Cross-sectional analysis shows snack quality and energy density affect diet quality and metabolic health in adolescents, indicating the need for healthier snack strategies.
To examine the association between snack characteristics (snack frequency, snack energy density (ED) and snack nutritional quality) with diet quality and cardiometabolic risks among U.S. adolescents from the 2009-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Cross-sectional dietary data collected using a 24-hour dietary recall from the 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1,999 boys and 1,897 girls aged 12–19 years) were analysed. Associations between snack characteristics with diet quality, fasting blood glucose, triglyceride, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, blood pressure, waist circumference, metabolic syndrome risk score using multiple linear regression, were analysed stratified by sex. Higher snack nutritional quality (β [95% CI]: boys 0.31 [0.09, 0.52]; girls 0.44 [0.30, 0.57]) was linked to better overall diet quality, whereas snack ED excluding beverages (β [95% CI]: boys –1.82 [–2.52, –1.12]; girls –1.75 [–2.69, –0.82]) was linked to poorer overall diet quality. Among girls, higher snack frequency was associated with lower waist circumference and lower fasting blood glucose (-0.67 [-1.28, -0.05]). Additionally, higher snack ED and nutritional quality was associated with lower waist circumference and triglycerides, respectively. No associations between snack characteristics and cardiometabolic indicators or metabolic syndrome risk score were observed for boys. Findings suggest strategies to improve adolescent snack nutritional quality and ED may improve overall diet quality. However, limited associations were observed between snack characteristics and cardiometabolic risk indicators among girls only. Prospective studies are needed to further investigate the relationship between snack characteristics and adolescent health outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sisay et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: