Exercise in the workplace: examining the receptivity of practical and time-efficient stair-climbing "exercise snacks".

In the workplace, people are often sedentary for prolonged time and do not regularly engage in physical activity-two factors independently linked to premature morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to determine the receptivity of incorporating practical stair-climbing "exercise snacks" (Snacks; three isolated bouts of ascending 53-60 stairs performed sporadically throughout the day) into workplace settings compared to more traditional high-intensity interval training (HIIT; performed as three bouts of 53-60 stairs within a structured HIIT workout) and to explore if these exercise strategies could influence sedentary and physical activity behaviour. Fourteen participants (12 women; Mage = 38.9 ± 10.2 years) completed two supervised exercise trials (Snacks and HIIT) followed by 1 week participating in either form of exercise in their workplace. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), affective valence, enjoyment, and self-efficacy were measured at the supervised exercise sessions. During the follow-up period, sedentary behaviour and physical activity were measured with an accelerometer. Affective valence was more positive (p = 0.03; η2 p = 0.21) and there was a lower rise in RPE (p = 0.01; η2 p = 0.29) during Snacks than HIIT. Post-exercise enjoyment of, and self-efficacy towards, Snacks and HIIT were high and similar (ps > 0.05). After the supervised trials, 10/14 of the participants preferred Snacks and 4/14 preferred HIIT (p = 0.18). On days when participants chose to perform either exercise modality, the average number of sit-to-stands in a 24 h period was increased (48.3 ± 8.7 to 52.8 ± 7.8; p = 0.03; Hedge's g = 0.73) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity tended to increase (21.9 ± 18.2 to 38.1 ± 22.1 min; p = 0.06; Hedge's g = 0.60) compared to days when they chose not to exercise. Stair-climbing exercise snacks may be an attractive approach to implement in the workplace setting and has potential to positively impact sedentary behaviour and physical activity metrics.

Can In-Task Affect During Interval and Continuous Exercise Predict 12-Month Physical Activity Behavior? Findings from a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: In-task affective responses to moderate-intensity continuous exercise training (MICT) have been shown to predict future physical activity behavior. However, limited research has investigated whether this affect-behavior relationship is similar for high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and whether it holds true over the longer term. This study aims to determine (1) if in-task affect during 2 weeks of supervised MICT and HIIT predicted changes to unsupervised moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) behavior 12 months post-intervention and (2) if this predictive relationship was moderated by exercise type (MICT vs. HIIT). METHOD: Ninety-nine adults (69.7% female; 50.9 ± 9.4 years) who were low active and overweight were randomized to 2 weeks of exercise training of MICT (n = 52) or HIIT (n = 47), followed by 12 months of accelerometry-assessed free-living MVPA. RESULTS: The pooled moderation model was not significant, F(3, 94) = 2.54, p = .07 (R2 = 0.085), with a non-significant group by affect interaction (p = .06). The conditional effect for MICT was significant (B = 17.27, t = 2.17, p = .03), suggesting that 12-month change in MVPA increased by 17.27 min/week for every one-point increase in in-task affect. The conditional effect for HIIT was not significant (p = .85), suggesting that in-task affect was not predictive of 12-month change in MVPA. CONCLUSION: The current findings raise important questions about whether the affect-behavior relationship may vary depending on exercise type. For HIIT-based exercise in particular, additional psychological constructs beyond in-task affect should be considered when attempting to predict future physical activity behavior.

Impact of a Low-Carbohydrate Compared with Low-Fat Breakfast on Blood Glucose Control in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: In type 2 diabetes (T2D), consuming carbohydrates results in a rapid and large increase in blood glucose, particularly in the morning when glucose intolerance is highest. OBJECTIVES: We investigated if a low-carbohydrate (LC) breakfast (∼465 kcal: 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat) could improve glucose control in people with T2D when compared with a low-fat control (CTL) breakfast (∼450 kcal:20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat). METHODS: Participants with T2D (N = 121, 53% women, mean age 64 y) completed a remote 3-month parallel-group randomized controlled trial comparing a LC with standard low-fat guideline CTL breakfast. The change in HbA1c was the prespecified primary outcome. Continuous glucose monitoring, self-reported anthropometrics, and dietary information were collected for an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: HbA1c was reduced (-0.3%; 95% CI: -0.4%, -0.1%) after 12 wks of a LC breakfast, but the between-group difference in HbA1c was of borderline statistical significance (-0.2; 95% CI: -0.4, 0.0; P = 0.06). Self-reported total daily energy (-242 kcal; 95% CI: -460, -24 kcal; P = 0.03) and carbohydrate (-73 g; 95% CI: -101, -44 g; P < 0.01) intake were lower in the LC group but the significance of this difference is unclear. Mean and maximum glucose, area under the curve, glycemic variability, standard deviation, and time above range were all significantly lower, and time in the range was significantly higher, in the LC group compared with CTL (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Advice and guidance to consume a LC breakfast appears to be a simple dietary strategy to reduce overall energy and carbohydrate intake and improve several continuous glucose monitoring variables when compared with a CTL breakfast in persons living with T2D. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04550468.

Primary care provider-led cancer survivorship care in the first 5 years following initial cancer treatment: a scoping review of the barriers and solutions to implementation.

PURPOSE: To synthesize the barriers to primary care provider (PCP)-led cancer survivorship care (≤ 5 years after initial cancer treatment) experienced by healthcare systems around the world, and to explore potential solutions that would succeed within a developed country. METHODS: A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and grey literature was conducted. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) were searched for articles prior to April 2021. RESULTS: Ninety-seven articles published across the globe (USA, Canada, Australia, European Union, and UK) met the review inclusion/exclusion criteria. The four most frequently discussed barriers to PCP-led survivorship care in healthcare systems were as follows: (1) insufficient communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, (2) limited PCP knowledge, (3) time restrictions for PCPs to provide comprehensive survivorship care, and (4) a lack of resources (e.g., survivorship care guidelines). Potential solutions to combat these barriers were as follows: (1) improving interdisciplinary communication, (2) bolstering PCP education, and (3) providing survivorship resources. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified and summarized key barriers and solutions to the provision of PCP-led cancer survivorship care. Importantly, the findings from this review provide insight and direction to guide optimization of cancer care practice within BC's healthcare system. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Optimizing the PCP-led survivorship care model will be a valuable contribution to the field of cancer survivorship care and will hopefully lead to more widespread use of this model, ultimately lessening the growing demand for cancer-specific care by cancer specialists.