Dataset Information

Effects of interrupting prolonged sitting on postprandial glycemia and insulin responses: A network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of physical activity (PA) interrupting prolonged sitting (PS) on postprandial glycemia and insulin responses among adults.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched through September 30, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of all forms of PA interrupting PS on postprandial glycemia and/or insulin responses among adults without chronic diseases were included in this study. The risk of bias of included studies was evaluated based on the Cochrane tool. A network meta-analysis was performed to estimate the summary standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) with random effects.

Results

Thirty crossover RCTs were included in our review. These RCTs included 9 types of interventions that interrupted PS. When compared to PS by itself, light-intensity PA intermittent interrupting (LPA-INT) PS and moderate-intensity PA intermittent interrupting (MPA-INT) PS significantly lowered postprandial glycemia (SMD = -0.46, 95%CI: -0.70 to -0.21; SMD = -0.69, 95%CI: -1.00 to -0.37, respectively) and significantly reduced postprandial insulin response (SMD = -0.46, 95%CI: -0.66 to -0.26; SMD = -0.47, 95%CI: -0.77 to -0.17, respectively). Results of the clustered ranking plot indicated that MPA-INT was the most effective intervention in lowering postprandial glycemia and insulin responses.

Conclusion

Replacing PS with MPA-INT or LPA-INT has a positive effect in reducing postprandial glycemia and insulin responses, with MPA-INT being the optimal intervention strategy.

SUBMITTER: Quan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8343076 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) breaks in sitting time might attenuate metabolic markers relevant to the prevention of type 2 diabetes.ObjectivesThe primary aim of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyse trials that compared the effects of breaking up prolonged sitting with bouts of PA throughout the day (INT) versus continuous sitting (SIT) on glucose, insulin and triacylglycerol (TAG) measures. A second aim was to compare the effects of INT versus continuous exercise (EX) on glucose, insulin and TAG measures.MethodsThe review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Eligibility criteria consisted of trials comparing INT vs. SIT or INT vs. one bout of EX before or after sitting, in participants aged 18 or above, who were classified as either metabolically healthy or impaired, but not with other major health conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or peripheral arterial disease.ResultsA total of 42 studies were included in the overall review, whereas a total of 37 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was a standardised mean difference (SMD) of - 0.54 (95% CI - 0.70, - 0.37, p?=?0.00001) in favour of INT compared to SIT for glucose. With respect to insulin, there was an SMD of - 0.56 (95% CI - 0.74, - 0.38, p?=?0.00001) in favour of INT. For TAG, there was an SMD of - 0.26 (95% CI - 0.44, - 0.09, p?=?0.002) in favour of INT. Body mass index (BMI) was associated with glucose responses (??=?- 0.05, 95% CI - 0.09, - 0.01, p?=?0.01), and insulin (??=?- 0.05, 95% CI - 0.10, - 0.006, p?=?0.03), but not TAG (??=?0.02, 95% CI - 0.02, 0.06, p?=?0.37). When energy expenditure was matched, there was an SMD of - 0.26 (95% CI - 0.50, - 0.02, p?=?0.03) in favour of INT for glucose, but no statistically significant SMDs for insulin, i.e. 0.35 (95% CI - 0.37, 1.07, p?=?0.35), or TAG i.e. 0.08 (95% CI - 0.22, 0.37, p?=?0.62). It is worth noting that there was possible publication bias for TAG outcomes when PA breaks were compared with sitting.ConclusionThe use of PA breaks during sitting moderately attenuated post-prandial glucose, insulin, and TAG, with greater glycaemic attenuation in people with higher BMI. There was a statistically significant small advantage for PA breaks over continuous exercise for attenuating glucose measures when exercise protocols were energy matched, but no statistically significant differences for insulin and TAG. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42017080982.Prospero registrationCRD42017080982.

Project description:Background: Cultural, environmental and logistical factors challenge the Qatari population, particularly females, to engage in physical activity, and there is a high prevalence of diabetes in this population. Sedentary behavior is associated with increased cardiometabolic disease risk and early mortality and breaking up sitting can attenuate postprandial cardiometabolic risk markers. However, no studies have evaluated the cardiometabolic response to breaking up sitting in a Qatari population. Purpose: To examine the effects of breaking up sitting with moderate-intensity walking breaks on cardiometabolic disease markers in Qatari females. Methods: Eleven sedentary (sitting ≥ 7 h/day) females completed two experimental conditions in a cross-over randomized design. The two conditions were identical, except participants either remained seated for 5-h (SIT), or interrupted their sitting every 30-min with a 3-min walk (WALK) on a motorized treadmill (rating of perceived exertion 12-14). A fasting venous blood sample was obtained at baseline (-10-min) followed by samples at 0.5-, 1-, 2-, 3-, 3.5-, 4-, and 5-h. Postprandial cardiometabolic variables (insulin, glucose, triglycerides) were calculated as derivatives of total area under the curve [AUC; total (tAUC), net incremental (iAUC) and positive AUC]. Results: Data is reported as effect size; ±90% confidence limit. There was a most likely "moderate" lower tAUC (-0.92 ± 0.26), iAUC (-0.96 ± 0.33), and positive AUC (-0.96 ± 0.33) for insulin in WALK compared to SIT. Additionally, there was a most likely "moderate" lower tAUC (-0.63 ± 0.37), iAUC (-0.91 ± 0.49), and positive AUC (-0.91 ± 0.49) for triglycerides in WALK compared to SIT. Glucose did not differ between conditions. Conclusion: Breaking up prolonged sitting with moderate-intensity walking offers a culturally compatible intervention to acutely improve cardiometabolic risk markers in sedentary Qatari females. Whilst the data offers promise, the long-term chronic effects of breaking up sitting in Qatari adults requires investigation before population level and/or policy recommendations can be made.

Project description:PurposeTo identify predictors of favorable changes to postprandial insulin and glucose levels in response to interrupting prolonged sitting time with standing or light-intensity physical activity.MethodsData were combined from four similarly designed randomized acute cross-over trials (n = 129; body mass index [BMI] range, 19.6-44.6 kg·m; South Asian = 31.0%; dysglycemia = 27.1%). Treatments included: prolonged sitting (6.5 h) or prolonged sitting broken-up with either standing or light-intensity physical activity (5 min every 30 min). Time-averaged postprandial responses for insulin and glucose were calculated for each treatment (mean ± 95% confidence interval). Mutually adjusted interaction terms were used to examine whether anthropometric (BMI), demographic (age, sex, ethnicity [white European vs South Asian]) and a cardiometabolic variable (Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance)-modified responses.ResultsPostprandial insulin and glucose were reduced when individuals interrupted prolonged sitting with bouts of light physical activity, but not with standing. Reductions in time-averaged postprandial insulin were more pronounced if individuals were South Asian compared with white European (-18.9 mU·L [-23.5%] vs -8.2 mU·L [-9.3%]), female compared with male (-15.0 mU·L [-21.2%] vs -12.1 mU·L [-17.6%]) or had a BMI ≥27.2 kg·m (-20.9 mU·L [-22.9%] vs -8.7 mU·L [-18.2%]). Similarly, being female (-0.4 mmol·L [-0.6 mmol·L, -0.2 mmol·L], -6.8% vs -0.1 mmol·L [-0.3 mmol·L, 1 mmol·L], -1.7%) or having a BMI ≥27.2 kg·m (-0.4 mmol·L [-0.6 mmol·L, -0.2 mmol·L], -6.7% vs -0.2 mmol·L [-0.4 mmol·L, 0.0 mmol·L], -3.4%) modified the postprandial glucose response. No significant interactions were found for Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance or age.ConclusionsBeing female, South Asian, or having a higher BMI, all predicted greater reductions in postprandial insulin, whereas being female and having a higher BMI predicted greater reductions in postprandial glucose when sitting was interrupted with light physical activity. These results could help to guide personalized interventions in high-risk participants for whom breaking prolonged sitting time with light activity may yield the greatest therapeutic potential.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Short-term and long-term exposure to prolonged sitting is associated with excess food intake and weight gain in children. Interrupting prolonged sitting with low-intensity activity has been shown to not alter hunger, satiety, or food consumption in children, however it is unclear whether interrupting sitting with high-intensity activity will alter appetite regulation in children. PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of interrupting prolonged sitting with intermittent activity performed at varying intensities on hunger, satiety, prospective food consumption (PFC), and food intake in preadolescent children. METHODS:Thirty-nine children (ages 7-11 years, 54% female, 33% overweight/obese) completed four experimental conditions in random order: 8 hours of sitting interrupted with 20, 2-minute low-, moderate-, or high-intensity activity breaks or 20, 2-minute sedentary screen time breaks. Exercise intensity corresponded with 25%, 50% and 75% of heart rate reserve, respectively. Hunger, satiety, and PFC were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale, at five time points (pre- and post-breakfast, pre- and post-lunch, and pre-dinner) during each experimental condition. Dietary compensation was assessed as total caloric intake during a post-condition dinner standardized to provide 70% of estimated daily energy requirements. RESULTS:There was a significant effect of time on hunger, satiety, and PFC throughout each condition day (p< 0.001). There were no differences across conditions for hunger (sedentary: 4.9±0.3 cm, low: 5.0±0.3 cm, moderate: 5.1±0.3 cm, high: 5.1±0.3 cm, p>0.05), satiety (sedentary: 4.7±0.3 cm, low: 4.4±0.3 cm, moderate: 4.6±0.3 cm, high: 4.2±0.3 cm, p>0.05), and PFC (sedentary: 4.9±0.3 cm, low: 4.7±0.3 cm, moderate: 4.9±0.3 cm, high: 5.0±0.3 cm, p>0.05). There were no significant differences in post-activity food intake across conditions (sedentary: 1071.9±53.6 kcals; low: 1092.6±43.4kcals; moderate: 996.2±54.6kcals; high: 1138.7±62.8kcals, p>0.05). However, there was a significant effect of condition on energy balance (sedentary: +61.4±65.9 kcals, low: +74.9±57.6 kcals, moderate: -58.3±62.8 kcals, high: -391.2±77.9 kcals; p<0.001). There were no significant effects of weight status on hunger, satiety, PFC, post-activity food intake, and mean energy balance across conditions (all p's>0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Interrupting prolonged sitting with physical activity of any intensity does not alter appetite sensations and subsequent food consumption in children. These data suggest that interventions targeting prolonged sitting with high-intensity intermittent activity may be an effective strategy to increase physical activity energy expenditure without increasing food intake, allowing for a short-term energy deficit in both healthy weight and overweight/obese children. Future studies should examine the long-term effects of interrupting prolonged sitting with activity on food consumption and weight status in preadolescent children.

Project description:BackgroundPostprandial glucose, insulin, and triglyceride metabolism is impaired by prolonged sitting, but enhanced by exercise. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of a continuous exercise bout with and without intermittent active interruptions to prolonged sitting on postprandial glucose, insulin, and triglycerides.MethodsSedentary adults who were overweight to obese (n = 67; mean age 67 yr SD ± 7; BMI 31.2 kg∙m- 2 SD ± 4.1), completed three conditions: SIT: uninterrupted sitting (8-h, control); EX+SIT: sitting (1-h), moderate-intensity walking (30-min), uninterrupted sitting (6.5-h); EX+BR: sitting (1-h), moderate-intensity walking (30- min), sitting interrupted every 30-min with 3-min of light-intensity walking (6.5 h). Participants consumed standardized breakfast and lunch meals and blood was sampled at 13 time-points.ResultsWhen compared to SIT, EX+SIT increased total area under the curve (tAUC) for glucose by 2% [0.1-4.1%] and EX+BR by 3% [0.6-4.7%] (all p < 0.05). Compared to SIT, EX+SIT reduced insulin and insulin:glucose ratio tAUC by 18% [11-22%] and 21% [8-33%], respectively; and EX+BR reduced values by 25% [19-31%] and 28% [15-38%], respectively (all p < 0.001 vs SIT, all p < 0.05 EX+SIT-vs-EX+BR). Compared to SIT, EX+BR reduced triglyceride tAUC by 6% [1-10%] (p = 0.01 vs SIT), and compared to EX+SIT, EX+BR reduced this value by 5% [0.1-8.8%] (p = 0.047 vs EX+SIT). The magnitude of reduction in insulin tAUC from SIT-to-EX+BR was greater in those with increased basal insulin resistance. No reduction in triglyceride tAUC from SIT-to-EX+BR was apparent in those with high fasting triglycerides.ConclusionsAdditional reductions in postprandial insulin-glucose dynamics and triglycerides may be achieved by combining exercise with breaks in sitting. Relative to uninterrupted sitting, this strategy may reduce postprandial insulin more in those with high basal insulin resistance, but those with high fasting triglycerides may be resistant to such intervention-induced reductions in triglycerides.Trial registrationAustralia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12614000737639 ).

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing evidence highlights that accumulating sitting time in prolonged bouts is detrimental to cardiometabolic health.ObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to compare the effects of fractionating prolonged sitting with frequent short bouts of standing and light-intensity walking on cardiometabolic health markers and conduct a meta-analysis for differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP), postprandial glucose and insulin.MethodsExperimental randomised crossover trials with at least three intervention arms that assessed interrupting sitting with frequent short bouts of standing and light-intensity walking over a single day compared to a prolonged sitting condition were retrieved. These studies measured at minimum one marker of cardiometabolic health in adults > 18 years. An electronic search was completed on the 2nd of August 2021, searching PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library and APA PsycINFO. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist. A meta-analysis was conducted using calculated Cohen's d quantifying the magnitude of difference between experimental conditions.ResultsSeven studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. All seven studies were included within the meta-analysis for postprandial glucose, four studies were pooled for postprandial insulin and three for SBP. Biomarkers of cardiometabolic health were discussed qualitatively if fewer than three studies measured and reported the variable. A meta-analysis of seven acute, 1-day randomised crossover trials that sampled mixed-sex adults (aged > 18 years) who were predominately overweight or participants with obesity found that standing as an interruption to prolonged sitting significantly reduced postprandial glucose (∆ = - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.60, - 0.03; z = - 2.15, p < 0.04) but had no significant effect on insulin or SBP. Light-intensity walking was shown to significantly attenuate postprandial glucose (∆ = - 0.72, 95% CI - 1.03, - 0.41; z = - 4.57, p < 0.001) and insulin (∆ = - 0.83, 95% CI - 1.18, - 0.48; z = - 4.66, p < 0.001) compared to continued sitting. When comparing light-intensity walking breaks compared to standing breaks a significant reduction in glucose (∆ = - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.52, - 0.08; z = -2.64, p < 0.009) and insulin (∆ = - 0.54, 95% CI - 0.75, - 0.33; z = -4.98, p < 0.001) was observed. Both standing and light-intensity walking showed no effect on SBP.ConclusionsFrequent short interruptions of standing significantly attenuated postprandial glucose compared to prolonged sitting; however, light-intensity walking was found to represent a superior physical activity break. The feasibility and longitudinal implications of breaking sedentary behaviour with light-intensity walking should be investigated in a free-living setting.RegistrationNot available.