Effects of sedentary behaviour interventions on biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk in adults: systematic review with meta-analyses

Context/purpose Observational and acute laboratory intervention research has shown that excessive sedentary time is associated adversely with cardiometabolic biomarkers. This systematic review with meta-analyses synthesises results from free living interventions targeting reductions in sedentary behaviour alone or combined with increases in physical activity.Methods Six electronic databases were searched up to August 2019 for sedentary behaviour interventions in adults lasting for ≥7 days publishing cardiometabolic biomarker outcomes covering body anthropometry, blood pressure, glucose and lipid metabolism, and inflammation (54 studies). The pooled effectiveness of intervention net of control on 15 biomarker outcomes was evaluated using random effects meta-analyses in the studies with control groups not providing other relevant interventions (33 studies; 6–25 interventions analysed).Results Interventions between 2 weeks and 0.05) were also small, and beneficial in direction except for fat-free mass (≈ 0.0 kg). Heterogeneity ranged widely (I2=0.0–72.9).Conclusions Our review of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour reductions alone, or combined with increases in physical activity, found evidence of effectiveness for improving some cardiometabolic risk biomarkers to a small degree. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate inflammation or vascular function. Key limitations to the underlying evidence base include a paucity of high-quality studies, interventions lasting for ≥12 months, sensitive biomarkers and clinical study populations (eg, type 2 diabetes).</div

Different frequencies of active interruptions to sitting have distinct effects on 22 h glycemic control in type 2 diabetes

Background & aims: Whether the frequency of interruptions to sitting time involving simple resistance activities (SRAs), compared to uninterrupted sitting, differentially affected 22 h glycemic control in adults with medication-controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods & results: Twenty-four participants (13 men; mean ± SD age 62 ± 8 years) completed three 8 h laboratory conditions: SIT: uninterrupted sitting; SRA3: sitting interrupted with 3 min of SRAs every 30 min; and, SRA6: sitting interrupted with 6 min of SRAs every 60 min. Flash glucose monitors assessed glycemic control over a 22 h period. No differences were observed between conditions for overall 22 h glycemic control as measured by AUCtotal, mean glucose and time in hyperglycemia. During the 3.5 h post-lunch period, mean glucose was significantly lower during SRA6 (10.1 mmol·L−1, 95%CI 9.2, 11.0) compared to SIT (11.1 mmol·L−1, 95%CI 10.2, 12.0; P = 0.006). Post-lunch iAUCnet was significantly lower during SRA6 (6.2 mmol·h·L−1, 95%CI 3.3, 9.1) compared to SIT (9.9 mmol·h·L−1, 95%CI 7.0, 12.9; P = 0.003). During the post-lunch period, compared to SIT (2.2 h, 95%CI 1.7, 2.6), time in hyperglycemia was significantly lower during SRA6 (1.5 h, 95%CI 1.0, 1.9, P = 0.001). Nocturnal mean glucose was significantly lower following the SRA3 condition (7.6 mmol·L−1, 95%CI 7.1, 8.1) compared to SIT (8.1 mmol·L−1, 95%CI 7.6, 8.7, P = 0.024). Conclusions: With standardized total activity time, less-frequent active interruptions to sitting may acutely improve glycemic control; while more-frequent interruptions may be beneficial for nocturnal glucose in those with medication-controlled T2D