↓ Skip to main content

Effects of exercise training alone vs a combined exercise and nutritional lifestyle intervention on glucose homeostasis in prediabetic individuals: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, July 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 (#44 of 5,348)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
64 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
47 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
414 Mendeley
Title
Effects of exercise training alone vs a combined exercise and nutritional lifestyle intervention on glucose homeostasis in prediabetic individuals: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Diabetologia, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00125-016-4051-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cris A. Slentz, Lori A. Bateman, Leslie H. Willis, Esther O. Granville, Lucy W. Piner, Gregory P. Samsa, Tracy L. Setji, Michael J. Muehlbauer, Kim M. Huffman, Connie W. Bales, William E. Kraus

Abstract

Although the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) established lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight loss) as the 'gold standard' preventive therapy for diabetes, the relative contribution of exercise alone to the overall utility of the combined diet and exercise effect of DPP is unknown; furthermore, the optimal intensity of exercise for preventing progression to diabetes remains very controversial. To establish clinical efficacy, we undertook a study (2009 to 2013) to determine: how much of the effect on measures of glucose homeostasis of a 6 month programme modelled after the first 6 months of the DPP is due to exercise alone; whether moderate- or vigorous-intensity exercise is better for improving glucose homeostasis; and to what extent amount of exercise is a contributor to improving glucose control. The primary outcome was improvement in fasting plasma glucose, with improvement in plasma glucose AUC response to an OGTT as the major secondary outcome. The trial was a parallel clinical trial. Sedentary, non-smokers who were 45-75 year old adults (n = 237) with elevated fasting glucose (5.28-6.94 mmol/l) but without cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or diabetes, from the Durham area, were studied at Duke University. They were randomised into one of four 6 month interventions: (1) low amount (42 kJ kg body weight(-1) week(-1) [KKW])/moderate intensity: equivalent of expending 42 KKW (e.g. walking ∼16 km [8.6 miles] per week) with moderate-intensity (50% [Formula: see text]) exercise; (2) high amount (67 KKW)/moderate intensity: equivalent of expending 67 KKW (∼22.3 km [13.8 miles] per week) with moderate-intensity exercise; (3) high amount (67 KKW)/vigorous intensity: equivalent to group 2, but with vigorous-intensity exercise (75% [Formula: see text]); and (4) diet + 42 KKW moderate intensity: same as group 1 but with diet and weight loss (7%) to mimic the first 6 months of the DPP. Computer-generated randomisation lists were provided by our statistician (G. P. Samsa). The randomisation list was maintained by L. H. Willis and C. A. Slentz with no knowledge of or input into the scheduling, whereas all scheduling was done by L. A. Bateman, with no knowledge of the randomisation list. Subjects were automatically assigned to the next group listed on the randomisation sheet (with no ability to manipulate the list order) on the day that they came in for the OGTT, by L. H. Willis. All plasma analysis was done blinded by the individuals doing the measurements (i.e. lipids, glucose, insulin). Subjects and research staff (other than individuals analysing the blood) were not blinded to the group assignments. Number randomised, completers and number analysed with complete OGTT data for each group were: low-amount/moderate-intensity (61, 43, 35); high-amount/moderate-intensity (61, 44, 40); high-amount/vigorous-intensity (61, 43, 38); diet/exercise (54, 45, 37), respectively. Only the diet and exercise group experienced a decrease in fasting glucose (p < 0.001). The means and 95% CIs for changes in fasting glucose (mmol/l) for each group were: high-amount/moderate-intensity -0.07 (-0.20, 0.06); high-amount/vigorous 0.06 (-0.07, 0.19); low-amount/moderate 0.05 (-0.05, 0.15); and diet/exercise -0.32 (-0.46, -0.18). The effects sizes for each group (in the same order) were: 0.17, 0.15, 0.18 and 0.71, respecively. For glucose tolerance (glucose AUC of OGTT), similar improvements were observed for the diet and exercise (8.2% improvement, effect size 0.73) and the 67 KKW moderate-intensity exercise (6.4% improvement, effect size 0.60) groups; moderate-intensity exercise was significantly more effective than the same amount of vigorous-intensity exercise (p < 0.0207). The equivalent amount of vigorous-intensity exercise alone did not significantly improve glucose tolerance (1.2% improvement, effect size 0.21). Changes in insulin AUC, fasting plasma glucose and insulin did not differ among the exercise groups and were numerically inferior to the diet and exercise group. In the present clinical efficacy trial we found that a high amount of moderate-intensity exercise alone was very effective at improving oral glucose tolerance despite a relatively modest 2 kg change in body fat mass. These data, combined with numerous published observations of the strong independent relation between postprandial glucose concentrations and prediction of future diabetes, suggest that walking ∼18.2 km (22.3 km prescribed with 81.6% adherence in the 67 KKW moderate-intensity group) per week may be nearly as effective as a more intensive multicomponent approach involving diet, exercise and weight loss for preventing the progression to diabetes in prediabetic individuals. These findings have important implications for the choice of clinical intervention to prevent progression to type 2 diabetes for those at high risk. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00962962 FUNDING: The study was funded by National Institutes for Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIH-NDDK) (R01DK081559).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 414 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 411 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 65 16%
Student > Master 57 14%
Researcher 32 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 7%
Other 21 5%
Other 74 18%
Unknown 134 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 67 16%
Sports and Recreations 36 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Other 52 13%
Unknown 148 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 507. 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 24 January 2023.
All research outputs
#50,680
of 25,410,626 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#44
of 5,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,046
of 372,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#3
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,410,626 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 5,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. 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 372,181 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 77 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 97% of its contemporaries.