Kristian Karstoft1,2, Margaret A Clark3, Ida Jakobsen3, Sine H Knudsen3, Gerrit van Hall4, Bente K Pedersen3, Thomas P J Solomon5,6. 1. The Centre of Inflammation and Metabolism and the Centre for Physical Activity Research, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Section M7641, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. k_karstoft@dadlnet.dk. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. k_karstoft@dadlnet.dk. 3. The Centre of Inflammation and Metabolism and the Centre for Physical Activity Research, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Section M7641, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Clinical Metabolomics Core Facility, Clinical Biochemistry, Rigshospitalet, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. School of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 6. Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The role of glucose effectiveness (S G) in training-induced improvements in glucose metabolism in individuals with type 2 diabetes is unknown. The objectives and primary outcomes of this study were: (1) to assess the efficacy of interval walking training (IWT) and continuous walking training (CWT) on S G and insulin sensitivity (S I) in individuals with type 2 diabetes; and (2) to assess the association of changes in S G and S I with changes in glycaemic control. METHODS:Fourteen participants with type 2 diabetes underwent three trials (IWT, CWT and no training) in a crossover study. Exclusion criteria were exogenous insulin treatment, smoking, pregnancy, contraindications to structured physical activity and participation in recurrent training (>90 min/week). The trials were performed in a randomised order (computerised-generated randomisation). IWT and CWT consisted of ten supervised treadmill walking sessions, each lasting 60 min, over 2 weeks. IWT was performed as repeated cycles of 3 min slow walking and 3 min fast walking (aiming for 54% and 89% of [Formula: see text], respectively, which was measured during the last minute of each interval), and CWT was performed aiming for a moderate walking speed (73% of [Formula: see text]). A two-step (pancreatic and hyperinsulinaemic) hyperglycaemic clamp was implemented before and after each trial. All data were collected in a hospitalised setting. Neither participants nor assessors were blinded to the trial interventions. RESULTS:Thirteen individuals completed all procedures and were included in the analyses. IWT improved S G (mean ± SEM: 0.6 ± 0.1 mg kg-1 min-1, p < 0.05) but not S I (p > 0.05), whereas CWT matched for energy expenditure and time duration improved neither S G nor S I (both p > 0.05). Changes in S G, but not in S I, were associated with changes in mean (β = -0.62 ± 0.23, r 2 = 0.17, p < 0.01) and maximum (β = -1.18 ± 0.52, r 2 = 0.12, p < 0.05) glucose levels during 24 h continuous glucose monitoring. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Two weeks of IWT, but not CWT, improves S G but not S I in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, changes in S G are associated with changes in glycaemic control. Therefore, increased S G is likely an important mechanism by which training improves glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02320526 FUNDING: CFAS is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. During the study period, the Centre of Inflammation and Metabolism (CIM) was supported by a grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF55). The study was further supported by grants from Diabetesforeningen, Augustinusfonden and Krista og Viggo Petersens Fond. CIM/CFAS is a member of DD2-the Danish Center for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes (the Danish Council for Strategic Research, grant no. 09-067009 and 09-075724).
RCT Entities:
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The role of glucose effectiveness (S G) in training-induced improvements in glucose metabolism in individuals with type 2 diabetes is unknown. The objectives and primary outcomes of this study were: (1) to assess the efficacy of interval walking training (IWT) and continuous walking training (CWT) on S G and insulin sensitivity (S I) in individuals with type 2 diabetes; and (2) to assess the association of changes in S G and S I with changes in glycaemic control. METHODS: Fourteen participants with type 2 diabetes underwent three trials (IWT, CWT and no training) in a crossover study. Exclusion criteria were exogenous insulin treatment, smoking, pregnancy, contraindications to structured physical activity and participation in recurrent training (>90 min/week). The trials were performed in a randomised order (computerised-generated randomisation). IWT and CWT consisted of ten supervised treadmill walking sessions, each lasting 60 min, over 2 weeks. IWT was performed as repeated cycles of 3 min slow walking and 3 min fast walking (aiming for 54% and 89% of [Formula: see text], respectively, which was measured during the last minute of each interval), and CWT was performed aiming for a moderate walking speed (73% of [Formula: see text]). A two-step (pancreatic and hyperinsulinaemic) hyperglycaemic clamp was implemented before and after each trial. All data were collected in a hospitalised setting. Neither participants nor assessors were blinded to the trial interventions. RESULTS: Thirteen individuals completed all procedures and were included in the analyses. IWT improved S G (mean ± SEM: 0.6 ± 0.1 mg kg-1 min-1, p < 0.05) but not S I (p > 0.05), whereas CWT matched for energy expenditure and time duration improved neither S G nor S I (both p > 0.05). Changes in S G, but not in S I, were associated with changes in mean (β = -0.62 ± 0.23, r 2 = 0.17, p < 0.01) and maximum (β = -1.18 ± 0.52, r 2 = 0.12, p < 0.05) glucose levels during 24 h continuous glucose monitoring. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Two weeks of IWT, but not CWT, improves S G but not S I in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, changes in S G are associated with changes in glycaemic control. Therefore, increased S G is likely an important mechanism by which training improves glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02320526 FUNDING: CFAS is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. During the study period, the Centre of Inflammation and Metabolism (CIM) was supported by a grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF55). The study was further supported by grants from Diabetesforeningen, Augustinusfonden and Krista og Viggo Petersens Fond. CIM/CFAS is a member of DD2-the Danish Center for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes (the Danish Council for Strategic Research, grant no. 09-067009 and 09-075724).
Entities:
Keywords:
Continuous glucose monitoring; Exercise interventions; Glucose effectiveness; Hyperglycaemic clamp; Hyperinsulinaemic clamp; Insulin sensitivity; Lifestyle intervention(s); Mass action of glucose; Pancreatic clamp; Training
Authors: Normand G Boulé; S John Weisnagel; Timo A Lakka; Angelo Tremblay; Richard N Bergman; Tuomo Rankinen; Arthur S Leon; James S Skinner; Jack H Wilmore; D C Rao; Claude Bouchard Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Hiba AbouAssi; Cris A Slentz; Catherine R Mikus; Charles J Tanner; Lori A Bateman; Leslie H Willis; A Tamlyn Shields; Lucy W Piner; Lorrie E Penry; Erik A Kraus; Kim M Huffman; Connie W Bales; Joseph A Houmard; William E Kraus Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2015-06-15
Authors: Paul M Coen; Charles J Tanner; Nicole L Helbling; Gabriel S Dubis; Kazanna C Hames; Hui Xie; George M Eid; Maja Stefanovic-Racic; Frederico G S Toledo; John M Jakicic; Joseph A Houmard; Bret H Goodpaster Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Kristian Karstoft; Margaret A Clark; Ida Jakobsen; Ida A Müller; Bente K Pedersen; Thomas P J Solomon; Mathias Ried-Larsen Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: John P Kirwan; Thomas P J Solomon; Daniel M Wojta; Myrlene A Staten; John O Holloszy Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2009-04-21 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: S E Kahn; R L Prigeon; D K McCulloch; E J Boyko; R N Bergman; M W Schwartz; J L Neifing; W K Ward; J C Beard; J P Palmer Journal: Diabetes Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Shihao Hu; Yuzhi Lu; Andrea Tura; Giovanni Pacini; David Z D'Argenio Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Matthew Munan; Camila L P Oliveira; Alexis Marcotte-Chénard; Jordan L Rees; Carla M Prado; Eléonor Riesco; Normand G Boulé Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 5.555