Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to investigate dose-response between frequency of breaks in sedentary time and glucose control.DesignRandomised three-treatment, two-period balanced incomplete block trial.MethodsTwelve adults with type 2 diabetes (age, 60 ± 11 years; body mass index, 30.2 ± 4.7 kg/m2) participated in two of the following treatment conditions: sitting for 7 h interrupted by 3 min light-intensity walking breaks every (1) 60 min (Condition 1), (2) 30 min (Condition 2), and (3) 15 min (Condition 3). Postprandial glucose incremental area under the curves (iAUCs) and 21-h glucose total area under the curve (AUC) were measured using continuous glucose monitoring. Standardised meals were provided.
Results Compared with Condition 1 (6.7 ± 0.8 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1), post-breakfast glucose iAUC was reduced for Condition 3 (3.5 ± 0.9 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p ˂ 0.04). Post-lunch glucose iAUC was lower in Condition 3 (1.3 ± 0.9 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p ˂ 0.03) and Condition 2 (2.1 ± 0.7 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p ˂ 0.05) relative to Condition 1 (4.6 ± 0.8 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1). Condition 3 (1.0 ± 0.7 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p = 0.02) and Condition 2 (1.6 ± 0.6 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p ˂ 0.04) attenuated post-dinner glucose iAUC compared with Condition 1 (4.0 ± 0.7 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1). Cumulative 10.5-h postprandial glucose iAUC was lower in Condition 3 than Condition 1 (p = 0.02). Condition 3 reduced 21-h glucose AUC compared with Condition 1 (p < 0.001) and Condition 2 (p = 0.002). However, post-breakfast glucose iAUC, cumulative 10.5-h postprandial glucose iAUC and 21-h glucose AUC were not different between Condition 2 and Condition 1 (p ˃ 0.05).Conclusions There could be dose-response between frequency of breaks in sedentary time and glucose. Interrupting sedentary time every 15 min could produce better glucose control.
Results Compared with Condition 1 (6.7 ± 0.8 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1), post-breakfast glucose iAUC was reduced for Condition 3 (3.5 ± 0.9 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p ˂ 0.04). Post-lunch glucose iAUC was lower in Condition 3 (1.3 ± 0.9 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p ˂ 0.03) and Condition 2 (2.1 ± 0.7 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p ˂ 0.05) relative to Condition 1 (4.6 ± 0.8 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1). Condition 3 (1.0 ± 0.7 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p = 0.02) and Condition 2 (1.6 ± 0.6 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1, p ˂ 0.04) attenuated post-dinner glucose iAUC compared with Condition 1 (4.0 ± 0.7 mmol L−1 × 3.5 h−1). Cumulative 10.5-h postprandial glucose iAUC was lower in Condition 3 than Condition 1 (p = 0.02). Condition 3 reduced 21-h glucose AUC compared with Condition 1 (p < 0.001) and Condition 2 (p = 0.002). However, post-breakfast glucose iAUC, cumulative 10.5-h postprandial glucose iAUC and 21-h glucose AUC were not different between Condition 2 and Condition 1 (p ˃ 0.05).Conclusions There could be dose-response between frequency of breaks in sedentary time and glucose. Interrupting sedentary time every 15 min could produce better glucose control.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 808-813 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport |
Volume | 22 |
Issue number | 7 |
Early online date | 31 Jan 2019 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 31 Jul 2019 |
Keywords
- diabetes mellitus
- glucose
- sedentary lifestyle
- exercise