Are Children With Type 1 Diabetes Consuming a Healthful Diet? A Review of the Current Evidence and Strategies for Dietary Change

Division of Epidemiology, Statistics and Prevention Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 7B13R, MSC 7500, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510, USA.
The Diabetes Educator (Impact Factor: 1.92). 01/2009; 35(1):97-107. DOI: 10.1177/0145721708326699
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to review the literature on usual dietary intake in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and to discuss approaches to promote dietary change with potential efficacy.
Search strategies included a MEDLINE search for English-language articles that estimated usual dietary intake in children with T1D and a screening of the reference lists from original studies. The keywords used were diet, dietary intake, nutrition, type 1 diabetes, children, adolescents, and youth. Studies were included if they were observational, contained a sample of children with T1D, and estimated usual dietary intake.
Nine studies fulfilled the criteria (6 US, 3 European). Of the 4 studies with a control group, 3 reported that both total fat and saturated fat intake were higher in the children with T1D. Six studies examined the percent of total calories from saturated fat; mean intake ranged from 11 to 15%, exceeding ADA recommendations (< 7%). Fruit, vegetable, and fiber intakes were low among children with T1D. No prior studies have addressed dietary change in this population. The behavior-change literature suggests that nutrition education alone is unlikely to be adequate, but that incorporation of behavioral approaches offers potential efficacy in promoting healthful dietary change.
Children with T1D are not meeting dietary guidelines, and in some areas their diets are less healthful than children without diabetes. As these dietary behaviors may affect the risk of long-term complications, the incorporation of behavioral approaches promoting healthy eating into routine clinical practice is warranted.


Available from: Tonja Nansel, Apr 26, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diet and physical activity (PA) are fundamental aspects of care in type 1 diabetes, but scant longitudinal data exist on these behaviors in adolescents with type 1 diabetes, especially compared to non-diabetic controls.
    International Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology 08/2014; 2014(1):17. DOI:10.1186/1687-9856-2014-17
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined differences in diet quality by meal type, location, and time of week in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus. A sample of youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus (n=252; 48% female) age 8 to 18 years (mean±standard deviation=13.2±2.8 years) with diabetes duration ≥1 year (mean±standard deviation=6.3±3.4 years) completed 3-day diet records. Multilevel linear regression models tested for differences in diet quality indicators by meal type, location, and time of week (weekdays vs weekends). Participants showed greater energy intake and poorer diet quality on weekends relative to weekdays, with lower intake of fruit and vegetables, and higher intake of total and saturated fat. Differences in diet quality were seen across meal types, with higher nutrient density at breakfast and dinner than at lunch and snacks. Participants reported the highest whole-grain and lowest fat intake at breakfast, but higher added sugar than at lunch or dinner. Dinner was characterized by the highest fruit intake, lowest added sugar, and lowest glycemic load, but also the highest sodium intake. The poorest nutrient density and highest added sugar occurred during snacks. Diet quality was poorer for meals consumed away from home than those consumed at home for breakfast, dinner, and snacks. Findings regarding lunch meal location were mixed, with higher nutrient density, lower glycemic load, and less added sugar at home lunches, and lower total fat, saturated fat, and sodium at lunches away from home. Findings indicate impacts of meal type, location, and time of week on diet quality, suggesting targets for nutrition education and behavioral interventions.
    Journal of the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 08/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jand.2014.01.012 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To compare the glycemic control and lipid profile of children and adolescents undergoing two different dietetic treatments for type 1 Diabetes Mellitus assisted at the Children and Adolescent's Diabetes Mellitus Health Center-UFRJ. Methods: A retrospective longitudinal study conducted between 2002 and 2006. We evaluated the same subjects in two different periods: after 1 year in TD and subsequently after 1 year in CCHO. The evolution of the nutritional status during the dietary treatments was evaluated using Body Mass Index (BMI) for age. The lipid panel was evaluated according to the 1st Guideline for Prevention of Atherosclerosis in Childhood and Adolescence, used in Brazil, and the glycemic control was evaluated by measuring glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Results: We evaluated 93 individuals, 38.7% children and 61.3% adolescents. The mean age at study entry was 11.1 (± 2.66) years and the mean disease duration was 6.1 (± 3.2) years. A significant difference in the percentage of adequacy of HbA1c (p = 0.000) and in the values of total plasma cholesterol (p = 0.043) was found after 1 year of CCHO diet, which did not happen during the observation time of TD. The evolution of anthropometric nutritional status showed no significant difference between the beginning and the end of both dietary treatments. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a more flexible food orientation program can contribute to the improvement of blood glucose levels without causing deterioration of the lipid profile when compared to TD.
    Nutricion hospitalaria: organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Nutricion Parenteral y Enteral 03/2014; 29(n03):547-552. DOI:10.3305/nh.2014.29.3.7116 · 1.25 Impact Factor