↓ Skip to main content

A systematic comparison of sugar content in low-fat vs regular versions of food

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition diabetes, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 387)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
290 tweeters
facebook
18 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
A systematic comparison of sugar content in low-fat vs regular versions of food
Published in
Nutrition diabetes, January 2016
DOI 10.1038/nutd.2015.43
Pubmed ID
Authors

P K Nguyen, S Lin, P Heidenreich

Abstract

Obesity remains a significant public health concern. One of the primary messages from providers and health-care organizations is to eat healthier foods with lower fat. Many in the lay press, however, have suggested that lower fat versions of foods contain more sugar. To our knowledge, a systematic comparison of the sugar content in food with lower fat alternatives has not been performed. In this study, we compared fat free, low fat and regular versions of the same foods using data collected from the USDA National Nutrient Database. We found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than 'regular' versions of tested items (Friedman P=0.00001, Wilcoxon P=0.0002 for low fat vs regular food and P=0.0003 for non-fat vs regular food). Our data support the general belief that food that is lower in fat may contain more sugar.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 290 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 96 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 29%
Student > Master 20 21%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 13 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 307. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2021.
All research outputs
#69,633
of 19,549,916 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition diabetes
#8
of 387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,517
of 360,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition diabetes
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,549,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.