## 3 Results  
High intake of SSBs was defined as \(\geq\)55g/day intake and the recommended limit as \(\leq\)55 g/day sugar by SA-FBDG, which is equivalent to 6-10% of total energy intake [30]. As shown in Table 1, below, females showed higher significant mean values of log WC (\(p\) = 0.0053) and TG (\(p\) = 0.034) on all SSBs quartiles compared to males. Moreover, females had a significant mean value of DBP (\(p\) = 0.034), although this mean value was lower compared to that of males. Meanwhile, males reported no significant mean difference on any MetS components for all SSBs quartiles, only showing a significant mean value of log fructose in the SSB quartiles (\(p\) = 0.008). Based on the cut-offs used in this study together with the SSB intake recommendation limit by the SA-FBG [30] both Q1 and Q2 represent or fall under lower or recommended SSBs intakes, while Q3 and Q4 represent higher SSB intake. High SSBs is defined by SA-FBDG as \(\geq\)55 g/day, and the recommended limit as \(\leq\)55 g/day intake of sugar [30]. As illustrated in Figure 1, males had higher SSB Q1 and Q2 (24.8% and 32.9% respectively) which is the recommended added sugar intakes as compared to females (23.6% and 29.6%), whereas females had higher SSBs Q4 (31.3%), which is above the recommended intake for males (26.6%), suggesting higher intake among this gender. As presented in Figure 2, females presented higher FBG (47.4%), reduced HDL-C (69.7%), WC (49%), and TG (7.2%) as compared to males (40.6%, 28.1%, 21.3%, 6.4%, respectively), whereas males presented higher SBP (29.3%) and DBP (5.6%) than females (7.2% and 2.3%, respectively). Figure 1: The prevalence of SSBs consumption was stratified by quartile among Ellisras young rural adults aged 22–30 years. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Males**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Females**} \\ \cline{2-13}
**Variables** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**SSB Quantiles M \(\pm\) SD**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**SSB Quantiles M \(\pm\) SD**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**SSB Quantiles M \(\pm\) SD**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Q\({}_{\rm B}\) = 19**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Q\({}_{\rm B}\) = 40**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Q\({}_{\rm B}\) = 56**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Q\({}_{\rm B}\) = 104**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**\(p\)-Value**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Q\({}_{\rm B}\) = 40**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Q\({}_{\rm B}\) = 56**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Q\({}_{\rm B}\) = 104**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\  & **Q1 = 19** & **Q2 = 77** & **Q3 = 00** & **Q4 = 40** & **Q1 = 18** & **Q2 = 87** & **Q3 = 03** & **Q4 = 57** & **Q5 = 04** & **Q5 = 05** \\ \hline Age (years) & 23.65 \(\pm\) 2.03 & 23.66 \(\pm\) 1.91 & 23.40 \(\pm\) 1.92 & 23.57 \(\pm\) 1.99 & 0.831 & 23.89 \(\pm\) 2.00 & 23.81 \(\pm\) 2.08 & 23.97 \(\pm\) 2.13 & 23.37 \(\pm\) 2.05 & 0.608 \\ Log & \(-0.01\pm 0.67\) & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.72 & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.64 & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.80 & 0.008 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.63 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.069 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.53 & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 0.128 \\ Log & \(0.33\pm 0.83\) & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.82 & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.76 & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 0.564 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 0.16 \(\pm\) 0.82 & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.83 & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.85 & 0.374 \\ Log & \(-0.03\pm 0.70\) & 0.16 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.90 & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.50 & 0.564 & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.63 & 0.580 \\ FRG & & & & & & & & & & \\ mmol/L & 51.5 \(\pm\) 0.77 & 5.40 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 5.18 \(\pm\) 0.79 & 5.42 \(\pm\) 0.85 & 0.177 & 5.50 \(\pm\) 0.88 & 5.51 \(\pm\) 0.82 & 5.71 \(\pm\) 0.72 & 5.42 \(\pm\) 0.96 & 0.439 \\ HDL-C & 1.24 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.29 & 1.20 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 1.20 \(\pm\) 0.30 & 0.497 & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 1.09 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 1.01 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 1.15 \(\pm\) 0.31 & 0.067 \\ Log WC (cm) & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.51 & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.51 & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.3 As shown in Table 2, males had no significant mean difference in any of the MetS components with SSBs quartile (\(p>0.05\)).