Cited by 189Nutritional Studies and DietCoffee research and impactsDiet, Metabolism, and Disease

Soda consumption and the risk of stroke in men and women

Open access
Bernstein, Adam M, de Koning, Lawrence, Flint, Alan J, Rexrode, Kathryn M, Willett, Walter C·2012·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background Consumption of sugar-sweetened soda has been associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic disease. The relation with cerebrovascular disease has not yet been closely examined.Objective Our objective was to examine patterns of soda consumption and substitution of alternative beverages for soda in relation to stroke risk.Design The Nurses' Health Study, a prospective cohort study of 84,085 women followed for 28 y (1980-2008), and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, a prospective cohort study of 43,371 men followed for 22 y (1986-2008), provided data on soda consumption and incident stroke.Results We documented 1416 strokes in men during 841,770 person-years of follow-up and 2938 strokes in women during 2,188,230 person-years of follow-up. The pooled RR of total stroke for ≥ 1 serving of sugar-sweetened soda/d, compared with none, was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.34). The pooled RR of total stroke for ≥ 1 serving of low-calorie soda/d, compared with none, was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.28). Compared with 1 serving of sugar-sweetened soda/d, 1 serving of decaffeinated coffee/d was associated with a 10% (95% CI: 1%, 19%) lower risk of stroke and 1 serving of caffeinated coffee/d with a 9% (95% CI: 0%, 17%) lower risk. Similar estimated reductions in risk were seen for substitution of caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee for low-calorie soda.Conclusions Greater consumption of sugar-sweetened and low-calorie sodas was associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke. This risk may be reduced by substituting alternative beverages for soda.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3945/ajcn.111.030205

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bray GA. How bad is fructose? Am J Clin Nutr 2007;86(4):895-6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bernstein, A. M., de Koning, L., Flint, A. J., Rexrode, K. M., & Willett, W. C.
Affiliations
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-05
Volume
95
Issue
5
Pages
1190-1199
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097155006
Cited by
189
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 3
FWCI
17.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institutes of Health (CA055075)
  • National Cancer Institute (U19CA055075, P01CA087969)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diet, Metabolism, and Disease
Keywords
stroke risk, beverage substitution, decaffeinated coffee, caffeinated coffee, cerebrovascular disease, cardiometabolic disease, Nurses' Health Study, Health Professionals Follow-up Study
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Energy Intake, Carbonated Beverages, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Sweetening Agents, Multivariate Analysis, Proportional Hazards Models, Dietary Sucrose, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review