↓ Skip to main content

Breaking sitting with light activities vs structured exercise: a randomised crossover study demonstrating benefits for glycaemic control and insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 5,394)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
40 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
280 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
461 Mendeley
Title
Breaking sitting with light activities vs structured exercise: a randomised crossover study demonstrating benefits for glycaemic control and insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes
Published in
Diabetologia, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00125-016-4161-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernard M. F. M. Duvivier, Nicolaas C. Schaper, Matthijs K. C. Hesselink, Linh van Kan, Nathalie Stienen, Bjorn Winkens, Annemarie Koster, Hans H. C. M. Savelberg

Abstract

We aimed to examine the effects of breaking sitting with standing and light-intensity walking vs an energy-matched bout of structured exercise on 24 h glucose levels and insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes. In a randomised crossover study, 19 patients with type 2 diabetes (13 men/6 women, 63 ± 9 years old) who were not using insulin each followed three regimens under free-living conditions, each lasting 4 days: (1) Sitting: 4415 steps/day with 14 h sitting/day; (2) Exercise: 4823 steps/day with 1.1 h/day of sitting replaced by moderate- to vigorous-intensity cycling (at an intensity of 5.9 metabolic equivalents [METs]); and (3) Sit Less: 17,502 steps/day with 4.7 h/day of sitting replaced by standing and light-intensity walking (an additional 2.5 h and 2.2 h, respectively, compared with the hours spent doing these activities in the Sitting regimen). Blocked randomisation was performed using a block size of six regimen orders using sealed, non-translucent envelopes. Individuals who assessed the outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Meals were standardised during each intervention. Physical activity and glucose levels were assessed for 24 h/day by accelerometry (activPAL) and a glucose monitor (iPro2), respectively. The incremental AUC (iAUC) for 24 h glucose (primary outcome) and insulin resistance (HOMA2-IR) were assessed on days 4 and 5, respectively. The iAUC for 24 h glucose (mean ± SEM) was significantly lower during the Sit Less intervention than in Sitting (1263 ± 189 min × mmol/l vs 1974 ± 324 min × mmol/l; p = 0.002), and was similar between Sit Less and Exercise (Exercise: 1383 ± 194 min × mmol/l; p = 0.499). Exercise failed to improve HOMA2-IR compared with Sitting (2.06 ± 0.28 vs 2.16 ± 0.26; p = 0.177). In contrast, Sit Less (1.89 ± 0.26) significantly reduced HOMA2-IR compared with Exercise (p = 0.015) as well as Sitting (p = 0.001). Breaking sitting with standing and light-intensity walking effectively improved 24 h glucose levels and improved insulin sensitivity in individuals with type 2 diabetes to a greater extent than structured exercise. Thus, our results suggest that breaking sitting with standing and light-intensity walking may be an alternative to structured exercise to promote glycaemic control in patients type 2 diabetes. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02371239 FUNDING: : The study was supported by a Kootstra grant from Maastricht University Medical Centre(+), and the Dutch Heart Foundation. Financial support was also provided by Novo Nordisk BV, and Medtronic and Roche made the equipment available for continuous glucose monitoring.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 280 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 461 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 458 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 69 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 13%
Student > Master 57 12%
Researcher 33 7%
Student > Postgraduate 21 5%
Other 75 16%
Unknown 146 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 82 18%
Sports and Recreations 50 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Other 51 11%
Unknown 165 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 518. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2023.
All research outputs
#49,870
of 25,816,430 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#45
of 5,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,003
of 418,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#4
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,816,430 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.