Search

Postprandial glycaemia and insulinaemia are important risk factors for type 2 diabetes. The prevalence of insulin resistance in adolescents is increasing, but it is unknown how adolescent participant characteristics such as BMI, waist circumference, fitness and maturity offset may explain responses to a standard meal. The aim of the present study was to examine how such participant characteristics affect the postprandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to an ecologically valid mixed meal. Data from the control trials of three separate randomised, crossover experiments were pooled, resulting in a total of 108 participants (fifty-two boys, fifty-six girls; aged 12·5 (SD 0·6) years; BMI 19·05 (SD 2·66) kg/m2). A fasting blood sample was taken for the calculation of fasting insulin resistance, using the homoeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Further capillary blood samples were taken before and 30, 60 and 120 min after a standardised lunch, providing 1·5 g/kg body mass of carbohydrate, for the quantification of blood glucose and plasma insulin total AUC (tAUC). Hierarchical multiple linear regression demonstrated significant predictors for plasma insulin tAUC were waist circumference, physical fitness and HOMA-IR (F(3,98) = 36·78, P < 0·001, adjusted R2 = 0·515). The variance in blood glucose tAUC was not significantly explained by the predictors used (F(7,94) = 1·44, P = 0·198). Significant predictors for HOMA-IR were BMI and maturity offset (F(2,102) = 14·06, P < 0·001, adjusted R2 = 0·021). In summary, the key findings of the study are that waist circumference, followed by physical fitness, best explained the insulinaemic response to an ecologically valid standardised meal in adolescents. This has important behavioural consequences because these variables can be modified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been suggested that a low-glycaemic index (GI) breakfast may be beneficial for some elements of cognitive function (e.g. memory and attention), but the effects are not clear, especially in adolescents. Thus, the aim of the present study was to examine the effects of a low-GI breakfast, a high-GI breakfast and breakfast omission on cognitive function in adolescents. A total of fifty-two adolescents aged 12–14 years were recruited to participate in the study. Participants consumed a low-GI breakfast, a high-GI breakfast or omitted breakfast. A battery of cognitive function tests was completed 30 and 120 min following breakfast consumption and capillary blood samples were taken during the 120 min postprandial period. The findings show that there was a greater improvement in response times following a low-GI breakfast, compared with breakfast omission on the Stroop (P = 0·009) and Flanker (P = 0·041) tasks, and compared with a high-GI breakfast on the Sternberg paradigm (P = 0·013). Furthermore, accuracy on all three tests was better maintained on the low-GI trial compared with the high-GI (Stroop: P = 0·039; Sternberg: P = 0·018; Flanker: P = 0·014) and breakfast omission (Stroop: P < 0·001; Sternberg: P = 0·050; Flanker: P = 0·014) trials. Following the low-GI breakfast, participants displayed a lower glycaemic response (P < 0·001) than following the high-GI breakfast, but there was no difference in the insulinaemic response (P = 0·063) between the high- and low-GI breakfasts. Therefore, we conclude that a low-GI breakfast is most beneficial for adolescents' cognitive function, compared with a high-GI breakfast or breakfast omission. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]