Higher breakfast glycaemic load is associated with increased metabolic syndrome risk, including lower HDL-cholesterol concentrations and increased TAG concentrations, in adolescent girls.

Almost all previous studies examining the associations between glycaemic load (GL) and metabolic syndrome risk have used a daily GL value. The daily value does not distinguish between peaks of GL intake over the day, which may be more closely associated with the risk of the metabolic syndrome. The aim of the present study was to investigate the cross-sectional associations between daily and mealtime measures of GL and metabolic syndrome risk, including metabolic syndrome components, in adolescents. Adolescents participating in the 14-year follow-up of the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort (Raine) Study completed 3 d food records and metabolic assessments. Breakfast GL, lunch GL, dinner GL and a score representing meal GL peaks over the day were determined in 516 adolescents. Logistic regression models were used to investigate whether GL variables were independent predictors of the metabolic syndrome in this population-based cohort (3.5% prevalence of the metabolic syndrome). Breakfast GL was found to be predictive of the metabolic syndrome in girls (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04, 1.27; P <0.01), but not in boys. Other meal GL values and daily GL were found to be not significant predictors of the metabolic syndrome. When breakfast GL was examined in relation to each of the components of the metabolic syndrome in girls, it was found to be negatively associated with fasting HDL-cholesterol concentrations (P= 0.037; ß = - 0.004; 95% CI - 0.008, - 0.002) and positively associated with fasting TAG concentrations (P= 0.008; exp(ß) = 1.002; 95% CI 1.001, 1.004). he results of the present study suggest that there may be an association between breakfast composition and metabolic syndrome components in adolescent girls. These findings support further investigation into including lower-GL foods as part of a healthy breakfast in adolescence, particularly for girls.

Whole-fat dairy products do not adversely affect adiposity or cardiometabolic risk factors in children in the Milky Way Study: a double-blind randomized controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence supports the common public health guideline that children >2 y of age should consume dairy with reduced fat content. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the effects of whole-fat compared with reduced-fat dairy intake on measures of adiposity and biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk in healthy 4- to 6-y-old children. METHODS: The Milky Way Study enrolled 49 children (mean ± SD age: 5.2 ± 0.9 y; 47% girls) who were habitual consumers of whole-fat dairy, then randomly assigned them in a double-blind fashion to remain on whole-fat dairy or switch their dairy consumption to reduced-fat products for 3 mo. Primary endpoints included measures of adiposity, body composition, blood pressure, fasting serum lipids, blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and C-reactive protein (CRP) and were assessed at baseline and study end. Pre- and postintervention results were compared using linear mixed models, adjusted for growth, age, and sex. RESULTS: Dairy fat intake was reduced by an adjusted (mean ± SEM) 12.9 ± 4.1 g/d in the reduced-fat compared with the whole-fat dairy group (95% CI: -21.2, -4.6 g/d; P = 0.003), whereas dietary energy intakes remained similar (P = 0.936). We found no significant differential changes between dairy groups in any measure of adiposity, body composition, blood pressure, or fasting serum lipids, glucose, HbA1c, and CRP. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that although changing from whole-fat to reduced-fat dairy products does reduce dairy fat intake, it does not result in changes to markers of adiposity or cardiometabolic disease risk in healthy children.This trial was registered at www.anzctr.org.au as ACTRN12616001642471.

Using a Respectful Approach to Child-centred Healthcare (ReACH) in a paediatric clinical trial: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing momentum in paediatric ethics to develop respectful research and healthcare protocols. We developed, tested and refined our 'Respectful Approach to Child-centred Healthcare' (ReACH), to underpin respectful participant interactions in a clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a ReACH-based approach is acceptable to children and parents, and effective in obtaining compliance with common healthcare assessments in a clinical trial of healthy 4-6-year-old children. METHODS: ReACH-based child assessments were evaluated at two baseline clinics and one post-intervention, using mixed methods. Children (n = 49; 46.9% female; mean age = 5.24±0.88 years at baseline) and their parents provided independent evaluation, via customised 5-point Likert scales and qualitative feedback. A dedicated child researcher evaluated adherence to the study ReACH principles. RESULTS: Children achieved compliance rates of 95% for body composition (BodPod) assessments; 89% for blood pressure measurements, and 92% (baseline) and 87% (post-intervention) for blood draws. Adherence to ReACH principles during clinic visits was positively associated with child compliance, significantly for baseline BodPod (p = 0.002) and blood test (p = 0.009) clinics. Satisfaction with BodPod protocols was positively associated with compliance, for children at baseline (p = 0.029) and for parents post-intervention (p <0.001). Parents rated the study itself very highly, with 91.7% satisfied at baseline and 100% post-intervention. Qualitative feedback reflected an enjoyable study experience for both parents and children. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to our emerging ReACH approach was associated with high child compliance rates for common healthcare assessments, although no causality can be inferred at this preliminary stage of development. Participants expressed satisfaction with all aspects of the study. Our use of child-centred methods throughout a research intervention appears feasible and acceptable to children and their parents.

Keep Calm and Carry on: Parental Opinions on Improving Clinical Dietary Trials for Young Children.

Recruitment can be an issue for paediatric research. We aimed to investigate parental opinions of paediatric clinical assessments, and to combine findings with recent literature to inform the design of a clinical dietary trial. We used convenience sampling to recruit 17 parents of children aged 2⁻6 years from two community playgroups in Perth, Western Australia. Three focus groups considered proposed child assessments, study design, and potential study enrolment. Qualitative thematic analysis of focus group transcripts used NVivo 11 (QSR, Melbourne, VIC, Australia). Four main parental concerns emerged, presented here with solutions combining parent responses and relevant literature. (1) Parent and child needle fear: a good experience and a good phlebotomist help keep participants calm, and offering additional analysis (e.g., iron status) makes blood tests more worthwhile. (2) Concerns about children's age, stage, understanding and ability to cope: create a themed adventure to help explain concepts and make procedures fun. (3) Persistent misunderstandings involving study purpose, design, randomization and equipoise: provide clear information via multiple platforms, and check understanding before enrolment. (4) Parental decisions to enrol children focused on time commitment, respectful treatment of their child, confronting tests and altruism: child-centred methodologies can help address concerns and keep participants engaged throughout procedures. Addressing the concerns identified could improve participation in a range of paediatric health interventions.