Gender differences in the use of cardiovascular interventions in HIV-positive persons; the D:A:D Study

Peer reviewe

The SOS-framework (Systems of Sedentary behaviours): an international transdisciplinary consensus framework for the study of determinants, research priorities and policy on sedentary behaviour across the life course: a DEDIPAC-study.

BACKGROUND: Ecological models are currently the most used approaches to classify and conceptualise determinants of sedentary behaviour, but these approaches are limited in their ability to capture the complexity of and interplay between determinants. The aim of the project described here was to develop a transdisciplinary dynamic framework, grounded in a system-based approach, for research on determinants of sedentary behaviour across the life span and intervention and policy planning and evaluation. METHODS: A comprehensive concept mapping approach was used to develop the Systems Of Sedentary behaviours (SOS) framework, involving four main phases: (1) preparation, (2) generation of statements, (3) structuring (sorting and ranking), and (4) analysis and interpretation. The first two phases were undertaken between December 2013 and February 2015 by the DEDIPAC KH team (DEterminants of DIet and Physical Activity Knowledge Hub). The last two phases were completed during a two-day consensus meeting in June 2015. RESULTS: During the first phase, 550 factors regarding sedentary behaviour were listed across three age groups (i.e., youths, adults and older adults), which were reduced to a final list of 190 life course factors in phase 2 used during the consensus meeting. In total, 69 international delegates, seven invited experts and one concept mapping consultant attended the consensus meeting. The final framework obtained during that meeting consisted of six clusters of determinants: Physical Health and Wellbeing (71% consensus), Social and Cultural Context (59% consensus), Built and Natural Environment (65% consensus), Psychology and Behaviour (80% consensus), Politics and Economics (78% consensus), and Institutional and Home Settings (78% consensus). Conducting studies on Institutional Settings was ranked as the first research priority. The view that this framework captures a system-based map of determinants of sedentary behaviour was expressed by 89% of the participants. CONCLUSION: Through an international transdisciplinary consensus process, the SOS framework was developed for the determinants of sedentary behaviour through the life course. Investigating the influence of Institutional and Home Settings was deemed to be the most important area of research to focus on at present and potentially the most modifiable. The SOS framework can be used as an important tool to prioritise future research and to develop policies to reduce sedentary time

Benefits of Substituting Sitting with Standing and Walking in Free-Living Conditions for Cardiometabolic Risk Markers, Cognition and Mood in Overweight Adults

Background: We investigated whether substituting sitting with standing and self-perceived light walking in free-living conditions would improve cardiometabolic risk factors, mood, and cognition in overweight/obese adults.Methods: In a randomized, cross-over study, 24 (m/f: 13/11) sedentary overweight/obese participants (64 ± 7 years, BMI 29 ± 2 kg/m2) followed two activity regimens of each 4 days in free-living conditions: “Sit”: sitting 13.5 h/day, standing 1.4 h/day, self-perceived light-intensity walking 0.7 h/day; for “SitLess” these activities lasted 7.6, 4.0, and 4.3 h/day, respectively. Meals were standardized and physical activity was assessed by accelerometry (activPAL). Insulin sensitivity (expressed as Matsuda-index based on an oral glucose tolerance test), circulating lipids, blood pressure, mood (pleasantness and arousal), and cognition were assessed on the morning after the activity regimens. Quality of life and sleep were assessed on the last day of the activity regimens.Results: We observed that AUC (0–190 min) for insulin decreased by 20% after SitLess vs. Sit [10,125 (656) vs. 12,633 (818); p = 0.006]. Insulin sensitivity improved by 16% after SitLess vs. Sit [Matsuda-index, mean (SEM): 6.45 (0.25) vs. 5.58 (0.25) respectively; p = 0.007]. Fasting triglycerides, non-HDL-cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B decreased by 32, 7, and 4% respectively, whereas HDL-cholesterol increased by 7% after SitLess vs. Sit (all p < 0.01). Diastolic blood pressure was lower after SitLess vs. Sit (p < 0.05). Pleasantness (as one marker of mood status) after the oral glucose tolerance test was higher after SitLess vs. Sit (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between regimens for cognition, quality of life and sleep.Conclusions: Reducing sitting time in free-living conditions markedly improved insulin sensitivity, circulating lipids, and diastolic blood pressure. Substituting sitting with standing and self-perceived light walking is an effective strategy to improve cardiometabolic risk factors in overweight/obese subjects

Hamstring injury prevention in Belgian and English elite football teams

Hamstring injury is the most common injury in European professional football. The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the content of hamstring injury prevention programmes in English and Belgian elite football teams. Fifteen premier league teams (10 from Belgium and 5 from England) completed a questionnaire on hamstring injury prevention. Most football teams (93%) screened for hamstring injury risk factors. Less than 60% screened for risk factors including gluteus muscle strength, neural tension and body posture during running. While 80% of the teams had a hamstring injury prevention programme during preseason and official season; only 47% had a prevention programme during mid-season break. Hamstring muscle strength exercises were mainly performed before (77%) instead of after warming-up. In conclusion, while most investigated football teams perform hamstring injury prevention, the content and implementation of the prevention programmes is suboptimal in many Belgian and English elite football teams

Replacing sitting with light-intensity physical activity throughout the day versus 1 bout of vigorous-intensity exercise: similar cardiometabolic health effects in multiple sclerosis. A randomised cross-over study

PURPOSE: Persons with Multiple Sclerosis (PwMS) are physically inactive and spend more time in sedentary behaviours than healthy persons, which increases the risk of developing cardiometabolic diseases. In this randomised crossover study, the cardiometabolic health effects of replacing sitting with light-intensity physical activity (LIPA) and exercise (EX) were investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight mildly disabled PwMS performed four 4-day activity regimens in free-living conditions; CONTROL (habitual activity), SIT, LIPA, and EX. Plasma glucose and insulin (oral glucose tolerance test), plasma lipids, inflammation, resting heart rate, blood pressure, body weight, and perceived exertion were measured (clinical-trials.gov: NCT03919058). RESULTS: CONTROL: 9.7 h sitting/day, SIT: 13.3 h sitting/day, LIPA: 8.3 h sitting, 4.7 h standing, and 2.7 h light-intensity walking/day, and EX: 11.6 h sitting/day with 1.3 h vigorous-intensity cycling. Compared to SIT, improvements (p < 0.001) after LIPA and EX were found for insulin total area under the curve (-17 019 ± 5708 and -23 303 ± 7953 pmol/L*min), insulin sensitivity (Matsuda index +1.8 ± 0.3 and +1.9 ± 0.4) and blood lipids (triglycerides: -0.4 ± 0.1 and -0.5 ± 0.1 mmol/L; non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: -0.3 ± 0.1 and -0.5 ± 0.1 mmol/L), with no difference between LIPA and EX. Perceived exertion was higher after EX compared to LIPA (Borg score [6-20]: +2.6 ± 3.3, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Replacing sitting with LIPA throughout the day exerts similar cardiometabolic health effects as a vigorous-intensity exercise in PwMS.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONIncreasing light-intensity physical activity (LIPA) throughout the day improves cardiometabolic health to the same extent as one vigorous-intensity exercise sessionIncreasing LIPA induces less exertion than performing a vigorous-intensity exercise

Minimal intensity physical activity (standing and walking) of longer duration improves insulin action and plasma lipids more than shorter periods of moderate to vigorous exercise (cycling) in sedentary subjects when energy expenditure is comparable.

Epidemiological studies suggest that excessive sitting time is associated with increased health risk, independent of the performance of exercise. We hypothesized that a daily bout of exercise cannot compensate the negative effects of inactivity during the rest of the day on insulin sensitivity and plasma lipids.Eighteen healthy subjects, age 21±2 year, BMI 22.6±2.6 kgm(-2) followed randomly three physical activity regimes for four days. Participants were instructed to sit 14 hr/day (sitting regime); to sit 13 hr/day and to substitute 1 hr of sitting with vigorous exercise 1 hr (exercise regime); to substitute 6 hrs sitting with 4 hr walking and 2 hr standing (minimal intensity physical activity (PA) regime). The sitting and exercise regime had comparable numbers of sitting hours; compared to the exercise regime, the minimal intensity PA regime had a higher estimated daily energy expenditure (238kcal/day) [corrected]. PA was assessed continuously by an activity monitor (ActivPAL) and a diary. Measurements of insulin sensitivity (oral glucose tolerance test, OGTT) and plasma lipids were performed in the fasting state, the morning after the 4 days of each regime. In the sitting regime, daily energy expenditure was about 500 kcal lower than in both other regimes. Area under the curve for insulin during OGTT was significantly lower after the minimal intensity PA regime compared to both sitting and exercise regimes 6727.3±4329.4 vs 7752.0±3014.4 and 8320.4±5383.7 mU•min/ml, respectively. Triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B plasma levels improved significantly in the minimal intensity PA regime compared to sitting and showed non-significant trends for improvement compared to exercise.One hour of daily physical exercise cannot compensate the negative effects of inactivity on insulin level and plasma lipids if the rest of the day is spent sitting. Reducing inactivity by increasing the time spent walking/standing is more effective than one hour of physical exercise, when energy expenditure is kept constant

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

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 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

Subject characteristics.

a<p>n = 17.</p