| Literature DB >> 32283829 |
Branda Yee-Man Yu1, Wing-Fai Yeung1, Yuan-Shan Ho1, Fiona Yan Yee Ho2, Ka Fai Chung3, Regina Lai Tong Lee4, Mei Yuk Lam5, Shucheng Chen1.
Abstract
Later chronotypes have been found to be associated with unhealthy diets in adolescents and adults, but no study has been conducted in children. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations between the chronotypes and dietary patterns of school-aged children. Children aged 7-11 and their parents were recruited from five mainstream schools in Hong Kong. The parents were told to complete questionnaires on the children's circadian preferences, food frequency, and dietary behaviors. All of the questionnaires were distributed and collected by schoolteachers. No gender differences in chronotype were observed (all p > 0.05). The evening-type was associated with significantly greater odds of viewing television (TV) during meals (adjusted odds ratios (OR) = 5.62 in boys and 5.39 in girls). Evening-oriented boys were prone to skipping breakfast (adjusted OR = 14.78), whereas evening-oriented girls were at risk of consuming fast food (adjusted OR = 7.74). There are indications of some gender differences in chronotype-related eating patterns. Sleep duration and screen time significantly mediated the associations between later chronotypes and unhealthy eating habits. Individualized dietary recommendations in accordance with circadian preferences may be effective at promoting healthy and nutritious diets for school-aged children.Entities:
Keywords: chrono-nutrition; circadian rhythm; dietary habits; eating patterns; eveningness; morningness
Year: 2020 PMID: 32283829 PMCID: PMC7177399 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17072583
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Socio-Demographic information of the included children and their families, by sex (N = 496).
| Boys ( | Girls ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M-Type | N-Type | E-Type | M-Type | N-Type | E-Type | |||
|
| ||||||||
|
| 9.5 ± 1.0 | 9.1 ± 1.1 | 9.4 ± 0.9 | 0.13 | 9.0 ± 1.0 | 9.3 ± 1.1 | 9.4 ± 1.1 | 0.31 |
|
| 18 (58.1) | 107 (62.2) | 36 (63.2) | 0.89 | 14 (63.6) | 96 (64.4) | 38 (65.5) | 0.98 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 2:02 ± 0:35 | 2:32 ± 0:35 | 2:52 ± 0:32 | <0.001 | 2:05 ± 0:37 | 2:32 ± 0:35 | 2:51 ± 0:33 | <0.001 |
|
| 2:50 ± 1:13 | 3:41 ± 0:52 | 4:15 ± 1:04 | <0.001 | 2:57 ± 0:45 | 3:50 ± 0:52 | 4:31 ± 1:10 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 550 ± 35 | 530 ± 50 | 510 ± 54 | <0.001 | 540 ± 48 | 520 ± 45 | 495 ± 53 | 0.001 |
|
| 580 ± 80 | 580 ± 70 | 605 ± 73 | 0.43 | 585 ± 80 | 592.5 ± 80 | 607.5 ± 83 | 0.08 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 11 (35.5) | 61 (35.3) | 18 (31.6) | 0.87 | 5 (21.7) | 46 (29.9) | 14 (24.1) | 0.57 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 6 (20.0) | 36 (20.9) | 12 (21.4) | 0.99 | 5 (22.7) | 37 (24.2) | 9 (15.5) | 0.40 |
|
| 24 (80.0) | 136 (79.1) | 44 (78.6) | 17 (77.3) | 116 (75.8) | 49 (84.5) | ||
|
| 43.3 ± 7.9 | 40.4 ± 7.0 | 41.5 ± 6.2 | 0.09 | 40.9 ± 6.3 | 40.6 ± 6.1 | 39.5 ± 6.4 | 0.47 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 24 (80.0) | 144 (85.2) | 46 (85.2) | 0.76 | 19 (86.4) | 127 (84.1) | 48 (84.2) | 0.96 |
|
| 6 (20.0) | 25 (14.8) | 8 (14.8) | 3 (13.6) | 24 (15.9) | 9 (15.8) | ||
|
| ||||||||
|
| 20 (66.7) | 122 (73.5) | 39 (70.9) | 0.73 | 12 (54.5) | 115 (76.7) | 43 (75.4) | 0.08 |
|
| 10 (33.3) | 44 (26.5) | 16 (29.1) | 10 (45.5) | 35 (23.3) | 14 (24.6) | ||
|
| ||||||||
|
| 10 (34.5) | 74 (43.8) | 29 (52.7) | 0.26 | 11 (52.4) | 80 (53.7) | 24 (42.1) | 0.33 |
|
| 19 (65.5) | 95 (56.2) | 26 (47.3) | 10 (47.6) | 69 (46.3) | 33 (57.9) | ||
|
| ||||||||
|
| 17 (56.7) | 121 (72.9) | 31 (56.4) | 0.10 | 15 (83.3) | 101 (68.7) | 35 (62.5) | 0.19 |
|
| 8 (26.7) | 33 (19.9) | 17 (30.9) | 0 (0.0) | 32 (21.8) | 14 (25.0) | ||
|
| 5 (16.7) | 12 (7.2) | 7 (12.7) | 3 (16.7) | 14 (9.5) | 7 (12.5) | ||
M-type, morning-type; N-type, intermediate-type; E-type, evening-type. Data were presented as median ± inter-quartile range or number (percentage) and were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test or chi-square test.
The Differences in specific eating habits across chronotypes.
| Boys ( | Girls ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M-Type ( | N-Type ( | E-Type ( | M-Type ( | N-Type ( | E-Type ( | |||
| More consumption of fruits & vegetables # | 10 (32.3) | 25 (14.5) | 6 (10.5) | 0.02 | 6 (26.1) | 35 (22.7) | 11 (19.3) | 0.78 |
| Regular breakfast | 28 (90.3) | 139 (80.3) | 43 (75.4) | 0.24 | 18 (78.3) | 133 (86.4) | 41 (70.7) | 0.03 |
| Skip breakfast/ small breakfast | 1 (3.2) | 32 (18.5) | 18 (31.6) | 0.005 | 2 (8.7) | 18 (11.7) | 26 (44.8) | 0.001 |
| Habit of going out for dinner | 0 (0.0) | 18 (10.4) | 7 (12.3) | 0.14 | 4 (17.4) | 26 (16.9) | 8 (13.8) | 0.85 |
| Tv viewing during mealtimes | 10 (32.3) | 87 (50.3) | 42 (73.7) | <0.001 | 4 (17.4) | 75 (48.7) | 38 (65.5) | <0.001 |
| Excess consumption of sugar | 2 (6.5) | 21 (12.1) | 12 (21.1) | 0.11 | 2 (8.7) | 18 (11.7) | 16 (27.6) | 0.01 |
| Fast food consumption | 23 (74.2) | 140 (80.9) | 52 (91.2) | 0.09 | 10 (43.5) | 123 (79.9) | 50 (86.2) | <0.001 |
| Nighttime snack consumption # | 9 (29.0) | 32 (18.7) | 18 (32.1) | 0.08 | 9 (40.9) | 38 (24.7) | 18 (31.6) | 0.22 |
M-type, morning-type; N-type, intermediate-type; E-type, evening-type. Data were presented as median ± interquartile range or number (percentage) and were compared using a Chi-Square test. # There were 234 girls who reported their fruit and vegetable intake and 258 boys and 233 girls who responded to the item on nighttime snack consumption.
Factors associated with specific dietary variables by multivariate logistic analysis in boys and girls #.
| Boys | Girls | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | ||||
|
| |||||
| Chronotype | Chronotype Ψ | ||||
| N-type | 0.39 (0.14, 0.94) | 0.04 | N-type | 0.83 (0.31, 2.28) | 0.72 |
| E-type | 0.32 (0.10, 1.04) | 0.06 | E-type | 0.68 (0.22, 2.12) | 0.50 |
| TST-Sch D | 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) | 0.10 | |||
|
| |||||
| Chronotype Ψ | Chronotype | ||||
| N-type | 0.44 (0.13, 1.53) | 0.20 | N-type | 1.07 (0.22, 5.23) | 0.93 |
| E-type | 0.33 (0.09, 1.25) | 0.10 | E-type | 0.47 (0.09, 2.44) | 0.37 |
| Long screen time ^ | 0.35 (0.15, 0.81) | 0.01 | |||
|
| |||||
| Chronotype | Chronotype | ||||
| N-type | 6.68 (0.87, 51.45) | 0.07 | N-type | 1.71 (0.21, 14.12) | 0.62 |
| E-type | 14.78 (1.83, 119.14) | 0.01 | E-type | 7.95 (0.95, 66.68) | 0.06 |
| First-born child | 2.82 (1.15, 6.92) | 0.02 | Long screen time ^ | 2.46 (1.06, 5.70) | 0.04 |
| Only child | 1.45 (0.69, 3.06) | 0.33 | TST-Sch D | 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) | 0.002 |
|
| |||||
| Chronotype * | Chronotype Ψ | ||||
| N-type | N/A | N/A | N-type | 0.97 (0.30, 3.07) | 0.95 |
| E-type | N/A | N/A | E-type | 0.76 (0.21, 2.82) | 0.68 |
|
| |||||
| Chronotype | Chronotype | ||||
| N-type | 1.66 (0.68, 4.09) | 0.27 | N-type | 2.79 (0.85, 9.12) | 0.09 |
| E-type | 5.62 (1.92, 16.42) | 0.002 | E-type | 5.39 (0.27, 0.99) | 0.01 |
| More educated carers | 0.45 (0.24, 0.82) | 0.01 | More educated carers | 0.51 (0.27, 0.99) | 0.048 |
| Long screen time ^ | 2.45 (1.41, 4.26) | 0.002 | Long screen time ^ | 2.15 (1.21, 3.81) | 0.009 |
|
| |||||
| Chronotype Ψ | Chronotype | ||||
| N-type | 2.00 (0.45, 9.01) | 0.37 | N-type | 0.91 (0.19, 4.46) | 0.91 |
| E-type | 3.87 (0.81, 18.55) | 0.09 | E-type | 2.05 (0.39, 10.70) | 0.40 |
| Long screen Time ^ | 3.51 (1.43, 8.61) | 0.006 | |||
| TST-Sch D | 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) | 1.00 | |||
|
| |||||
| Chronotype | Chronotype | ||||
| N-type | 1.55 (0.61, 3.92) | 0.36 | N-type | 5.50 (2.05, 14.80) | 0.001 |
| E-type | 3.18 (0.91, 11.16) | 0.07 | E-type | 7.74 (2.37, 25.24) | 0.001 |
| Long screen time ^ | 2.44 (1.22, 4.89) | 0.01 | Long screen Time ^ | 1.67 (0.86, 3.26) | 0.13 |
|
| |||||
| Chronotype Ψ | Chronotype | ||||
| N-type | 0.56 (0.24, 1.34) | 0.19 | N-type | 0.43 (0.17, 1.10) | 0.08 |
| E-type | 1.16 (0.45, 3.02) | 0.76 | E-type | 0.50 (0.17, 1.45) | 0.20 |
| TST-Sch D | 0.99 (0.99, 1.00) | 0.03 | |||
OR, Odds ratio; CI, Confidence interval; N-type, intermediate-type; E-type, evening-type; TST-Sch D, Total sleep time in scheduled days. # Only significant covariates were presented and controlled in the multivariate analyses. Ψ Presented univariate analyses because there was no identified confounder. ^ Outliers were excluded from the analyses. * Analysis could not be performed because one of the cells was reported to be 0.