Richard M Pulsford1, James Blackwell2, Melvyn Hillsdon2, Katarina Kos3. 1. Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, United Kingdom. Electronic address: r.pulsford@exeter.ac.uk. 2. Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, United Kingdom. 3. University of Exeter Medical School, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Interrupting prolonged periods of sitting may improve postprandial insulin and glucose although it is unclear whether interruptions need to involve physical activity or simply a change in posture (from sitting to standing) to benefit adults without metabolic impairment. This study examined effects of interrupting sitting with intermittent walking, and intermittent standing on dynamic insulin and glucose responses in men without known metabolic impairment. DESIGN: A randomised three-arm, cross-over experimental study comprising three seven-hour days of sustained sitting. METHODS:Twenty-five inactive men (aged 40.2±12.2 years) took part. The three interventions were; SIT-ONLY (uninterrupted sitting), SIT-STAND (sitting interrupted with 2min standing bouts every 20min) and SIT-WALK (sitting interrupted with 2min light-intensity walking bouts every 20min). An oral glucose tolerance test was administered at baseline and a standardised mixed test meal at hour three. Comparisons of Matsuda Index, and area under the curve (AUC) for insulin and glucose were made between interventions using generalised estimating equation models. RESULTS:Matsuda index was 16% higher (mean difference 1.2 [95%CI 0.1, 2.2] p=0.02), AUC for glucose 9% lower (-2.5mmol/L×7h [-3.7, -1.3mmol/L×7h] p<0.001) and AUC for insulin 21% lower (-546.5pmol/L×7h [-723.6, -369.3pmol/L×7h] p<0.001) in SIT-WALK compared to SIT-ONLY. There were no significant differences between SIT-STAND and SIT-ONLY in any main outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Interrupting sustained sitting with brief repeated bouts of light-intensity walking but not standing reduced insulin demand and improved glucose uptake during a simulated sedentary working day. The benefits of such minor behavioural changes could inform future workplace health interventions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Interrupting prolonged periods of sitting may improve postprandial insulin and glucose although it is unclear whether interruptions need to involve physical activity or simply a change in posture (from sitting to standing) to benefit adults without metabolic impairment. This study examined effects of interrupting sitting with intermittent walking, and intermittent standing on dynamic insulin and glucose responses in men without known metabolic impairment. DESIGN: A randomised three-arm, cross-over experimental study comprising three seven-hour days of sustained sitting. METHODS: Twenty-five inactive men (aged 40.2±12.2 years) took part. The three interventions were; SIT-ONLY (uninterrupted sitting), SIT-STAND (sitting interrupted with 2min standing bouts every 20min) and SIT-WALK (sitting interrupted with 2min light-intensity walking bouts every 20min). An oral glucose tolerance test was administered at baseline and a standardised mixed test meal at hour three. Comparisons of Matsuda Index, and area under the curve (AUC) for insulin and glucose were made between interventions using generalised estimating equation models. RESULTS: Matsuda index was 16% higher (mean difference 1.2 [95%CI 0.1, 2.2] p=0.02), AUC for glucose 9% lower (-2.5mmol/L×7h [-3.7, -1.3mmol/L×7h] p<0.001) and AUC for insulin 21% lower (-546.5pmol/L×7h [-723.6, -369.3pmol/L×7h] p<0.001) in SIT-WALK compared to SIT-ONLY. There were no significant differences between SIT-STAND and SIT-ONLY in any main outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Interrupting sustained sitting with brief repeated bouts of light-intensity walking but not standing reduced insulin demand and improved glucose uptake during a simulated sedentary working day. The benefits of such minor behavioural changes could inform future workplace health interventions.
Authors: Cormac Powell; Leonard D Browne; Brian P Carson; Kieran P Dowd; Ivan J Perry; Patricia M Kearney; Janas M Harrington; Alan E Donnelly Journal: Sports Med Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Fehmidah Munir; Stuart J H Biddle; Melanie J Davies; David Dunstan; David Esliger; Laura J Gray; Ben R Jackson; Sophie E O'Connell; Tom Yates; Charlotte L Edwardson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: D Yerrakalva; A J Cooper; K Westgate; K T Khaw; N J Wareham; S Brage; S J Griffin; K Wijndaele Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Mary-Margaret E Remchak; Kelsey L Piersol; Sabha Bhatti; Andrea M Spaeth; Jennifer F Buckman; Steven K Malin Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Gregory J H Biddle; Charlotte L Edwardson; Joseph Henson; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Alex V Rowlands; Thomas Yates Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Charlotte L Edwardson; Tom Yates; Stuart J H Biddle; Melanie J Davies; David W Dunstan; Dale W Esliger; Laura J Gray; Benjamin Jackson; Sophie E O'Connell; Ghazala Waheed; Fehmidah Munir Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-10-10
Authors: Miranda M Broadney; Britni R Belcher; David A Berrigan; Robert J Brychta; Ira L Tigner; Faizah Shareef; Alexia Papachristopoulou; Jacob D Hattenbach; Elisabeth K Davis; Sheila M Brady; Shanna B Bernstein; Amber B Courville; Bart E Drinkard; Kevin P Smith; Douglas R Rosing; Pamela L Wolters; Kong Y Chen; Jack A Yanovski Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 19.112