Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

100% Orange juice consumption is associated with better diet quality, improved nutrient adequacy, decreased risk for obesity, and improved biomarkers of health in adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2006

  • Carol E O’Neil1Email author,
  • Theresa A Nicklas2,
  • Gail C Rampersaud3 and
  • Victor L Fulgoni III4
Nutrition Journal201211:107

DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-11-107

Received: 9 March 2012

Accepted: 30 November 2012

Published: 12 December 2012

Abstract

Background

Consumption of 100% orange juice (OJ) has been positively associated with nutrient adequacy and diet quality, with no increased risk of overweight/obesity in children; however, no one has examined these factors in adults. The purpose of this study was to examine the association of 100% OJ consumption with nutrient adequacy, diet quality, and risk factors for metabolic syndrome (MetS) in a nationally representative sample of adults.

Methods

Data from adults 19+ years of age (n = 8,861) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2006 were used. The National Cancer Institute method was used to estimate the usual intake (UI) of 100% OJ consumption, selected nutrients, and food groups. Percentages of the population below the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) or above the Adequate Intake (AI) were determined. Diet quality was measured by the Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005). Covariate adjusted logistic regression was used to determine if consumers had a lower odds ratio of being overweight or obese or having risk factors of MetS or MetS.

Results

Usual per capita intake of 100% OJ was 50.3 ml/d. Among consumers (n = 2,310; 23.8%), UI was 210.0 ml/d. Compared to non-consumers, consumers had a higher (p < 0.05) percentage (% ± SE) of the population meeting the EAR for vitamin A (39.7 ± 2.5 vs 54.0 ± 1.2), vitamin C (0.0 ± 0.0 vs 59.0 ± 1.4), folate (5.8 ± 0.7 vs 15.1 ± 0.9), and magnesium (51.6 ± 1.6 vs 63.7 ± 1.2). Consumers were also more likely to be above the AI for potassium (4.1 ± 0.8 vs 1.8 ± 0.2). HEI-2005 was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in consumers (55.0 ± 0.4 vs 49.7 ± 0.3). Consumers also had higher intakes of total fruit, fruit juice, whole fruit, and whole grain. Consumers had a lower (p < 0.05) mean body mass index (27.6 ± 0.2 vs 28.5 ± 0.1), total cholesterol levels (197.6 ± 1.2 vs 200.8 ± 0.75 mg/dL), and low density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels (112.5 ± 1.4 vs 116.7 ± 0.93 mg/dL). Finally, compared to non-consumers of 100% OJ, consumers were 21% less likely to be obese and male consumers were 36% less likely to have MetS.

Conclusion

The results suggest that moderate consumption of 100% OJ should be encouraged to help individuals meet the USDA daily recommendation for fruit intake and as a component of a healthy diet.

Keywords

Orange juice consumption 100% fruit juice consumption Diet quality Nutrients Nutrient adequacy Adults Weight Obesity Metabolic syndrome NHANES

Background

Consumption of 100% fruit juice (FJ) has been associated with higher intakes of key nutrients, including vitamins C and B-6, folate, thiamin, magnesium, and potassium, as well as better diet quality, and increased intake of total and whole fruit consumption in children [14] and adults [3] as compared to those that do not consume 100% FJ. There have been concerns about overweight/obesity in consumers of 100% FJ, especially children [57]. Most studies have been conducted in children and have not shown a relationship between 100% FJ consumption and weight [8]. Cross-sectional studies that have been conducted in adults have shown that consumption of 100% FJ has been inversely associated with body mass index (BMI) [9, 10] and obesity [10]; however, the longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study II showed that 100% FJ consumption was positively associated with weight gain [11].

The relationship between consumption of 100% FJ and other markers of disease among adults is inconsistent. Pereira and Fulgoni [10], using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004 and Yoo et al. [12] using data from the Bogalusa Heart Study, showed no association of risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) among 100% FJ consumers; another study showed that, in middle aged and older adults, fasting glucose, but not fasting insulin [13] was lower in 100% FJ consumers. In different studies, diabetes risk was shown to be associated with 100% FJ consumption [14] or not [11]. Data from the CARDIA study have shown an association of a reduced risk of hypertension with 100% FJ consumption [15]. Since data on the effects of consumption of 100% OJ on adult health are conflicting, further studies are needed.

Few studies have examined the effect of specific fruit juices on diet and health. Orange juice (OJ) is the most popular 100% FJ consumed in the US. In 2009, per capita availability of OJ was 14.84 liters [16]. Orange juice is also one of the most nutrient dense 100% FJ, regardless of type of density measures used in the evaluation [17]. Two hundred and thirty seven ml of 100% OJ provides 469 kilojoules (kJ) (112 kcal), 21 g total sugars, 124 mg vitamin C, 27 mg magnesium, 0.10 mg vitamin B-6, 74 μg Dietary Folate Equivalents, 496 mg potassium, and only 0.06 g saturated fatty acids (SFA) and 2.48 mg sodium [18]. Some brands of commercially available 100% OJ are fortified with fiber, calcium, or vitamin D; these have been identified as nutrients of public health concern in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans [19].

In vitro [20] and animal studies [21, 22] have suggested that citrus juices or components of these juices, including the flavanones hesperidin and naringin (or their aglycone forms hesperetin and naringenin), may have beneficial effects on blood lipids. Clinical studies conducted in adults have shown that consumption of 100% OJ has been associated with health benefits including positive effects on blood lipids [2326]—especially in hypercholesterolemic individuals, lower levels of several oxidative or inflammatory stress biomarkers [2729], and lower blood pressure [30]. Epidemiologic studies, using a nationally representative sample, looking at the association between consumption of 100% OJ and health markers are lacking. The objective of this study was to examine the association of 100% OJ usual intakes (UI) on select nutrients, food group equivalents, diet quality, weight parameters, and risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome in adults.

Methods

Study population

Data from adults 19+ yrs (n = 8,861) participating in the NHANES 2003-2006 were combined for these analyses to increase the sample size. Females were excluded from the study if they were pregnant or lactating. Demographic information [31] and physical activity levels [32] were determined from the NHANES interview. NHANES has stringent consent protocols and procedures to ensure confidentiality and protection from identification [33]. Since this was a secondary data analysis with a lack of personal identifiers, this study was exempted by the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Institutional Review Board.

Determination of dietary intake data

Dietary data were collected using two 24-hour dietary recalls using an automated multiple-pass method [34, 35]; the first recall was conducted in person by a trained interviewer and the second recall was conducted 3-10 days later via telephone. Only recall data judged to be complete and reliable by the National Center for Health Statistics staff were included in this study. Detailed descriptions of the dietary recalls and data collection are available in the NHANES Dietary Interviewer’s Training Manual [36].

In this study, 100% OJ was defined using the United States Food and Drug Administration definition [37] for 100% FJ; that is the product contained 100% FJ—in this case, OJ. This includes 100% FJ made from concentrate and 100% FJ with added nutrients, such as calcium or vitamin D; but does not include juice drinks or other products that contain less than 100% fruit juice. Individual food codes in NHANES 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 were used to determine intake of 100% OJ. Consumers of 100% OJ were defined as those participants consuming any amount of 100% OJ on either day of the 24-hour recalls. To determine nutrient intake, the USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies, versions 2 [38] and 3 [39] were used for NHANES, 2003-2004 and 2005-2006, respectively. Nutrients examined included macronutrients, dietary fiber, and sodium and also those micronutrients likely to be provided by 100% OJ: vitamins A, C, and B6; folate; magnesium; and potassium. Intake from supplements was not considered.

Food group equivalent intakes and healthy eating index (HEI-2005)

Food group equivalent intakes (formerly called MyPyramid equivalents) were determined using MyPyramid Equivalents Database 2.0; when necessary, intakes for NHANES 2005-2006 were hand matched to similar foods. The HEI-2005 was used to determine diet quality [40]. The SAS code used to calculate HEI-2005 scores was downloaded from the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion website [41].

Physiological measures

Height, weight, and waist circumference (WC) were obtained according to NHANES protocols [42]. Body mass index was calculated as body weight (kilograms) divided by height (meters) squared [43]. For the odds ratio (OR) assessments, overweight/obesity and high waist circumference were determined using the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Clinical Guidelines [43]. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressures (DBP) were determined using the standard NHANES protocol [44] and the mean of all values measured was used. Total cholesterol and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were determined on non-fasted individuals [45] while low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (46), triacylglycerides [46], blood glucose [47], and insulin [47] were determined on only fasted subjects. Per these protocols, not all individuals may have values for all tests (see tables for sample numbers). Metabolic syndrome was defined using the NHLBI Adult Treatment Panel III criteria [48]; that is having 3 or more of the following risk factors: abdominal obesity, WC >102 cm (males), >88 cm (females); hypertension, SBP ≥130 mmHg or DBP ≥85 mmHg or taking anti-hypertensive medications; HDL-C, <40 mg/dL (males), <50 mg/dL (females); high triacylglycerides, ≥150 mg/dL or taking anti-hyperlipidemic medications; high fasting glucose, ≥110 mg/dL or taking insulin or other hypoglycemic agents.

Statistical analyses

Sampling weights and the sampling units and strata information, as provided by NHANES, were included in all analyses using SUDAAN v10.0 (Research Triangle Institute; Raleigh, NC). Usual intakes were determined using SAS v 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Usual intake determinations represent long term average daily intakes and are determined by removing excessive intra-person variation in intakes; these are the best estimates to compare to dietary recommendations as suggested intakes are to be met over time, rather than measured on a single day. Usual intake of 100% OJ consumption and selected nutrients was calculated using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) method [49]. For UI of 100% OJ, which is consumed episodically, the two part NCI model (probability and amount) was used; for nutrients which are consumed daily by most people, the one part model was used. The NCI SAS macros (Mixtran v1.1 and Distrib v1.1) were used to generate parameter effects after covariate adjustments and to estimate the distribution of usual intake via Monte Carlo simulation methods, respectively [49]. Covariates in this study were day of the week of the 24-hr recall [coded as weekend (Friday-Sunday) or weekday (Monday-Thursday)] and sequence of dietary recall (first or second). Software provided by NCI was used with the two days of intake using one-day sampling weights to obtain appropriate variance estimates. Balanced repeated replication (BRR) was performed to obtain standard errors (SE) and confidence intervals (CI) for the percentiles; BRR weights were constructed with Fay adjustment factor M = 0.3 (perturbation factor 0.7) and further adjusted to match the initial sample weight totals within specific age/gender/ethnicity groupings for the full dataset. The Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) age groups were used to present UI for each of the nutrients studied.

To assess the extent of inadequate intake of vitamins A and C, folate, and magnesium, the Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) cut-point method proposed by the Institute of Medicine [50] was used. The EAR is the appropriate DRI to use when assessing the adequacy of group intakes [50]. The EAR cut-point method provides an estimate of the proportion of individuals in the group with inadequate intakes by age and gender. For nutrients without an EAR, i.e. sodium and potassium, the percent above the Adequate Intake (AI) was determined.

To determine if there were significant differences (p < 0.05) for the percentage of 100% OJ consumers vs non-consumers with intakes less than the EAR or above the AI a Z-statistic for differences in population proportions was used. Linear regression was used to determine differences in 100% OJ consumers and non-consumers for physiological measures. Logistic regression was used to determine if 100% OJ consumers had a lower OR of being overweight or obese or had other health risk factors. Covariates for linear and logistic regression included energy (kcals), age, gender, ethnicity, poverty index ratio, and physical activity for body weight and BMI; for other physiological measures BMI was also added as a covariate. Physical activity was determined from physical activity questionnaires and separated subjects into three categories: sedentary, moderate activity, and vigorous activity [51].

Results

Usual intake of orange juice

The sample consisted of adults 19 years of age and older (n = 8,861) of which 2,310 (23.8%) consumed 100% OJ. Per capita consumption was 50.3 ± 1.8 ml/day, whereas among consumers, consumption was 210.0 ± 3.8 ml/day. Per capita consumption and consumption among consumers was higher in males (p < 0.05) than in females. The 75th percentile among consumers was 259.3 ± 6.8 ml/day (Table 1).
Table 1

Usual intake of orange juice (ml/d) in the total population and consumers

 

Total population

Consumers only

Percentiles of intake among consumers

N = 8,861

n = 2,310

Gender

Mean ± SE

Pct.

Mean ± SE

25th ± SE

50th ± SE

75th ± SE

Combined

50.3 ± 1.8

23.8

210.0 ± 3.8

109.4 ± 3.0

468.6 ± 4.7

259.3 ± 6.8

 Male

59.2 ± 2.7a

24.5

235.6 ± 5.3a

118.3 ± 4.1

192.2 ± 2.0

286.9 ± 8.3

 Female

41.4 ± 2.1b

23.1

177.4 ± 5.0b

94.6 ± 3.8

147.9 ± 7.4

227.7 ± 7.7

Data source: Adults 19+ years of age participating in NHANES 2003-2006 with consumers defined as orange juice consumption on either of two days of intake assessment.

Means with different letters indicate a significant difference between genders p < 0.05.

1 ml = 0.0338 US fluid oz.

Usual intake of macronutrients, and selected micronutrients

The UI of carbohydrates, total sugars, and dietary fiber was higher (p < 0.05) in consumers than in non-consumers (Table 2). Table 3 shows that in 100% OJ consumers, the UI of vitamins A, B6, and C; folate; and magnesium was higher (p < 0.05) than non-consumers, and consumers were less likely to be below the EAR than non consumers (p < 0.05) (Table 3). Those consuming 100% OJ had a usual mean intake of vitamin A of 660 ± 15 Retinol Activity Equivalents (RAE) μg/d compared with 580 ± 8 RAE μg/d; approximately 40% of those consuming 100% OJ were below the EAR for vitamin A, compared with 54% of non-consumers (both p < 0.05). Orange juice consumers had a usual mean intake of folate of 606 ± 10 Dietary Folate Equivalents (DFE) μg/d compared with 521 ± 6 DFE μg/d; approximately 6% of 100% OJ consumers were below the EAR, compared with 15% for non-consumers (both p < 0.05). Adults consuming 100% OJ had a mean usual intake of vitamin C of 146 ± 2.4 mg/d compared with approximately 67 ± 1.3 mg/d for non-consumers. On average, 100% OJ consumers were not below the EAR, compared with 59% of non-consumers (p < 0.05). Adults that consumed 100% OJ had higher usual mean intake of 313 ± 4 mg/d magnesium compared with 283 ± 3 mg/d for non-consumers. Approximately 64% of adults that consumed 100% OJ were below the EAR, compared with 52% for non-consumers (both p < 0.05). The usual mean intake of potassium of 100% OJ consumers was 3026 ± 36 mg/d, compared with 2623 ± 22 mg/d for non-consumers; approximately 4% of 100% OJ consumers were above the AI, compared with only 2% of non-consumers (p < 0.05).
Table 2

Energy and macronutrient usual intakes among consumers and non-consumers of orange juice

 

Usual intake

Percentile

Group

Mean ± SE

10

25

50

75

90

Energy, Kcal/d

 Consumer

2248 ± 33

1400

1702

2126

2684

3569

 Non-Consumer

2185 ± 15

1339

1656

2087

2622

3170

Protein, g/d

 Consumer

84.9 ± 1.3

52.2

62.5

79.8

102.0

125.3

 Non-Consumer

83.4 ± 0.7

50.4

62.8

80.0

100.6

121.4

Carbohydrates, g/d

 Consumer

279 ± 4a

178

214

265

330

402

 Non-Consumer

260 ± 2b

155

194

248

314

384

Total sugars, g/d

 Consumer

133 ± 2.3a

77.4

96.9

124

160

201

 Non-Consumer

119 ± 1.3b

57.2

79.0

110

149

192

Dietary fiber, g/d

 Consumer

16.6 ± 0.3a

9.6

12.2

15.8

20.1

24.7

 Non-Consumer

15.3 ± 0.3b

8.6

11.1

14.5

18.5

22.9

Total fat, g/d

 Consumer

83.1 ± 1.4

47.7

60.8

78.7

101.2

124.6

 Non-Consumer

83.7 ± 0.7

47.6

61.3

79.9

102.1

125.1

Saturated fatty acids, g/d

 Consumer

27.4 ± 0.6

15.2

19.6

25.8

33.4

41.6

 Non-Consumer

27.8 ± 0.3

15.0

19.7

26.3

34.3

42.8

Data source: Adults 19+ years of age participating in NHANES 2003-2006 with consumers defined as orange juice consumption on either of two days of intake assessment.

n: 2,310 OJ consumers and 6,551 non-consumers.

Means with different letters are significantly different, p < 0.05.

Table 3

Selected micronutrient usual intakes among consumers and non-consumers of orange juice and comparison to Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) or Adequate Intake (AI)

 

Usual intake

Percentile

EAR

Group

Mean ± SE

10

25

50

75

90

% Below ± SE

Vitamin A, RAE ug/d

 Consumer

660 ± 15a

364

471

618

802

1009

39.7 ± 2.5a

 Non-Consumer

580 ± 8b

265

373

529

730

960

54.0 ± 1.2b

Vitamin B-6, mg/d

 Consumer

2.1 ± 0.0a

1.3

1.6

2.0

2.6

3.2

9.5 ± 1.0a

 Non-Consumer

1.9 ± 0.0b

1.1

1.4

1.8

2.3

2.9

16.7 ± 1.4b

Folate, DFE ug/d

 Consumer

606 ± 10a

358

451

578

730

890

5.8 ± 0.7a

 Non-Consumer

521 ± 6b

288

371

487

634

796

15.1 ± 0.9b

Vitamin C, mg/d

 Consumer

146 ± 2.4a

110

125

148

167

178

0.0 ± 0.0a

 Non-Consumer

66.6 ± 1.3b

26.1

38.9

58.5

85.4

117.1

59.0 ± 1.4b

Magnesium, mg/d

 Consumer

313 ± 4a

193

238

296

372

449

51.6 ± 1.6a

 Non-Consumer

283 ± 3b

170

213

270

339

411

63.7 ± 1.2b

 

Usual Intake

Percentile

AI

Group

Mean ± SE

10

25

50

75

90

% Above ± SE

Sodium, mg/d

 Consumer

3483 ± 53

2066

2604

3338

4213

5107

98.4 ± 0.3

 Non-Consumer

3501 ± 29

2137

2654

3351

4194

5074

98.8 ± 0.2

Potassium, mg/d

 Consumer

3026 ± 36a

1978

2396

2939

3564

4195

4.1 ± 0.8a

 Non-Consumer

2623 ± 22b

1610

2009

2532

3140

3756

1.8 ± 0.2b

Data source: Adults 19+ years of age participating in NHANES 2003-2006 with consumers defined as orange juice consumption on either of two days of intake assessment.

n: 2,310 OJ consumers and 6,551 non-consumers.

Means with different letters are significantly different, p < 0.05.

Diet quality and food group equivalents usual intake

Diet quality, as measured by HEI-2005, was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in consumers than in non-consumers (55.0 ± 0.4 vs 49.7 ± 0.3) (Table 4). Total fruit (1.8 ± 0.05 vs 0.7 ± 0.02 cup equivalents/d), fruit from juice (1.1 ± 0.03 vs 0.2 ± 0.01 cup equivalents/d) and whole fruit (0.7 ± 0.03 vs 0.5 ± 0.02 cup equivalents/d) were all higher for consumers as compared to non-consumers. In addition, whole grain consumption was higher (p < 0.05) in consumers (0.8 ± 0.03 ounce equivalents) than in non-consumers (0.6 ± 0.02 ounce equivalents).
Table 4

Diet quality, as measured by healthy eating index and select usual intakes of MyPyramid food components among consumers and non-consumers of orange juice

 

Usual intake

Percentile

Group

Mean ± SE

10

25

50

75

90

Healthy Eating Index, score

 Consumer

55.0 ± 0.4a

44.5

49.3

54.9

60.6

65.7

 Non-Consumer

49.7 ± 0.3b

38.4

43.5

49.4

55.6

61.4

Total dairy, cup equivalents

 Consumer

1.6 ± 0.05

0.6

0.9

1.4

2.1

2.9

 Non-Consumer

1.5 ± 0.002

0.5

0.8

1.3

2.0

2.8

Total fruit, cup equivalents

 Consumer

1.8 ± 0.05a

1.1

1.4

1.8

2.1

2.3

 Non-Consumer

0.7 ± 0.02b

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.4

Fruit juice, cup equivalents

 Consumer

1.1 ± 0.03a

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.4

 Non-Consumer

0.2 ± 0.01b

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2 0.4

 

Whole fruit, cup equivalents

 Consumer

0.7 ± 0.03a

0.1

0.3

0.6

1.0

1.4

 Non-Consumer

0.5 ± 0.02b

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.7

1.1

Total grain, ounce equivalents

 Consumer

7.0 ± 0.1

4.2

5.3

6.7

8.4

10.0

 Non-Consumer

6.8 ± 0.1

3.8

4.9

6.4

8.3

10.3

Whole grain, ounce equivalents

 Consumer

0.8 ± 0.03a

0.2

0.4

0.7

1.0

1.5

 Non-Consumer

0.6 ± 0.02b

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.9

1.3

Total vegetables, cup equivalents

 Consumer

1.7 ± 0.03

0.9

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.5

 Non-Consumer

1.6 ± 0.03

0.9

1.2

1.5

2.0

2.5

Data source: Adults 19 + years of age participating in NHANES 2003-2006 with consumers defined as orange juice consumption on either of two days of intake assessment.

n: 2,310 OJ consumers and 6,551 non-consumers.

Means with different letters are significantly different, p < 0.05.

Anthropometric and cardiovascular risk factors

Consumers of 100% OJ had a lower mean BMI than non-consumers (27.6 ± 0.18 vs 28.5 ± 0.11 kg/m2; p = 0.0001) (Table 5). Adults that consumed 100% OJ also had lower total cholesterol (197.6 ± 1.2 mg/dL v 200.8 ± 0.75 mg/dL; p = 0.0220) and lower LDL-C (112.5 ± 1.4 mg/dL v 116.7 ± 0.93 mg/dL; p = 0.0110) levels than those that did not consume 100% OJ. Serum vitamin C (1.1 ± 0.01 vs 0.9 ± 0.01 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), red blood cell folate (309.3 ± 3.6 vs 285.3 ± 2 ng/ml RBC; p < 0.0001), and serum folate (14.8 ± 0.24 vs 13.7 ± 0.25 ng/ml; p = 0.0013) were higher in consumers of 100% OJ than in non-consumers (Table 5). There were no differences among consumers and non-consumers in waist circumference, SBP or DBP, C-reactive protein, HDL-cholesterol, triacyglycerides, blood glucose, insulin, or homocysteine levels.
Table 5

Physiological measures among consumers and non-consumers of orange juice

 

Consumers

Non-consumers

 

Variable

n

LSM ± SE

n

LSM ± SE

p-Value

Body Weight* (kg)

2130

81.3 ± 0.20

6150

81.4 ± 0.12

0.5072

BMI* (kg/m2)

2130

27.6 ± 0.18

6150

28.5 ± 0.11

<0.0001

Waist Circumference* (cm)

2069

97.1 ± 0.17

6005

97.3 ± 0.10

0.4381

Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)**

1801

124.0 ± 0.53

5296

123.8 ± 0.30

0.7604

Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)**

1801

70.8 ± 0.42

5296

71.3 ± 0.23

0.2976

Serum Vitamin C (mg/dL)**

2022

1.1 ± 0.01

5813

0.91 ± 0.01

<0.0001

C-Reactive Protein** (mg/dL)

2041

0.43 ± 0.03

5874

0.41 ± 0.01

0.5922

Total Cholesterol** (mg/dL)

2034

197.6 ± 1.2

5857

200.8 ± 0.75

0.0220

HDL-Cholesterol** (mg/dL)

2033

53.7 ± 0.45

5857

53.8 ± 0.24

0.8230

Triglycerides** (mg/dL)

954

141.6 ± 3.6

2833

147.4 ± 3.3

0.2246

LDL-Cholesterol** (mg/dL)

939

112.5 ± 1.4

2746

116.7 ± 0.93

0.0110

Plasma Glucose** (mg/dL)

960

103.0 ± 1.4

2856

102.4 ± 0.62

0.6853

Insulin** (uU/mL)

951

11.6 ± 0.38

2823

11.3 ± 0.25

0.4441

RBC Folate** (ng/mL RBC)

2044

309.3 ± 3.6

5872

285.3 ± 2.0

<0.0001

Serum Folate** (ng/mL)

2037

14.8 ± 0.24

5849

13.7 ± 0.25

0.0013

Homocysteine** (umol/L)

1988

8.7 ± 0.08

5729

8.9 ± 0.06

0.0853

*Adjusted for energy (kcal), age, gender, ethnicity, poverty income ratio, and physical activity.

**Adjusted for energy (kcal), age, gender, ethnicity, poverty income ratio, BMI, and physical activity.

Abbreviations: LSM = least square mean; SE = standard error; BMI = body mass index; HDL-C = high density lipoprotein-cholesterol; LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol; RBC = red blood cell.

Risk of metabolic syndrome and risk factors for metabolic syndrome

Males that consumed 100% OJ showed a 36% reduced risk [OR: 0.62; 95th CI: 0.45-0.91] of MetS; no differences were observed in females (OR: 1.41 95th CI: 0.96-2.07) (Table 6). Male consumers of 100% OJ also showed a 23% reduced risk (OR: 0.77 95th CI: 0.61-0.99) of low HDL-C levels. Overall there was a 21% reduced risk (OR: 0.79; 95th CI: 0.65-0.95) of obesity in adults that consumed 100% OJ compared with non-consumers.
Table 6

Risk of metabolic syndrome, increased risk of individual metabolic syndrome components and other health factors among adult (19+ yrs) consumers and non-consumers of orange juice

Risk

OR ± SE

LCL, UCL

p-Value

OR ± SE

LCL, UCL

p-Value

OR ± SE

LCL, UCL

p-Value

All

Female

Male

MetS

0.93 ± 0.13

0.71, 1.22

0.5790

1.41 ± 0.28

0.96, 2.07

0.0795

0.64 ± 0.12

0.45,0.91

0.0119

Elevated BP

0.98 ± 0.07

0.85, 1.13

0.7586

0.98 ± 0.15

0.73, 1.31

0.8948

0.95 ± 0.12

0.75, 1.22

0.7078

High Glucose

0.96 ± 0.10

0.78, 1.18

0.6772

1.08 ± 0.17

0.79, 1.47

0.6180

0.82 ± 0.11

0.64, 1.06

0.1361

High TG

1.11 ± 0.13

0.89, 1.39

0.3575

1.41 ± 0.25

1.00, 1.99

0.0503

0.91 ± 0.11

0.72, 1.15

0.4474

Elevated WC

0.98 ± 0.15

0.73, 1.33

0.9067

1.09 ± 0.24

0.72, 1.66

0.6890

0.83 ± 0.15

0.59, 1.18

0.3052

Low HDL-C

0.92 ± 0.08

0.78, 1.09

0.3518

1.08 ± 0.11

0.89 1.31

0.4271

0.77 ± 0.10

0.61, 0.99

0.0406

Obese

0.79 ± 0.08

0.65, 0.95

0.0116

0.76 ± 0.10

0.59, 0.97

0.0289

0.79 ± 0.09

0.64, 0.97

0.0276

Overweight

1.13 ± 0.07

0.99, 1.28

0.0699

1.18 ± 0.10

0.99, 1.39

0.0581

1.07 ± 0.09

0.91, 1.26

0.3976

Overweight or Obese

0.89 ± 0.07

0.76, 1.04

0.1437

0.88 ± 0.09

0.73, 1.08

0.2216

0.85 ± 0.09

0.69, 1.06

0.1461

High LDL-C

0.82 ± 0.10

0.66, 1.03

0.0908

0.76 ± 0.12

0.57, 1.03

0.0783

0.85 ± 0.14

0.63, 1.16

0.3163

* Reference group: Non-consumers of orange juice with odds ratio set at 1.0.

All Metabolic Syndrome Components: Elevated Waist Circumference ≥102 cm in men or ≥88 cm in women; Elevated Triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL or taking medication for Elevated Triglycerides (Antihyperlipidemic Agents or Nicotinic Acid Derivatives); Reduced HDL-C <40 mg/dL in men or <50 mg/dL in women or taking medication for Reduced HDL-C (Antihyperlipidemic Agents or Nicotinic Acid Derivatives); Elevated BP ≥130 mmHg Systolic or ≥85 mmHg Diastolic or taking medication for Elevated BP (Antihypertensive Combinations); Elevated Fasting Glucose ≥100 mg/dL or taking medication for Elevated Glucose (Antidiabetic Agents); Metabolic Syndrome (≥3 risk factors above). Other risk factors: Elevated LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL; Overweight BMI ≥25 and <30; Obese BMI ≥30; Overweight or Obese BMI ≥25.

Abbreviations: OR = odds Ratio; LCL = lower confidence level; UCL = upper confidence level; SE = standard error; MetS = metabolic syndrome; BP = blood pressure; TG = triglycerides; WC = waist circumference; HDL-C = high density lipoprotein-cholesterol; LDL-C = low density lipoprotein-cholesterol.

Discussion

Approximately 24% of the population consumed 100% OJ on either of the days when a 24 hour recall was taken. Males consumed more 100% OJ, both as a percentage of consumers and in amount. The percent of consumers was similar to that of children [52]. Per capita UI consumption was 50.3 ml/d; however the UI for consumers was 210.0 ml/d. Unlike children, where there is a specific recommendation for consumption of 100% FJ [53], there is no recommendation for consumption of 100% FJ by adults, other than “the majority of the fruit recommended should come from whole fruits, including fresh, canned, frozen, and dried forms, rather than from juice” [19].

The rationale for limiting 100% FJ intake is that it lacks fiber and can contribute to excess energy consumption when consumed in excess [19]. A modeling study, commissioned by the 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee [54] suggested that dietary fiber was lower when whole fruit was removed from the diet, which led to the recommendation that intake of no more than one-third of fruit servings should come from 100% FJ and two-thirds should come from whole fruit. However, this study and others [14, 52] have shown that either consumers of 100% FJ had higher intakes of dietary fiber than non-consumers or there was no difference in fiber consumption between the groups. Since 100% FJ is low in dietary fiber, it suggests that other higher fiber foods, including whole fruit, are consumed by consumers of 100% FJ; this was shown not only in this study of 100% OJ consumers, but has been shown in other studies as well [1, 2, 52].

As expected, 100% OJ consumers had increased intake of nutrients typically found in 100% OJ (i.e. vitamin C, folate, and potassium). Consumers were also less likely to have intakes below the EAR for vitamins A, B-6, and C; folate; and magnesium than non-consumers. The reduction in the percentage of the population with inadequate intakes of these nutrients associated with 100% OJ consumption indicates the value of consuming a nutrient dense beverage [17]. Mean potassium UI was also higher in consumers than non-consumers and the percentage of the population above the AI was higher. This is an important finding since potassium was identified as a nutrient of public health concern [19]. To our knowledge this is the first report studying the association between the consumption of 100% OJ and nutrient adequacy in adults using the recommended UI procedures.

Diet quality, as measured by HEI-2005, was approximately 10% higher in 100% OJ consumers. While the increase was due in part to the increase in whole fruit and FJ consumption, consumers also had a higher UI of whole grains. Although intake of total fruit, whole fruit, and FJ was higher in 100% OJ consumers, overall intake from the fruit food groups was low. Despite extensive, coordinated public health campaigns by government, industry, and others [55], fruit consumption in adults remains low [56]. Since a 236.6 ml serving of 100% OJ counts as part of the recommendation for the fruit group, moderate consumption of 100% OJ can help individuals meet fruit intake recommendations.

The potential association of consumption of 100% FJ and weight in children has been debated in the literature for more than a decade [1, 2, 58, 5762]; however, less is known about this relationship in adults. Participants in the Nurses’ Health Study II with a higher consumption of 100% FJ had a larger weight gain than those with lower fruit 100% FJ consumption, although the amounts and types of 100% FJ consumed, and specific covariates used in the analyses, were not clear [11]. Another study [9] showed that self reported BMI was lower in consumers of 100% FJ. Ours was the first study that used a nationally representative adult population that showed consumers of 100% OJ had a lower BMI than non-consumers. These findings are important since 100% OJ has the highest per capita consumption [16] among the juices and therefore has the potential to be an important component of the diet. Clinical studies that incorporated high levels of 100% OJ (750 ml [24] or 500 ml [30]) as an intervention have reported no increases in weight or other anthropometric measures over the course of the study.

Total cholesterol levels and LDL-C levels were both significantly lower in consumers of 100% OJ than non-consumers. Compounds found in 100% OJ, including hesperidin, naringin, or limonoids or their circulating aglycone forms, have been shown to lower total or LDL-C in animal models [63, 64]. It was hypothesized that these compounds may have inhibited 3-Hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl coenzyme A reductase and increased the expression of LDL-C receptors in the liver, a mechanism similar to statins. These compounds have also been shown to reduce the net secretion of apolipoprotein B, which in turn may help inhibit cholesterol ester synthesis [20, 65].

Orange juice, at higher intake amounts (750 ml) has also been shown to lower LDL-C and raise HDL-C in a randomized clinical trial of hypercholesterolemia individuals [24]. Although the present study did not look separately at individuals with hypercholesterolemia, it did show that a more realistic consumption of 100% OJ was associated with reduced total cholesterol and LDL-C levels. It is not clear why there was no difference shown between HDL-C levels between 100% OJ consumers and non-consumers, as may have been suggested by clinical trials; the response may be dose-dependent or dependent on continual consumption. There was a 23% lower risk of low HDL-C levels in males only.

Consumption of 100% OJ was associated with a 21% lower risk of obesity in men and women. This was similar to the findings of Pereira and Fulgoni [10] that looked at the risk of obesity and consumption of 100% FJ in participants of NHANES 1999-2004. They also showed a significantly lower risk of metabolic syndrome, whereas this study showed a lower risk in males only. That study showed a much higher intake of 100% FJ, compared with the intake of 100% OJ only; but there were also other differences in the population, since they showed, for example that consumers were more likely to be female. Our study showed that 100% OJ consumers were more likely to be males. Consumption differences of 100% FJ in adults need to be studied further.

Strengths of this study include that it encompassed a large nationally representative sample achieved through combining several sets of NHANES data releases. The study also uses the NCI method to assess UI and the percentage of the population below recommended levels in 100% OJ consumers and non-consumers, as well as adjustment for numerous covariates including physical activity.

Twenty-four hour dietary recalls have several inherent limitations. Participants relied on memory to self-report dietary intakes; therefore, data were subject to non-sampling errors, including underreporting of energy and examiner effects. Respondents may not have differentiated between 100% OJ or a fruit drink/ade. Confusion over these beverages has been reflected in several studies that assessed a combined 100% FJ and juice drink or sweetened FJ category [6669]. The use of AI cannot be used to determine the prevalence of inadequate intake in a group. Rather, if the mean intake of a group is at or above the AI, and the variance of intake in the group of interest is similar to the variance of intake used in the population originally used to set the AI, the prevalence of inadequate nutrient intakes is likely to be low [50]. Finally, since causal inferences cannot be drawn from NHANES analyses, and due to multi-collinearity of diet, foods other than 100% OJ may have contributed to differences in nutrient intake of the participants.

Conclusions

Consumption of 100% OJ was associated with better diet quality and an increased prevalence of meeting the EAR for key nutrients and other biomarkers of positive health outcomes, including lower total cholesterol and LDL levels. Consumers of 100% OJ had lower mean BMI and a decreased risk of obesity. In addition, males had a decreased risk of metabolic syndrome. These results suggested that 100% OJ consumption should be encouraged as a component of a healthy diet to help individuals meet nutrient and fruit intake recommendations.

Abbreviations

AI: 

Adequate intake

BMI: 

Body mass index

BRR: 

Balanced repeated replication

CI: 

Confidence interval

DBP: 

Diastolic blood pressure

DFE: 

Dietary folate equivalents

DRI: 

Dietary reference intake

EAR: 

Estimated average requirements

FJ: 

100% Fruit juice

HDL-C: 

High density lipoprotein-cholesterol

HEI-2005: 

Healthy eating index-2005

LDL-C: 

Low density lipoprotein-cholesterol

MetS: 

Metabolic syndrome

NHANES: 

National health and Nutrition examination survey

NHLBI: 

National heart, lung, and blood institute

OJ: 

100% Orange juice

OR: 

Odds ratio

RAE: 

Retinol activity equivalents

SBP: 

Systolic blood pressure

SFA: 

Saturated fatty acids

UI: 

Usual intake

WC: 

Waist circumference.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work is a publication of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA/ARS) Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the USDA, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement from the U.S. government. This research project was supported by the Florida Department of Citrus, and USDA – Agricultural Research Service through specific cooperative agreement 58-6250-6-003. Partial support was received from the USDA Hatch Project LAB 93951.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center
(2)
USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine
(3)
Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, University of Florida
(4)
Nutrition Impact, LLC

References

  1. Nicklas TA, O'Neil CE, Kleinman R: Association between 100% juice consumption and nutrient intake and weight in children aged 2 to 11 years. Arch Ped Adolesc Med. 2008, 162: 557-565. 10.1001/archpedi.162.6.557.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. O’Neil CE, Nicklas TA, Kleinman R: Relationship between 100% juice consumption and nutrient intake and weight of adolescents. Am J Health Promot. 2010, 24: 231-237. 10.4278/ajhp.080603-QUAN-76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. O'Neil CE, Nicklas TA, Zanovec M, Fulgoni VL: Diet quality is positively associated with 100% fruit juice consumption in children and adults in the United States: NHANES 2003-2006. Nutr J. 2011, 10: 17-10.1186/1475-2891-10-17.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. O'Neil CE, Nicklas TA, Zanovec M, Kleinman RE, Fulgoni VL: Fruit juice consumption is associated with improved nutrient adequacy in children and adolescents: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2006. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15: 1871-1978. 10.1017/S1368980012000031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dennison BA, Rockwell HL, Baker SL: Excess fruit juice consumption by preschool-aged children is associated with short stature and obesity. Pediatrics. 1997, 99: 15-22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dennison BA, Rockwell HL, Nichols MJ, Jenkins P: Children's growth parameters vary by type of fruit juice consumed. Am Coll Nutr. 1999, 18: 346-352.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Faith MS, Dennison BA, Edmunds LS, Stratton HH: Fruit juice intake predicts increased adiposity gain in children from low-income families: weight status-by environment interaction. Pediatrics. 2006, 118: 2066-2075. 10.1542/peds.2006-1117.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Neil CE, Nicklas TA: A review of the relationship between 100% fruit juice consumption and weight in children and adolescents. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2008, 2: 315-354. 10.1177/1559827608317277.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Akhtar-Danesh N, Dehghan M: Association between fruit juice consumption and self-reported body mass index among adult Canadians. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2010, 23: 162-168. 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.01029.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Pereira MA, Fulgoni VL: Consumption of 100% fruit juice and risk of obesity and metabolic syndrome: findings from the national health and nutrition examination survey 1999-2004. J Am Coll Nutr. 2010, 29: 625-629.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Hu FB: Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women. JAMA. 2004, 292: 927-934. 10.1001/jama.292.8.927.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Yoo S, Nicklas T, Baranowski T, Zakeri IF, Yang SJ, Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS: Comparison of dietary intakes associated with metabolic syndrome risk factors in young adults: the Bogalusa heart study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004, 80: 841-848.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Yoshida M, McKeown NM, Rogers G, Meigs JB, Saltzman E, D'Agostino R, Jacques PF: Surrogate markers of insulin resistance are associated with consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and fruit juice in middle and older-aged adults. J Nutr. 2007, 137: 2121-2127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bazzano LA, Li TY, Joshipura KJ, Hu FB: Intake of fruit, vegetables, and fruit juices and risk of diabetes in women. Diabetes Care. 2008, 31: 1311-1317. 10.2337/dc08-0080.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Duffey KJ, Gordon-Larsen P, Steffen LM, Jacobs DR, Popkin BM: Drinking caloric beverages increases the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010, 92: 954-959. 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29478.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service: Food availability spread sheets. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/FoodAvailspreadsheets.htm#fruitju. Accessed January 23, 2012
  17. Rampersaud GC: A comparison of nutrient density scores for 100% fruit juices. J Food Sci. 2007, 72: S261-S266. 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00324.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. United States department of agriculture nutrient database. NDB No:. 09206, http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/list_nut.pl. Accessed January 24, 2012
  19. United States Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2010. 2010, Washington, DC: U.S: Government Printing Office, http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm. Accessed June 21, 2011, 7Google Scholar
  20. Borradaile NM, Carroll KK, Kurowska EM: Regulation of HepG2 cell apolipoprotein B metabolism by the citrus flavanones hesperetin and naringenin. Lipids. 1999, 34: 591-598. 10.1007/s11745-999-0403-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Daher CF, Abou-Khalil J, Baroody GM: Effect of acute and chronic grapefruit, orange, and pineapple juice intake on blood lipid profile in normolipidemic rat. Med Sci Monit. 2005, 11: BR465-472.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gorinstein S, Leontowicz H, Leontowicz M, Krzeminski R, Gralak M, Martin-Belloso O, Delgado-Licon E, Haruenkit R, Katrich E, Park YS, Jung ST, Trakhtenberg S: Fresh Israeli Jaffa blond (Shamouti) orange and Israeli Jaffa red Star Ruby (Sunrise) grapefruit juices affect plasma lipid metabolism and antioxidant capacity in rats fed added cholesterol. J Agric Food Chem. 2004, 52: 4853-4859. 10.1021/jf040006y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurowska EM, Spence JD, Jordan J, Wetmore S, Freeman DJ, Piché LA, et al: HDL-cholesterol-raising effect of orange juice in subjects with hypercholesterolemia. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000, 72: 1095-1100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Cesar TB, Aptekmann NP, Araujo MP, Vinagre CC, Maranhao RC: Orange juice decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in hypercholesterolemic subjects and improves lipid transfer to high-density lipoprotein in normal and hypercholesterolemic subjects. Nutr Res. 2010, 30: 689-694. 10.1016/j.nutres.2010.09.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Aptekmann NP, Cesar TB: Orange juice improved lipid profile and blood lactate of overweight middle-aged women subjected to aerobic training. Maturitas. 2010, 67: 343-347. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.07.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Roza JM, Xian-Liu Z, Guthrie N: Effect of citrus flavonoids and tocotrienols on serum cholesterol levels in hypercholesterolemic subjects. Altern Ther Health Med. 2007, 13: 44-48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ghanim H, Sia CL, Upadhyay M, Korzeniewski K, Viswanathan P, Abuaysheh S, et al: Orange juice neutralizes the pro-inflammatory effect of a high-fat, high-carbohydrate meal and prevents endotoxin increase and Toll-like receptor expression. Am J ClinNutr. 2010, 91: 940-949.Google Scholar
  28. Sanchez-Moreno C, Cano MP, de Ancos B, Plaza L, Olmedilla B, Granado F, Martin A: Effect of orange juice intake on vitamin C concentrations and biomarkers of antioxidant status in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003, 78: 454-460.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sanchez-Moreno C, Canob MP, de Ancosb B, Plazab L, Olmedillac B, Granadoc F, Elez-Martinez P, Martin-Bellosod M, Martina A: Pulsed electric fields–processed orange juice consumption increases plasma vitamin C and decreases F2-isoprostanes in healthy humans. Nutr Biochem. 2004, 15: 601-607. 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2004.04.007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Morand C, Dubray C, Milenkovic D, Lioger D, Martin JF, Scalbert A, et al: Hesperidin contributes to the vascular protective effects of orange juice: a randomized crossover study in healthy volunteers. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011, 93: 73-80. 10.3945/ajcn.110.004945.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 2003-2004 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Demographic Variables and Sample Weights (DEMO_C). Last revised, September, 2009. [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/DEMO_C.htm.] Accessed June 21, 2011,
  32. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 2003-2004 Data documentation, codebook, and frequencies. L physical activity monitor (PAXRAW_C). Last revised, December, 2007. [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/PAXRAW_C.htm.] Accessed June 21, 2011,
  33. NHANES: Is my survey information confidential? December. 2007, http://www.cdc.gov/nhanes/pQuestions.htm#. Accessed December 18, 2009Google Scholar
  34. Moshfegh AJ, Rhodes DG, Baer DJ, Murayi T, Clemens JC, Rumpler WV, et al: The US department of agriculture automated multiple-pass method reduces bias in the collection of energy intakes. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008, 88: 324-332.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Blanton CA, Moshfegh AJ, Baer DJ, Kretsch MJ: The USDA automated multiple-pass method accurately estimates group total energy and nutrient intake. J Nutr. 2006, 136: 2594-2599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. National Center for Health Statistics: The NHANES. 2002, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_01_02/dietary_year_3.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2011, MEC in-person dietary interviewers procedures manual
  37. US Food and Drug Administration: 4. Name of food. Guidance for industry: a food labeling guide. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/ucm064872.htm. Accessed January 20, 2011
  38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: The USDA food and nutrient database for dietary studies, 2.0–Documentation and user guide. 2006, http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/pdf/fndds2_doc.pdf#title. Accessed June 21, 2011Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: The USDA food and nutrient database for dietary studies, 3.0–Documentation and user guide. 2008, http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/pdf/fndds/fndds3_doc.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2011Google Scholar
  40. Guenther PM, Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM, Reeve BB, Basiotis PP: Development and evaluation of the healthy eating index-2005: technical report. Center for nutrition policy and promotion, U.S. Department of agriculture. 2007, http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/HealthyEatingIndex.htm. Accessed June 21, 2011Google Scholar
  41. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion: HEI2005_NHANES0102.txt. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/HealthyEatingIndex-2005report.htm. Accessed June 21, 2011
  42. National Center for Health Statistics: The NHANES Anthropometry Procedures Manual. Revised. 2004, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/BM.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2011Google Scholar
  43. National Institutes of Health: National heart, lung, and blood institute. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2012
  44. National Center for Health Statistics: NHANES. 2001, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_01_02/bpx_b_doc.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2011, -2002 data release; May 2004. MEC examination. Blood pressure section of the Physician’s examination
  45. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 2003-2004 Data documentation, codebook, and frequencies. Total cholesterol and HDL. Last revised April. 2010, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/l13_c.htm. Accessed June 21, 2011
  46. National Center for Health Statistics: NHANES documentation, codebook, and frequencies: survey years. 2003, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/l13am_c.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2010, -2004. MEC laboratory component: triglycerides and LDL-cholesterol
  47. National Center for Health Statistics: NHANES documentation, codebook, and frequencies: survey years. 2003, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/l10am_c.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2010, -2004. MEC laboratory component: plasma glucose, serum C-peptide, and insulin
  48. National Cholesterol Education Program: National heart, lung, and blood institute. National institutes of health. Detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (adult treatment panel III). 2002, NIH Publication No. 02-5215
  49. Usual Dietary Intakes: SAS macros for analysis of a single dietary component. http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/diet/usualintakes/macros_single.html. Accessed June 12, 2010
  50. Institute of Medicine. Food and Nutrition Board: Dietary reference intakes: applications in dietary assessment. 2000, Washington DC: National Academy Press
  51. National Center for Health Statistics: NHANES documentation, codebook, and frequencies: survey years. 2003, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2005-2006/PAQ_D.htm. Accessed August 29, 2011, -2004. Physical activity
  52. O'Neil CE, Nicklas TA, Rampersaud GC, Fulgoni VL: One hundred percent orange juice consumption is associated with better diet quality, improved nutrient adequacy, and no increased risk for overweight/obesity in children. Nutr Res. 2011, 31: 673-682. 10.1016/j.nutres.2011.09.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. American Academy of Pediatrics: Committee on Nutrition. The use and misuse of fruit juice in pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2001, 107: 1210-1213.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. US department of agriculture, 2005 dietary guidelines advisory committee report (2004) fruit and fruit juice analysis. 2005, http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/G2_Analyses.htm#fruitjuice. Accessed September 30, 2010, dietary guidelines advisory committee report (2004) fruit and fruit juice analysis
  55. Produce for better health. http://www.fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org. Accessed May 29 2010
  56. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): State-specific trends in fruit and vegetable consumption among adults – United States, 2000-2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010, 59: 1125-1130.Google Scholar
  57. Melgar-Quinonez HR, Kaiser LL: Relationship of child-feeding practices to overweight in low-income Mexican-American preschool-aged children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004, 104: 1110-1119. 10.1016/j.jada.2004.04.030.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Alexy U, Sichert-Hellert W, Kersting M, Manz F, Schoch G: Fruit juice consumption and the prevalence of obesity and short stature in German preschool children: results of the DONALD (Dortmund Nutritional and Anthropometrical Longitudinally Designed Study). Pediat Gastroenterol Nutr. 1999, 29: 343-349. 10.1097/00005176-199909000-00019.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Skinner JD, Carruth BR, Moran J, Houck K, Coletta F: Fruit juice intake is not related to children's growth. Pediatrics. 1999, 103: 58-64. 10.1542/peds.103.1.58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Skinner JD, Carruth BR: A longitudinal study of children's juice intake and growth: the juice controversy revisited. Am Diet Assoc. 2001, 101: 432-437. 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00111-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. O'Connor TM, Yang SJ, Nicklas TA: Beverage intake among preschool children and its effect on weight status. Pediatrics. 2006, 118: e1010-8. 10.1542/peds.2005-2348.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Newby PK, Peterson KE, Berkey CS, Leppert J, Willett WC, Colditz GA: Beverage consumption is not associated with changes in weight and body mass index among low-income preschool children in North Dakota. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004, 104: 1086-1094. 10.1016/j.jada.2004.04.020.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Bok SH, Lee SH, Park YB, Bae KH, Son KH, Jeong TS, et al: Plasma and hepatic cholesterol and hepatic activities of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase and acyl CoA:cholesterol transferase are lower in rats fed citrus peel extract or a mixture of citrus bioflavonoids. J Nutr. 1999, 129: 1182-1185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Jung UJ, Lee MK, Park YB, Kang MA, Choi MS: Effect of citrus flavonoids on lipid metabolism and glucose-regulating enzyme nRNA levels in type-2 diabetic mice. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2006, 38: 1134-1145. 10.1016/j.biocel.2005.12.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Kurowska EM, Hasegawa S, Manners GD: Regulation of apo B production in HepG2 cells by citrus limonoids. Citrus limonoids: functional chemicals in agriculture and foods. Edited by: Berhow EM, Hasegawa S, Manners GD. 2000, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 175-84. ACS Symposium Series 758View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Tanasescu M, Ferris AM, Himmelgreen DA, Rodriguez N, Perez-Escamilla R: Biobehavioral factors are associated with obesity in Puerto Rican children. J Nutr. 2000, 130: 1734-1742.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Sanigorski AM, Bell AC, Swinburn BA: Association of key foods and beverages with obesity in Australian schoolchildren. Public Health Nutr. 2007, 10: 152-157.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Paynter NP, Yeh HC, Voutilainen S, Schmidt MI, Heiss G, Folsom AR, Brancati FL, Kao WH: Coffee and sweetened beverage consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Am J Epidemiol. 2006, 164: 1075-1084. 10.1093/aje/kwj323.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Odegaard AO, Koh WP, Arakawa K, Yu MC, Pereira MA: Soft drink and juice consumption and risk of physician-diagnosed incident type 2 diabetes: the Singapore Chinese Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010, 171: 701-708. 10.1093/aje/kwp452.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© O'Neil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement