4.5 Article

Shorter sleep duration is associated with higher energy intake and an increase in BMI z-score in young children predisposed to overweight

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 59-64

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2017.216

关键词

-

资金

  1. Tryg Foundation [7984-07, 7106-09, 7-10-0330]
  2. Danish Medical Research Council [271-07-0281]
  3. Health Insurance Foundation [2008B101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Inadequate sleep has been shown to be a contributor to obesity in both children and adults. Less evidence is available for toddlers and among those with higher obesity risk. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between sleep patterns and body weight development in a group of young obesity-predisposed children, and to assess whether intakes of energy or macronutrients mediate this relationship. METHODS: Participants included 368 Danish children aged 2-6 years from the Healthy Start Study, a 1.3 year randomised controlled intervention trial. Sleep habits were measured using a 7-day sleep diary. Multivariate linear regression with adjustment for confounders was used to assess the association of sleep duration and sleep variability with 1.3 year changes (Delta) in body mass index (BMI) z-score from baseline to follow-up. RESULTS: The average nighttime sleep duration was 10.7 h (range 8.8-12.5 h). After controlling for potential confounders, a significant inverse association between nighttime sleep duration and Delta BMI z-score (beta = -0.090, P = 0.046) was observed. This relationship was mediated by energy intake, with all macronutrients contributing to this mediation effect. No associations were found for sleep variability and Delta BMI z-score but baseline intake of added sugars and sugary beverages were positively associated with sleep variability. CONCLUSION: Shorter sleep duration, mediated by energy intake in early in life, seems a risk factor for weight gain among young obesity-predisposed children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据