RESUMEN
Assessing chronotype is essential in clinical and research environments, but the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MCTQ), a widely utilised tool, is not available in French. Therefore, we carried out an observational monocentric study to validate the French MCTQ against the sleep diary for sleep schedules, the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) for chronotype, and polysomnography measures. We utilised the mid-sleep point on free days (MSF), adjusted for sleep debt (MSFsc), to gauge morningness/eveningness. The study included 80 participants (average age: 40.9 years, 50% female). The sleep schedules determined by the MCTQ and the sleep diary showed a high correlation. The MSFsc demonstrated a significant correlation with the MEQ, persisting even under sleep constraints such as an alarm on free days. The predictive accuracy was strong for a morning chronotype and moderate for an evening chronotype as assessed using the MEQ. In summary, the French MCTQ is a reliable tool for researchers and clinicians for assessing sleep schedules and chronotype in French-speaking populations. The MSFsc can effectively predict chronotype, even under sleep constraints. However, for the evening chronotype, self-assessment appears to be more accurate. The association with polysomnography measures enriches our understanding of the chronotype at the intersection of behaviour and physiology.
Asunto(s)
Cronotipo , Polisomnografía , Sueño , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto Joven , Cronotipo/fisiología , Francia , Polisomnografía/métodos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sueño/fisiología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Glycemic response to the same meal depends on daytime and alignment of consumption with the inner clock, which has not been examined by individual chronotype yet. This study examined whether the 2-h postprandial and 24-h glycemic response to a meal with high glycemic index (GI) differ when consumed early or late in the day among students with early or late chronotype. METHODS: From a screening of 327 students aged 18-25 years, those with early (n = 22) or late (n = 23) chronotype participated in a 7-day randomized controlled cross-over intervention study. After a 3-day observational phase, standardized meals were provided on run-in/washout (days 4 and 6) and intervention (days 5 and 7), on which participants received a high GI meal (GI = 72) in the morning (7 a.m.) or in the evening (8 p.m.). All other meals had a medium GI. Continuous glucose monitoring was used to measure 2-h postprandial and 24-h glycemic responses and their variability. RESULTS: Among students with early chronotype 2-h postprandial glucose responses to the high GI meal were higher in the evening than in the morning (iAUC: 234 (± 92) vs. 195 (± 91) (mmol/L) × min, p = 0.042). Likewise, mean and lowest 2-h postprandial glucose values were higher when the high GI meal was consumed in the evening (p < 0.001; p = 0.017). 24-h glycemic responses were similar irrespective of meal time. Participants with late chronotype consuming a high GI meal in the morning or evening showed similar 2-h postprandial (iAUC: 211 (± 110) vs. 207 (± 95) (mmol/L) × min, p = 0.9) and 24-h glycemic responses at both daytimes. CONCLUSIONS: Diurnal differences in response to a high GI meal are confined to those young adults with early chronotype, whilst those with a late chronotype seem vulnerable to both very early and late high GI meals. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04298645; 22/01/2020).