OBJECTIVE: We examined the associations of physical activity with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and with 2-h postload plasma glucose (2-h PG) in men and women with low, moderate, and high waist circumference. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) study provided data on a population-based cross-sectional sample of 4,108 men and 5,106 women aged >or=25 years without known diabetes or health conditions that could affect physical activity. FPG and 2-h PG were obtained from an oral glucose tolerance test. Self-reported physical activity level was defined according to the current public health guidelines as active (>or=150 min/week across five or more sessions) or inactive (<150 min/week and/or less than five sessions). Sex-specific quintiles of physical activity time were used to ascertain dose response. RESULTS: Being physically active and total physical activity time were independently and negatively associated with 2-h PG. When physical activity level was considered within each waist circumference category, 2-h PG was significantly lower in active high-waist circumference women (beta -0.30 [95% CI -0.59 to -0.01], P = 0.044) and active low-waist circumference men (beta -0.25 [-0.49 to -0.02], P = 0.036) compared with their inactive counterparts. Considered across physical activity and waist circumference categories, 2-h PG levels were not significantly different between active moderate-waist circumference participants and active low-waist circumference participants. Associations between physical activity and FPG were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences between 2-h PG and FPG related to physical activity. It appears that 2-h PG is more sensitive to the beneficial effects of physical activity, and these benefits occur across the waist circumference spectrum.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the associations of physical activity with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and with 2-h postload plasma glucose (2-h PG) in men and women with low, moderate, and high waist circumference. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) study provided data on a population-based cross-sectional sample of 4,108 men and 5,106 women aged >or=25 years without known diabetes or health conditions that could affect physical activity. FPG and 2-h PG were obtained from an oral glucose tolerance test. Self-reported physical activity level was defined according to the current public health guidelines as active (>or=150 min/week across five or more sessions) or inactive (<150 min/week and/or less than five sessions). Sex-specific quintiles of physical activity time were used to ascertain dose response. RESULTS: Being physically active and total physical activity time were independently and negatively associated with 2-h PG. When physical activity level was considered within each waist circumference category, 2-h PG was significantly lower in active high-waist circumference women (beta -0.30 [95% CI -0.59 to -0.01], P = 0.044) and active low-waist circumference men (beta -0.25 [-0.49 to -0.02], P = 0.036) compared with their inactive counterparts. Considered across physical activity and waist circumference categories, 2-h PG levels were not significantly different between active moderate-waist circumference participants and active low-waist circumference participants. Associations between physical activity and FPG were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences between 2-h PG and FPG related to physical activity. It appears that 2-h PG is more sensitive to the beneficial effects of physical activity, and these benefits occur across the waist circumference spectrum.
Authors: Matthew P Buman; Eric B Hekler; William L Haskell; Leslie Pruitt; Terry L Conway; Kelli L Cain; James F Sallis; Brian E Saelens; Lawrence D Frank; Abby C King Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Karla A Temple; Ashley H Tjaden; Karen M Atkinson; Elena Barengolts; Tamara S Hannon; Kieren J Mather; Kristina M Utzschneider; Sharon L Edelstein; David A Ehrmann; Babak Mokhlesi Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kristian Karstoft; Margaret A Clark; Ida Jakobsen; Sine H Knudsen; Gerrit van Hall; Bente K Pedersen; Thomas P J Solomon Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Matthew D Campbell; Thirunavukkarasu Sathish; Paul Z Zimmet; Kavumpurathu R Thankappan; Brian Oldenburg; David R Owens; Jonathan E Shaw; Robyn J Tapp Journal: Nat Rev Endocrinol Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 43.330
Authors: Rebecca Seguin; David M Buchner; Jingmin Liu; Matthew Allison; Todd Manini; Ching-Yun Wang; Joann E Manson; Catherine R Messina; Mahesh J Patel; Larry Moreland; Marcia L Stefanick; Andrea Z Lacroix Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Leigh Perreault; Yong Ma; Sam Dagogo-Jack; Edward Horton; David Marrero; Jill Crandall; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Dylan Thompson; Alan M Batterham; Daniella Markovitch; Natalie C Dixon; Adam J S Lund; Jean-Philippe Walhin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 3.240