Jonathon W Senefeld1, Sarah E D'Astice1, Alison R Harmer2, Sandra K Hunter1. 1. Exercise Science Program, Department of Physical Therapy, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI. 2. Musculoskeletal Health Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Exercise is a cornerstone of management for type 2 diabetes; however, little is known about the cardiovascular (CV) response to submaximal functional exercise in people with type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to compare performance and CV response during a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) between people with type 2 diabetes and matched control subjects. METHODS: CV response and distance walked during the 6MWT were assessed in 30 people with type 2 diabetes, matched for age, body composition, physical activity, and estimated aerobic capacity with 34 control subjects (type 2 diabetes group: 16 men, 59.8 ± 8.8 years of age, 33.3 ± 10.9% body fat, physical activity of 7,968 ± 3,236 steps·day-1, estimated aerobic capacity 31.9 ± 11.1 mLO2·kg-1·min-1; control group: 19 men, 59.3 ± 8.8 years of age, 32.7 ± 8.5% body fat, physical activity 8,228 ± 2,941 steps·day-1, estimated aerobic capacity 34.9 ± 15.4 mLO2·kg-1·min-1). RESULTS: People with type 2 diabetes walked a similar distance (590 ± 75 vs. 605 ± 69 m; P = 0.458) compared with control subjects during the 6MWT and had similar ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) after the 6MWT (4.19 ± 1.56 vs. 3.65 ± 1.54, P = 0.147). However, at the end of the 6MWT, people with type 2 diabetes had a higher heart rate (108 ± 23 vs. 95 ± 18 beats·min-1; P = 0.048), systolic blood pressure (169 ± 26 vs. 147 ± 22 mmHg, P = 0.003), and rate-pressure product (18,762 ± 5,936 vs. 14,252 ± 4,330, P = 0.009) than control subjects. CONCLUSION: Although people with type 2 diabetes had similar performance and RPE during the 6MWT compared with control subjects, the CV response was greater for people with type 2 diabetes, indicating greater cardiac effort for similar perceived effort and performance of 6MWT. These data suggest that observation and prescription of exercise intensity should include both perceived effort and CV response.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Exercise is a cornerstone of management for type 2 diabetes; however, little is known about the cardiovascular (CV) response to submaximal functional exercise in people with type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to compare performance and CV response during a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) between people with type 2 diabetes and matched control subjects. METHODS: CV response and distance walked during the 6MWT were assessed in 30 people with type 2 diabetes, matched for age, body composition, physical activity, and estimated aerobic capacity with 34 control subjects (type 2 diabetes group: 16 men, 59.8 ± 8.8 years of age, 33.3 ± 10.9% body fat, physical activity of 7,968 ± 3,236 steps·day-1, estimated aerobic capacity 31.9 ± 11.1 mLO2·kg-1·min-1; control group: 19 men, 59.3 ± 8.8 years of age, 32.7 ± 8.5% body fat, physical activity 8,228 ± 2,941 steps·day-1, estimated aerobic capacity 34.9 ± 15.4 mLO2·kg-1·min-1). RESULTS: People with type 2 diabetes walked a similar distance (590 ± 75 vs. 605 ± 69 m; P = 0.458) compared with control subjects during the 6MWT and had similar ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) after the 6MWT (4.19 ± 1.56 vs. 3.65 ± 1.54, P = 0.147). However, at the end of the 6MWT, people with type 2 diabetes had a higher heart rate (108 ± 23 vs. 95 ± 18 beats·min-1; P = 0.048), systolic blood pressure (169 ± 26 vs. 147 ± 22 mmHg, P = 0.003), and rate-pressure product (18,762 ± 5,936 vs. 14,252 ± 4,330, P = 0.009) than control subjects. CONCLUSION: Although people with type 2 diabetes had similar performance and RPE during the 6MWT compared with control subjects, the CV response was greater for people with type 2 diabetes, indicating greater cardiac effort for similar perceived effort and performance of 6MWT. These data suggest that observation and prescription of exercise intensity should include both perceived effort and CV response.
Authors: Matthew D Beekley; William F Brechue; Diego V deHoyos; Linda Garzarella; Galila Werber-Zion; Michael L Pollock Journal: Res Q Exerc Sport Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Sheri R Colberg; Ronald J Sigal; Jane E Yardley; Michael C Riddell; David W Dunstan; Paddy C Dempsey; Edward S Horton; Kristin Castorino; Deborah F Tate Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Timothy J Roberts; Andrew T Burns; Richard J MacIsaac; Andrew I MacIsaac; David L Prior; André La Gerche Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anne B Newman; Catherine L Haggerty; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Michael C Nevitt; Eleanor M Simonsick Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Richard W Bohannon; Deborah Bubela; Susan Magasi; Heather McCreath; Ying-Chih Wang; David Reuben; William Z Rymer; Richard Gershon Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2014-04-25
Authors: Genevieve A Wilson; Gerard T Wilkins; Jim D Cotter; Regis R Lamberts; Sudish Lal; James C Baldi Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 9.951