Study analysis · Roczniki Panstwowego Zakladu Higieny · 2025
Thai students drinking iced milk tea are packing on dangerous belly fat — and women are hit twice as hard.
The more sweet tea Thai college students drink, the more fat builds up around their insides — especially for women.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
In simple terms
This study looked at a group of college students and found that those who drank more sugary drinks also tended to have more body fat. But it didn't watch them over time, so we don't know if the drinks made them fat, or if fat people just liked sugary drinks more. It's like noticing that people who carry umbrellas are wet — but we don't know if the umbrella caused the wetness or if rain caused both.
What’s the bottom line?
This study looked at college students in Thailand who drink sugary drinks like iced milk tea every day and found that the more sugar they drank, the more fat built up around their insides.
How strong is this study?
The researchers tried to be careful by measuring things the same way for everyone and using a good tool to check body fat. But they only asked students what they ate, which can be wrong, and they didn't follow them over time. So while the numbers look real, we can't be totally sure the results are because of the drinks — other things might be involved.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
21 / 100
- Randomizationnot randomized
- Blindingblinding unclear
- Control groupno control group
- Sample size (n=387)+17.1/20
- Follow-upno follow-up reported
100 / 100
54 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervalsno confidence intervals
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 544 / 100
Probability of being correct
Snapshots of a population at a single point in time, or descriptions of small groups. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine cause and effect.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. This is a cross-sectional study, which measures exposure and outcome at the same time. It cannot determine whether sugar-sweetened beverage consumption happened before or after changes in body fat, so it cannot prove causation.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts of interest or funding sources are disclosed in the study text; all authors are affiliated with Walailak University, and no industry ties or external funding are mentioned.
The study is conducted entirely by university-affiliated researchers with no mention of external funding, industry partnerships, or conflict of interest disclosures. While the absence of a COI statement is notable, there is also no evidence of industry influence or bias. The study appears to be academically initiated and conducted without apparent external financial interests.
Key takeaways
- 01
Students who drank more than 24g of sugar from drinks daily had 83% higher chance of dangerous belly fat, 2.1kg more fat mass, and 1.3 higher BMI than those who drank less.
- 02
Obese students drank 34g/day, and women with high belly fat had BMI over 41 — way higher than men with same fat level.
- 03
Yes — this level of belly fat increases risk for diabetes and heart disease, and the sugar intake is far above WHO’s 24g/day limit.
Surprising findings
- Women with the same level of visceral fat as men had a BMI nearly 11 points higher — 41.2 vs. 30.1.Most assume visceral fat correlates similarly with BMI across genders, but this shows women’s bodies compensate for visceral fat by storing far more subcutaneous fat — making them appear much heavier despite similar internal fat levels.
- Participants with visceral fat above 9 consumed nearly 50g of sugar daily from SSBs — almost double the WHO limit of 24g.People think ‘a couple of sweet teas a day’ is harmless, but this study shows those with dangerous belly fat were drinking over twice the recommended daily sugar limit — just from drinks.
Practical takeaways
Swap one daily iced milk tea for unsweetened iced tea or water — cutting just 20g of sugar/day could reduce your visceral fat risk.
This study was done on Thai university students — cultural beverage habits may not translate directly to other populations.
medium confidenceWhy this study matters
Iced Milk Tea Is the Sugar Bomb
Sweetened tea — especially freshly prepared iced milk tea — was the top source of sugar, with high-risk individuals consuming an average of 42.2g/day from it alone. Those with visceral fat levels above 9 consumed nearly double the sugar (49.7g/day) compared to those with normal levels (26.9g/day).
Most people think soda is the main culprit, but in Thailand, trendy iced tea drinks are the real sugar offenders — and they’re often sold at street stalls with no label or sugar control.
Women’s Bodies Store Fat Differently
Women with visceral fat levels above 10 had a staggering BMI of 41.2 kg/m² — nearly 11 points higher than men with the same fat level (30.1 kg/m²). This suggests women accumulate more overall body fat when visceral fat rises.
It’s not just about weight — it’s about where and how fat is stored. This finding challenges the idea that men and women respond to sugar the same way — and could explain why women face higher obesity-related risks even at lower sugar intakes.
Sugar Intake Rises with Obesity — Not the Other Way Around?
Sugar intake from SSBs climbed steadily: underweight students consumed 25.2g/day, normal weight 28.8g, overweight 32.2g, and obese students 34.0g/day — showing a clear dose-response pattern.
This flips the script: it’s not just that fat people drink more sugar — it’s that sugar intake increases as weight climbs, suggesting a feedback loop where sugary drinks fuel weight gain, which then drives more cravings.
Want the whole report?
Detailed mode opens the full scientific breakdown — every score component, the methodology, conflicts of interest, the evidence analysis behind each claim, and the raw study data.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
This study looked at college students in Thailand who drink sugary drinks like iced milk tea every day and found that the more sugar they drank, the more fat built up around their insides.
Research results
Students who drank more than 24g of sugar from drinks daily had 83% higher chance of dangerous belly fat, 2.1kg more fat mass, and 1.3 higher BMI than those who drank less. Obese students drank 34g/day, and women with high belly fat had BMI over 41 — way higher than men with same fat level.
What this means - more context
Yes — this level of belly fat increases risk for diabetes and heart disease, and the sugar intake is far above WHO’s 24g/day limit.
This study examined the association between sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and visceral fat accumulation in Thai university students aged 19–22.
High SSB intake (≥24 g/day sugar) was significantly associated with increased visceral fat (VFL > 9 in 83.3% of high consumers), higher fat mass (16.9 kg vs. 14.8 kg), elevated BMI (22.6 vs. 21.3 kg/m²), and a dose-response relationship with BMI categories. Sweetened tea, especially iced milk tea, was the primary SSB source. Females with VFL > 10 had markedly higher BMI (41.2 kg/m²) than males (30.1 kg/m²).
Methods Used
Cross-sectional study of 387 Thai university students aged 19–22; SSB sugar intake measured via 3-day, 24-hour dietary recall; body composition (BMI, fat mass, visceral fat level) assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis; statistical analyses included t-tests and linear regression.
Main Finding
High SSB consumption (≥24 g/day sugar) is strongly associated with elevated visceral fat (VFL > 9 in 83.3% of high consumers vs. 16.7% of low consumers), increased fat mass (16.9 kg vs. 14.8 kg), and higher BMI (22.6 vs. 21.3 kg/m²), with sugar intake rising from 25.2 g/day in underweight to 34.0 g/day in obese students.
Confidence Level
Moderate — findings are statistically significant (p < 0.05) and consistent across multiple metrics, but cross-sectional design limits causal inference and self-reported dietary data may introduce bias.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Cross-sectional design — cannot prove causation
- •Self-reported dietary intake — prone to recall bias
- •No adjustment for physical activity or total calorie intake in analysis
Surprising Findings
Women with the same level of visceral fat as men had a BMI nearly 11 points higher — 41.2 vs. 30.1.
Most assume visceral fat correlates similarly with BMI across genders, but this shows women’s bodies compensate for visceral fat by storing far more subcutaneous fat — making them appear much heavier despite similar internal fat levels.
Practical Takeaways
Swap one daily iced milk tea for unsweetened iced tea or water — cutting just 20g of sugar/day could reduce your visceral fat risk.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 544 / 100
Probability of being correct
Snapshots of a population at a single point in time, or descriptions of small groups. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine cause and effect.
Human Cross-Sectional
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study looked at a group of college students and found that those who drank more sugary drinks also tended to have more body fat. But it didn't watch them over time, so we don't know if the drinks made them fat, or if fat people just liked sugary drinks more. It's like noticing that people who carry umbrellas are wet — but we don't know if the umbrella caused the wetness or if rain caused both.
No conflicts of interest were detected in this study. No score impact.
Strengths
- Use of validated 3-day dietary recall for SSB intake assessment
- Standardized bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition
- Clear statistical analysis with appropriate tests (t-tests, regression, correlation)
Weaknesses
- Cross-sectional design prevents determination of temporal sequence
- No control group or randomization
- Self-reported dietary data subject to recall and social desirability bias
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
This study looked at college students in Thailand who drink sugary drinks like iced milk tea every day and found that the more sugar they drank, the more fat built up around their insides.
Research results
Students who drank more than 24g of sugar from drinks daily had 83% higher chance of dangerous belly fat, 2.1kg more fat mass, and 1.3 higher BMI than those who drank less. Obese students drank 34g/day, and women with high belly fat had BMI over 41 — way higher than men with same fat level.
What this means - more context
Yes — this level of belly fat increases risk for diabetes and heart disease, and the sugar intake is far above WHO’s 24g/day limit.
This study examined the association between sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and visceral fat accumulation in Thai university students aged 19–22.
High SSB intake (≥24 g/day sugar) was significantly associated with increased visceral fat (VFL > 9 in 83.3% of high consumers), higher fat mass (16.9 kg vs. 14.8 kg), elevated BMI (22.6 vs. 21.3 kg/m²), and a dose-response relationship with BMI categories. Sweetened tea, especially iced milk tea, was the primary SSB source. Females with VFL > 10 had markedly higher BMI (41.2 kg/m²) than males (30.1 kg/m²).
Methods Used
Cross-sectional study of 387 Thai university students aged 19–22; SSB sugar intake measured via 3-day, 24-hour dietary recall; body composition (BMI, fat mass, visceral fat level) assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis; statistical analyses included t-tests and linear regression.
Main Finding
High SSB consumption (≥24 g/day sugar) is strongly associated with elevated visceral fat (VFL > 9 in 83.3% of high consumers vs. 16.7% of low consumers), increased fat mass (16.9 kg vs. 14.8 kg), and higher BMI (22.6 vs. 21.3 kg/m²), with sugar intake rising from 25.2 g/day in underweight to 34.0 g/day in obese students.
Confidence Level
Moderate — findings are statistically significant (p < 0.05) and consistent across multiple metrics, but cross-sectional design limits causal inference and self-reported dietary data may introduce bias.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Cross-sectional design — cannot prove causation
- •Self-reported dietary intake — prone to recall bias
- •No adjustment for physical activity or total calorie intake in analysis
Surprising Findings
Women with the same level of visceral fat as men had a BMI nearly 11 points higher — 41.2 vs. 30.1.
Most assume visceral fat correlates similarly with BMI across genders, but this shows women’s bodies compensate for visceral fat by storing far more subcutaneous fat — making them appear much heavier despite similar internal fat levels.
Practical Takeaways
Swap one daily iced milk tea for unsweetened iced tea or water — cutting just 20g of sugar/day could reduce your visceral fat risk.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 544 / 100
Probability of being correct
Snapshots of a population at a single point in time, or descriptions of small groups. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine cause and effect.
Human Cross-Sectional
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study looked at a group of college students and found that those who drank more sugary drinks also tended to have more body fat. But it didn't watch them over time, so we don't know if the drinks made them fat, or if fat people just liked sugary drinks more. It's like noticing that people who carry umbrellas are wet — but we don't know if the umbrella caused the wetness or if rain caused both.
No conflicts of interest were detected in this study. No score impact.
Strengths
- Use of validated 3-day dietary recall for SSB intake assessment
- Standardized bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition
- Clear statistical analysis with appropriate tests (t-tests, regression, correlation)
Weaknesses
- Cross-sectional design prevents determination of temporal sequence
- No control group or randomization
- Self-reported dietary data subject to recall and social desirability bias
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Scoring
How strong is this study?
The researchers tried to be careful by measuring things the same way for everyone and using a good tool to check body fat. But they only asked students what they ate, which can be wrong, and they didn't follow them over time. So while the numbers look real, we can't be totally sure the results are because of the drinks — other things might be involved.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
21 / 100
- Randomizationnot randomized
- Blindingblinding unclear
- Control groupno control group
- Sample size (n=387)+17.1/20
- Follow-upno follow-up reported
100 / 100
54 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervalsno confidence intervals
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 544 / 100
Probability of being correct
Snapshots of a population at a single point in time, or descriptions of small groups. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine cause and effect.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. This is a cross-sectional study, which measures exposure and outcome at the same time. It cannot determine whether sugar-sweetened beverage consumption happened before or after changes in body fat, so it cannot prove causation.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts of interest or funding sources are disclosed in the study text; all authors are affiliated with Walailak University, and no industry ties or external funding are mentioned.
The study is conducted entirely by university-affiliated researchers with no mention of external funding, industry partnerships, or conflict of interest disclosures. While the absence of a COI statement is notable, there is also no evidence of industry influence or bias. The study appears to be academically initiated and conducted without apparent external financial interests.
Standing
Who’s using this study?
The videos and claims on this site that lean on this study, and the researchers who wrote it.
1 video from Thomas DeLauer cite this study, drawing 1 claim from it.
- Strong evidence
At least some randomized or controlled trials support this claim.
Evidence
Authored by
3 researchersIf this is your work, this is how we attribute it on Fit Body Science. Phisit Pouyfung is listed as the lead author.