Corrigendum

In the article by Ward et al. (2021) there are certain areas that need to be corrected. Below is the list of areas that are in need of updating:

• Raw data reported in the abstract requires rectification. The correct abstract should read (changes are in bold):

  Breast milk composition is influenced by habitual diet, yet little is known about the short‐term effects of changes in maternal diet on breast milk macronutrient concentrations. Our aim was to determine the acute effect of increased consumption of sugar/fat on breast milk protein, lactose and lipids. Exclusively breastfeeding women (n = 9) were provided with a control, higher fat (+28 g fat) and higher sugar (+66 g sugar) diet over three separate days at least 1 week apart. Hourly breast milk samples were collected concurrently for the analysis of triglycerides, cholesterol, protein, and lactose concentrations. Breast milk triglycerides increased significantly following both the higher fat and sugar diet with a greater response to the higher sugar compared to control diet (mean differences of 1.49 g/dl ± 0.17 and 5.36 g/dl ± 0.17 in higher fat and sugar diets, respectively [p < 0.001]). Breast milk cholesterol concentrations increased most in response to the higher sugar diet (0.07 g/dl ± 0.005) compared to the control (0.04 g/dl) and the higher fat diet (0.05 g/dl) p < 0.005. Breast milk triglyceride and lactose concentrations increased (p < 0.001, p = 0.006), whereas protein decreased (p = 0.05) in response to the higher fat diet compared to the control. Independent of diet, there were significant variations in breast milk composition over the day; triglycerides and cholesterol concentrations were higher at end of day (p < 0.001), whereas protein and lactose concentrations peaked at Hour 10 (of 12) (p < 0.001). In conclusion, controlled short‐term feeding to increase daily sugar/fat consumption altered breast milk triglycerides, cholesterol, protein and lactose. The variations observed in breast milk protein and lactose across the 12 h period is suggestive of a circadian rhythm.

• Figures 1 and 2 legends require amendment as the n number originally reported was incorrect.

Figure 1.

Data presented as mean ± SEM. Meal times are represented on the x‐axis with brackets [B] breakfast, [L] lunch, and [D] dinner. Repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that milk triglyceride concentration was influenced by diet intervention (fat, sugar, or control) (p < 0.001), as well as showing a response to time of day (p < 0.001; n  = 6)

The correct number should be 6 instead of 9 so Figure captions should read (changes are in bold):

Figure 2 Data presented as mean ± SEM. Meal times are represented on the x‐axis with brackets [B] breakfast, [L] lunch, and [D] dinner. Repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that milk cholesterol was influenced by increased sugar and fat consumption (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively), as well as showing a response to time of day (p < 0.001; n  = 6)

• Figure 1 requires replacement due to change in raw data calculations, the corrected version is provided below:

• The raw data reported in the results section regarding triglycerides (TGL) has changed. The first and second paragraph of Section 3.3 should read (changes are in bold):

Consumption of a diet higher in sugar/fat, compared to the control diet, was associated with significantly greater breast milk TGL concentrations (Figure 1). Consumption of a higher sugar diet was associated with the greatest increase in TGL content, with a mean difference in TGLs of 5.36 g/dl when compared to the control day (p < 0.001).

A mean difference in TGLs of 1.49 g/dl was observed between the control and higher fat day (p < 0.001). Although breast milk TGLs had increased in response to consumption of the higher fat diet, they were significantly lower when compared to the higher sugar day with a mean difference of 3.87 g/dl (p < 0.001).

The amendments are due to a calculative error when determining TGL concentrations which has resulted in a change in raw data but no changes to the significance reported between diets or any of our other conclusions.

The authors apologise for the error.