Charles L Dumke1, Dustin R Slivka2, John S Cuddy3, Walter S Hailes3, Shawn M Rose3, Brent C Ruby3. 1. Department of Health and Human Performance, Montana Center for Work Physiology and Exercise Metabolism, University of Montana, Missoula, MT (Drs Dumke and Ruby, and Messrs. Cuddy, Hailes, and Rose). Electronic address: charles.dumke@umontana.edu. 2. School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE (Dr Slivka). 3. Department of Health and Human Performance, Montana Center for Work Physiology and Exercise Metabolism, University of Montana, Missoula, MT (Drs Dumke and Ruby, and Messrs. Cuddy, Hailes, and Rose).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare glucose and insulin responses during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in cold (C), neutral (N), and hot (H) environments. METHODS: Eleven males completed three 4-hour climate-controlled OGTT trials (C, 7.2°C; N, 22°C; and H, 43°C). Participants remained semireclined for 60 minutes before ingesting a 1.8 g/kg glucose beverage. Skin and rectal core temperatures were continuously monitored. Blood was collected just before glucose ingestion (time 0) and at 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, and 180 minutes, and analyzed for serum glucose, insulin, hematocrit, and hemoglobin. Expired gases were collected upon entering the chamber (-60 minutes), before glucose ingestion (0 minutes), and at 60, 120, and 180 minutes to determine V(O2) and respiratory exchange ratio. RESULTS: Rectal core temperature was greater in the H condition compared with both C and N (P < .001). Rectal core temperature was not different between C and N, whereas skin temperature was different across all trials (H greater than N greater than C). The V(O2) was greater in C than in both H and N during all time points. Carbohydrate oxidation was greater in C compared with H and N (P < 0.001). Glucose was higher during H compared with C and N (P ≤ 0.002). Glucose was elevated in C compared with N. Insulin was higher in H compared with C (P = 0.009). Area under the curve for serum glucose was greater in H compared with C and N (P ≤ 0.001); however, there was no significant difference in area under the curve for insulin. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that after an OGTT, glucose and insulin are elevated in a hot environment.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare glucose and insulin responses during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in cold (C), neutral (N), and hot (H) environments. METHODS: Eleven males completed three 4-hour climate-controlled OGTT trials (C, 7.2°C; N, 22°C; and H, 43°C). Participants remained semireclined for 60 minutes before ingesting a 1.8 g/kg glucose beverage. Skin and rectal core temperatures were continuously monitored. Blood was collected just before glucose ingestion (time 0) and at 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, and 180 minutes, and analyzed for serum glucose, insulin, hematocrit, and hemoglobin. Expired gases were collected upon entering the chamber (-60 minutes), before glucose ingestion (0 minutes), and at 60, 120, and 180 minutes to determine V(O2) and respiratory exchange ratio. RESULTS: Rectal core temperature was greater in the H condition compared with both C and N (P < .001). Rectal core temperature was not different between C and N, whereas skin temperature was different across all trials (H greater than N greater than C). The V(O2) was greater in C than in both H and N during all time points. Carbohydrate oxidation was greater in C compared with H and N (P < 0.001). Glucose was higher during H compared with C and N (P ≤ 0.002). Glucose was elevated in C compared with N. Insulin was higher in H compared with C (P = 0.009). Area under the curve for serum glucose was greater in H compared with C and N (P ≤ 0.001); however, there was no significant difference in area under the curve for insulin. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that after an OGTT, glucose and insulin are elevated in a hot environment.
Authors: Geoff B Coombs; Otto F Barak; Aaron A Phillips; Tanja Mijacika; Zoe K Sarafis; Amanda H X Lee; Jordan W Squair; Tyler D Bammert; Noah M DeSouza; Daniel Gagnon; Andrei V Krassioukov; Zeljko Dujic; Christopher A DeSouza; Philip N Ainslie Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Ravi Retnakaran; Chang Ye; Caroline K Kramer; Anthony J Hanley; Philip W Connelly; Mathew Sermer; Bernard Zinman Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Michael A Petrie; Amy L Kimball; Colleen L McHenry; Manish Suneja; Chu-Ling Yen; Arpit Sharma; Richard K Shields Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rongbin Xu; Qi Zhao; Micheline S Z S Coelho; Paulo H N Saldiva; Sophia Zoungas; Rachel R Huxley; Michael J Abramson; Yuming Guo; Shanshan Li Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: M Lazo-Porras; A Ruiz-Alejos; J J Miranda; R M Carrillo-Larco; R H Gilman; L Smeeth; A Bernabé-Ortiz Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 4.359