Effects of long-term intervention with low- and high-glycaemic-index breakfasts on food intake in children aged 8-11 years

25Citations
Citations of this article
65Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of long-term intervention of low-glycaemic-index (GI) v. high-GI breakfasts on energy and macronutrient intakes in children aged 8-11 years. Preadolescent children were assigned to one of two groups in a random cross-over design. Each group was given low-GI and high-GI breakfasts on two non-consecutive days per week for 10 weeks per breakfast type. Each breakfast provided approximately 1273 kJ (300 kcal) and was closely matched for macronutrient and dietary fibre content. Subsequent food intake at an ad libitum buffet lunch was recorded and daily energy and macronutrient intakes were measured by 24 h recall and 3 d food diaries. There was a tendency towards a reduced energy intake at lunch following the low-GI breakfast compared with the high-GI breakfast, although the mean difference of 75 kJ (18 kcal) was not significant (P = 0.406). In particular, there was a trend towards a reduced energy intake in the low-GI arm compared with the high-GI arm among boys. In addition, data from the 3 d food diaries showed that there was a tendency towards a reduced energy intake during the low-GI compared with the high-GI study period. In conclusion, although the difference in energy intake following the low-GI and high-GI breakfasts was not statistically significant, the reduced energy intake following the low-GI breakfast is encouraging. Both dietary fibre and carbohydrate type may affect GI, thus their potential and relative modulating effect on appetite requires further investigation. © The Authors 2007.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Henry, C. J. K., Lightowler, H. J., & Strik, C. M. (2007). Effects of long-term intervention with low- and high-glycaemic-index breakfasts on food intake in children aged 8-11 years. British Journal of Nutrition, 98(3), 636–640. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114507727459

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free