Dose-response between frequency of breaks in sedentary time and glucose control in type 2 diabetes : a proof of concept study

Paing, Aye C. and McMillan, Kathryn A. and Kirk, Alison F. and Collier, Andrew and Hewitt, Allan and Chastin, Sebastien F.M. (2019) Dose-response between frequency of breaks in sedentary time and glucose control in type 2 diabetes : a proof of concept study. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22 (7). pp. 808-813. ISSN 1878-1861 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.01.017)

[thumbnail of Paing-etal-JSMS-2019-Dose-response-between-frequency-of-breaks-in-sedentary-time]
Preview
Text. Filename: Paing_etal_JSMS_2019_Dose_response_between_frequency_of_breaks_in_sedentary_time.pdf
Accepted Author Manuscript
License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 logo

Download (300kB)| Preview

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.