Acute Glycemic Response to Different Strategies of Breaking Up Sedentary Time
Document
Description
Most studies that explored the health benefits of interrupting sitting time focused on using different modalities (i.e., comparing walking vs standing breaks)33,36,59. However, experimental studies that directly compare patterns of interrupting sitting time through standing only are needed to advance the field. This study aimed to (i) determine if there is a difference in glucose response between continuous sitting (CS) and two intermittent standing regimes (high frequency, low duration breaks (HFLD) and low frequency, high duration breaks (LFHD)) and (ii) to determine if there is a difference in glucose response between the two strategies (HFLD vs. LFHD).
Ten sedentary employees (mean±SD age 46.8±10.6 years; 70% female) with impaired fasting glucose (mean glucose= 109.0±9.8 mg/dL) participated. Eligible participants were invited to three 7.5 hour laboratory visits where they were randomized to perform each study conditions: (i) CS, (ii) HFLD and (iii) LFHD. Standardized meals (breakfast and lunch) were given with each meal providing 33% of the participant’s total daily caloric needs following a typical American diet (50-60% carbohydrates, 25-30% fat, and 10-20% protein). Participants wore an activPAL device to measure compliance with the sit-stand condition and a continuous glucose monitor to measure post-prandial glucose response. Post-prandial mean glucose, incremental area under the curve and mean amplitude glycemic excursion between conditions were evaluated using linear mixed models.
Participants demonstrated high compliance with the study condition. The results indicated that the mean glucose of the HFLD condition were significantly lower (p< .01) than the CS condition with mean difference of -7.70 (-11.98, -3.42) mg/dL·3.5h and -5.76 (-9.50, -2.03) mg/dL·7h for lunch and total time, respectively. Furthermore, the mean post-prandial glucose during lunch and total time were significantly lower in the HFLD condition compared to the LFHD condition with mean difference of -9.94 (-14.13, -5.74) mg/dL·3.5h and -6.23 (-9.93, -2.52) mg/dL·7h, respectively. No differences were found between the CS and LFHD conditions.
This study provides evidence favoring the use of frequent interruptions in sitting time to improve glycemic control of prediabetic individuals. In contrast, less frequent, although longer bouts of standing resulted in similar post-prandial glucose profile to that of the continuous sitting condition despite total standing time being equal to the LFHD condition.
Ten sedentary employees (mean±SD age 46.8±10.6 years; 70% female) with impaired fasting glucose (mean glucose= 109.0±9.8 mg/dL) participated. Eligible participants were invited to three 7.5 hour laboratory visits where they were randomized to perform each study conditions: (i) CS, (ii) HFLD and (iii) LFHD. Standardized meals (breakfast and lunch) were given with each meal providing 33% of the participant’s total daily caloric needs following a typical American diet (50-60% carbohydrates, 25-30% fat, and 10-20% protein). Participants wore an activPAL device to measure compliance with the sit-stand condition and a continuous glucose monitor to measure post-prandial glucose response. Post-prandial mean glucose, incremental area under the curve and mean amplitude glycemic excursion between conditions were evaluated using linear mixed models.
Participants demonstrated high compliance with the study condition. The results indicated that the mean glucose of the HFLD condition were significantly lower (p< .01) than the CS condition with mean difference of -7.70 (-11.98, -3.42) mg/dL·3.5h and -5.76 (-9.50, -2.03) mg/dL·7h for lunch and total time, respectively. Furthermore, the mean post-prandial glucose during lunch and total time were significantly lower in the HFLD condition compared to the LFHD condition with mean difference of -9.94 (-14.13, -5.74) mg/dL·3.5h and -6.23 (-9.93, -2.52) mg/dL·7h, respectively. No differences were found between the CS and LFHD conditions.
This study provides evidence favoring the use of frequent interruptions in sitting time to improve glycemic control of prediabetic individuals. In contrast, less frequent, although longer bouts of standing resulted in similar post-prandial glucose profile to that of the continuous sitting condition despite total standing time being equal to the LFHD condition.