Fluid intake of Latin American adults: results of four 2016 Liq.In7 national cross-sectional surveys

16Citations
Citations of this article
114Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: To report total fluid intake (TFI) and the intake of different fluid types in adults (≥ 18 years old) from Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. To compare intakes between countries and with recommended adequate intake (AI) of water from fluids. Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected using a validated liquid intake 7-day record (Liq.In7) in populations from Argentina (n = 1089), Brazil (n = 477), Mexico (n = 1677) and Uruguay (n = 554). Population characteristics, including age, gender, body mass index and socioeconomic level were recorded. Mean TFI was compared with the AI of water from fluids set by the USA Institute of Medicine. Results: The lowest TFI was recorded in Mexican women (1748 mL/day) and the highest in Argentinean men (2318 mL/day). Median daily TFI was significantly different between countries; Uruguay and Argentina had higher values than Mexico and Brazil. In the former, plain water contributed to only 25% of TFI, the remainder being predominantly from hot beverages. Approximately, a third of adults did not drink enough fluid to meet the recommended AI. High SSB consumption was reported, which was significantly different between countries (p < 0.05), the highest being in Mexico (median 25–75th percentiles): 531 (300–895 mL/day. Conclusions: This survey highlights the need to increase water consumption and reduce SSB intake in this region to avoid potential associated health risks. These findings may be useful information in monitoring public health policy strategies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Martinez, H., Morin, C., Gandy, J., Carmuega, E., Arredondo, J. L., Pimentel, C., … Guelinckx, I. (2018). Fluid intake of Latin American adults: results of four 2016 Liq.In7 national cross-sectional surveys. European Journal of Nutrition, 57, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-018-1724-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free