Breakfast skipping is associated with cyberbullying and school bullying victimization:a school-based cross-sectional study

Breakfast skipping is a health concern that has well-known negative consequences physically and psychologically. It is therefore important to understand why children skip breakfast. The purpose of this study was to establish whether the experience of bullying and cyberbullying impacts upon breakfast skipping and to further evaluate whether the inability for youths to cope with bullying victimization affects their mental health (depression), and in turn predicts breakfast skipping. Data were obtained from the Eastern Ontario 2011 Youth Risk Behaviour Survey, a cross-sectional regional school-based survey of middle and high school students (11-20 years old) across the five counties of Eastern Ontario, Canada (N = 3035). Self-reported data about children's experiences of bullying victimization, breakfast eating habits, socio-economical status, depression, and other risk behaviours were analysed. Approximately half of the participants (50.4%) reported not eating breakfast on a regular basis: 26.3% and 24.1% reported often (usually eat breakfast three times or more per week) and frequent (usually eat breakfast twice a week or less) breakfast skipping behaviour, respectively. Victims of both cyberbullying and school bullying presented greater likelihood of often (adjusted relative risk ratio (RR) = 1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.17-2.06) and frequent (RR = 1.97; 95% CI = 1.28-3.03) breakfast skipping. Mediation analysis further showed that depression fully mediated the relationship between school bullying victimization and frequent breakfast skipping. Moreover, depression partially mediated the associations between both cyberbullying and school bullying with frequent breakfast skipping. These findings highlight the potential interrelationships between cyberbullying, school bullying and depression in predicting unhealthy breakfast skipping behaviour in children. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

Nutritional influences on cognitive function:mechanisms of susceptibility

The impact of nutritional variation, within populations not overtly malnourished, on cognitive function and arousal is considered. The emphasis is on susceptibility to acute effects of meals and glucose loads, and chronic effects of dieting, on mental performance, and effects of cholesterol and vitamin levels on cognitive impairment. New developments in understanding dietary influences on neurohormonal systems, and their implications for cognition and affect, allow reinterpretation of both earlier and recent findings. Evidence for a detrimental effect of omitting a meal on cognitive performance remains equivocal: from the outset, idiosyncrasy has prevailed. Yet, for young and nutritionally vulnerable children, breakfast is more likely to benefit than hinder performance. For nutrient composition, despite inconsistencies, some cautious predictions can be made. Acutely, carbohydrate-rich–protein-poor meals can be sedating and anxiolytic; by comparison, protein-rich meals may be arousing, improving reaction time but also increasing unfocused vigilance. Fat-rich meals can lead to a decline in alertness, especially where they differ from habitual fat intake. These acute effects may vary with time of day and nutritional status. Chronically, protein-rich diets have been associated with decreased positive and increased negative affect relative to carbohydrate-rich diets. Probable mechanisms include diet-induced changes in monoamine, especially serotoninergic neurotransmitter activity, and functioning of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis. Effects are interpreted in the context of individual traits and susceptibility to challenging, even stressful, tests of performance. Preoccupation with dieting may impair cognition by interfering with working memory capacity, independently of nutritional status. The change in cognitive performance after administration of glucose, and other foods, may depend on the level of sympathetic activation, glucocorticoid secretion, and pancreatic β-cell function, rather than simple fuelling of neural activity. Thus, outcomes can be predicted by vulnerability in coping with stressful challenges, interacting with nutritional history and neuroendocrine status. Functioning of such systems may be susceptible to dietary influences on neural membrane fluidity, and vitamin-dependent cerebrovascular health, with cognitive vulnerability increasing with age.

A double-blind randomized study comparing the effects of continuing or not continuing rosiglitazone + metformin therapy when starting insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes

Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of either continuing or discontinuing rosiglitazone + metformin fixed-dose combination when starting insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral therapy. Methods: In this 24-week double-blind study, 324 individuals with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on maximum dose rosiglitazone + metformin therapy were randomly assigned to twice-daily premix insulin therapy (target pre-breakfast and pre-evening meal glucose ≤ 6.5 mmol/l) in addition to either rosiglitazone + metformin (8/2000 mg) or placebo. Results: Insulin dose at week 24 was significantly lower with rosiglitazone + metformin (33.5 ± 1.5 U/day, mean ± se) compared with placebo [59.0 ± 3.0 U/day; model-adjusted difference -26.6 (95% CI -37.7, -15,5) U/day, P < 0.001]. Despite this, there was greater improvement in glycaemic control [HbA 1c rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 6.8 ± 0.1 vs. 7.5 ± 0.1%; difference -0.7 (-0.8, -0.5)%, P < 0.001] and more individuals achieved glycaemic targets (HbA1c < 7.0% 70 vs. 34%, P < 0.001). The proportion of individuals reporting at least one hypoglycaemic event during the last 12 weeks of treatment was similar in the two groups (rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 25 vs. 27%). People receiving rosiglitazone + metformin in addition to insulin reported greater treatment satisfaction than those receiving insulin alone. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated but more participants had oedema [12 (7%) vs. 4 (3%)] and there was more weight gain [3.7 vs. 2.6 kg; difference 1.1 (0.2, 2.1) kg, P = 0.02] with rosiglitazone + metformin. Conclusions: Addition of insulin to rosiglitazone + metformin enabled more people to reach glycaemic targets with less insulin, and was generally well tolerated. © 2007 The Authors.