intake and higher intake of RSB and hot beverages than children in most countries. The most consistent gender difference observed was that in both age groups males reported a significantly higher RSB consumption than females.

CONCLUSION: On average, water was the fluid consumed in the largest volume by children and adolescents, but the intake of the different fluid types varied substantially between countries. Since the RSB intake was as large, or even larger, than water intake in some countries,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 8,109 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free