Cioffi · Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2018 · cross-sectional survey analysis · n=4179

Added Sugar Intake among Pregnant Women in the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2012.

Cited 35 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional survey analysis of population data

PubMed 29325892 · doi:10.1016/j.jand.2017.10.021 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Cross-sectional analysis of dietary recall data from 4,179 pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 20 to 39 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004 to 2011-2012. Survey-weighted analyses estimated mean added sugar intake in grams and as a percentage of total energy, compared intake by pregnancy status and demographic subgroups, and identified major dietary sources.

What was found

Pregnant women consumed an average of 85.1 g/day (95% CI: 77.4 to 92.7) of added sugar versus 76.7 g/day (95% CI: 73.6 to 79.9) in nonpregnant women (P=0.06). As a percentage of total energy, added sugar intake was lower in pregnant women at 14.8% (95% CI: 13.8 to 15.7) compared with 15.9% (95% CI: 15.2 to 16.6) in nonpregnant women (P=0.03). Both groups exceeded the recommended limit of <10% total energy. Pregnancy status modified the associations of education and income with intake: less educated and lower-income pregnant women had lower added sugar intakes than nonpregnant peers, but higher-income or more educated women did not differ. The top five sources of added sugar for all women were sugar-sweetened beverages; cakes, cookies, and pastries; sugars and sweets; juice drinks and smoothies; and milk-based desserts.

Why it matters

This study provides representative national estimates showing that while pregnant women derive a slightly lower proportion of total calories from added sugars than nonpregnant women, their absolute and relative consumption substantially exceeds recommended limits.

Limits

Dietary recall relies on self-report, which is susceptible to recall bias and underreporting. The cross-sectional design cannot assess longitudinal dietary changes across trimesters or link consumption patterns directly to maternal or neonatal clinical outcomes.

Cited by