Elly A Fletcher1, Jo Salmon2, Sarah A McNaughton2, Liliana Orellana3, Glenn D Wadley2, Clinton Bruce2, Paddy C Dempsey4, Kathleen E Lacy2, David W Dunstan5. 1. Deakin University, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Australia. Electronic address: elly.fletcher@deakin.edu.au. 2. Deakin University, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Australia. 3. Deakin University, Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Health, Australia. 4. Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Australia; Swinburne University of Technology, Australia. 5. Deakin University, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Australia; Swinburne University of Technology, Australia; Monash University, Department of Medicine, Australia; The University of Queensland, School of Public Health, Australia; Monash University, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Australia; The University of Western Australia, School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, Australia; Australian Catholic University, Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of uninterrupted sitting versus sitting with resistance-type activity breaks on adolescents' postprandial glucose responses while consuming a diet varying in energy. DESIGN: Cross-over randomised trial. METHODS:Thirteen healthy participants (16.4±1.3years) completed a four-treatment cross-over trial: (1) uninterrupted sitting+high-energy diet; (2) sitting with breaks+high-energy diet; (3) uninterrupted sitting+standard-energy diet; and (4) sitting with breaks+standard-energy diet. For all four conditions, two identical meals were consumed; at 0h and 3h. A continuous glucose monitoring system (CGM) recorded interstitial glucose concentrations every five minutes. Linear mixed models examined differences in glucose positive incremental area under the curve (iAUC) and total AUC between the sitting and diet conditions for the first meal, second meal and entire trial period. RESULTS: Compared to the uninterrupted sitting conditions, the breaks condition elicited a 36.0mmol/L/h (95%CI 6.6-65.5) and 35.9mmol/L/h (95%CI 6.6-65.5) lower iAUC response after the first and second meal, respectively, but not for the entire trial period or for total AUC. Compared to the standard-energy diet, the high-energy diet elicited a 55.0mmol/L/h (95%CI 25.8-84.2) and 75.7mmol/L/h (95%CI 8.6-142.7) higher iAUC response after the first meal and entire trial, respectively. Similar response to the high-energy diet were observed for total AUC. CONCLUSIONS: According to iAUC, interrupting sitting had a significant effect on lowering postprandial glucose for both dietary conditions, however, it was not significant when examining total AUC. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001145594.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of uninterrupted sitting versus sitting with resistance-type activity breaks on adolescents' postprandial glucose responses while consuming a diet varying in energy. DESIGN: Cross-over randomised trial. METHODS: Thirteen healthy participants (16.4±1.3years) completed a four-treatment cross-over trial: (1) uninterrupted sitting+high-energy diet; (2) sitting with breaks+high-energy diet; (3) uninterrupted sitting+standard-energy diet; and (4) sitting with breaks+standard-energy diet. For all four conditions, two identical meals were consumed; at 0h and 3h. A continuous glucose monitoring system (CGM) recorded interstitial glucose concentrations every five minutes. Linear mixed models examined differences in glucose positive incremental area under the curve (iAUC) and total AUC between the sitting and diet conditions for the first meal, second meal and entire trial period. RESULTS: Compared to the uninterrupted sitting conditions, the breaks condition elicited a 36.0mmol/L/h (95%CI 6.6-65.5) and 35.9mmol/L/h (95%CI 6.6-65.5) lower iAUC response after the first and second meal, respectively, but not for the entire trial period or for total AUC. Compared to the standard-energy diet, the high-energy diet elicited a 55.0mmol/L/h (95%CI 25.8-84.2) and 75.7mmol/L/h (95%CI 8.6-142.7) higher iAUC response after the first meal and entire trial, respectively. Similar response to the high-energy diet were observed for total AUC. CONCLUSIONS: According to iAUC, interrupting sitting had a significant effect on lowering postprandial glucose for both dietary conditions, however, it was not significant when examining total AUC. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001145594.
Authors: Jennifer Zink; Michele Nicolo; Kellie Imm; Shayan Ebrahimian; Qihan Yu; Kyuwan Lee; Kaylie Zapanta; Jimi Huh; Genevieve F Dunton; Michael I Goran; Kathleen A Page; Christina M Dieli-Conwright; Britni R Belcher Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Katherine L Downing; Trina Hinkley; Anna Timperio; Jo Salmon; Alison Carver; Dylan P Cliff; Anthony D Okely; Kylie D Hesketh Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Grace E Vincent; Sarah M Jay; Charli Sargent; Corneel Vandelanotte; Nicola D Ridgers; Sally A Ferguson Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Simone J J M Verswijveren; Karen E Lamb; Lisa A Bell; Anna Timperio; Jo Salmon; Nicola D Ridgers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lauren Arundell; Jo Salmon; Harriet Koorts; Ana Maria Contardo Ayala; Anna Timperio Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Masahiro Horiuchi; Chieko Takiguchi; Yoko Kirihara; Yukari Horiuchi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Katrien Wijndaele; Thomas White; Lars Bo Andersen; Anna Bugge; Elin Kolle; Kate Northstone; Niels Wedderkopp; Mathias Ried-Larsen; Susi Kriemler; Angie S Page; Jardena J Puder; John J Reilly; Luis B Sardinha; Esther M F van Sluijs; Stephen J Sharp; Søren Brage; Ulf Ekelund Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 6.457