↓ Skip to main content

Glucose effectiveness, but not insulin sensitivity, is improved after short-term interval training in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a controlled, randomised, crossover trial

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
Title
Glucose effectiveness, but not insulin sensitivity, is improved after short-term interval training in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a controlled, randomised, crossover trial
Published in
Diabetologia, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00125-017-4406-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristian Karstoft, Margaret A. Clark, Ida Jakobsen, Sine H. Knudsen, Gerrit van Hall, Bente K. Pedersen, Thomas P. J. Solomon

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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. 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).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 61 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 15%
Sports and Recreations 25 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 5%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 68 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,356,257
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#1,209
of 5,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,086
of 325,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#54
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 325,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.