↓ Skip to main content

Sedentary Patterns, Physical Activity, and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Association to Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sedentary Patterns, Physical Activity, and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Association to Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Patients
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00262
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luís B. Sardinha, João P. Magalhães, Diana A. Santos, Pedro B. Júdice

Abstract

Background: Sedentary behavior has been considered an independent risk factor for type-2 diabetes (T2D), with a negative impact on several physiological outcomes, whereas breaks in sedentary time (BST) have been proposed as a viable solution to mitigate some of these effects. However, little is known about the independent associations of sedentary pursuits, physical activity, and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) variables with glycemic control. We investigated the independent associations of total sedentary time, BST, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and CRF with glycemic outcomes in patients with T2D. Methods: Total sedentary time, BST, and MVPA were assessed in 66 participants (29 women) with T2D, using accelerometry. Glucose and insulin were measured during a mixed meal tolerance test, with the respective calculations of HOMA-IR and Matsuda index. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was also analyzed. CRF was measured in a maximal treadmill test with breath-by-breath gases analysis. Multiple regressions were used for data analysis. Results: Regardless of CRF, total sedentary time was positively associated with HbA1c (β = 0.25, p = 0.044). Adjusting for MVPA, total sedentary time was related to fasting glucose (β = 0.32, p = 0.037). No associations between total sedentary time and the remaining glycemic outcomes, after adjusting for MVPA. BST had favorable associations with HOMA-IR (β = -0.28, p = 0.047) and fasting glucose (β = -0.25, p = 0.046), when adjusted for MVPA, and with HOMA-IR (β = -0.25, p = 0.036), Matsuda index (β = 0.26, p = 0.036), and fasting glucose (β = -0.22, p = 0.038), following adjustment for CRF. When adjusting for total sedentary time, only CRF yielded favorable associations with HOMA-IR (β = -0.29, p = 0.039), fasting glucose (β = -0.32, p = 0.012), and glucose at 120-min (β = -0.26, p = 0.035), and no associations were found for MVPA with none of the metabolic outcomes. Conclusion: The results from this study suggest that sedentary time and patterns are relevant for the glycemic control in patients with T2D. Still, MVPA and CRF counteracted most of the associations for total sedentary time but not for the BST. MVPA was not associated with metabolic outcomes, and CRF lost some of the associations with glycemic indicators when adjusted for total sedentary time. Future interventions aiming to control/improve T2D must consider reducing and breaking up sedentary time as a viable strategy to improve glycemic control.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Researcher 8 9%
Professor 6 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 18 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Psychology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 26 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#12,972,913
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,059
of 13,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,568
of 310,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#82
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 310,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 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 66% of its contemporaries.