Interactive effects of acute exercise and carbohydrate-energy replacement on insulin sensitivity in healthy adults.

This study investigated whether carbohydrate-energy replacement immediately after prolonged endurance exercise attenuates insulin sensitivity the following morning, and whether exercise improves insulin sensitivity the following morning independent of an exercise-induced carbohydrate deficit. Oral glucose tolerance and whole-body insulin sensitivity were compared the morning after 3 evening conditions, involving (1) treadmill exercise followed by a carbohydrate replacement drink (200 or 150 g maltodextrin for males and females, respectively; CHO-replace); (2) treadmill exercise followed by a non-caloric, taste-matched placebo (CHO-deficit); or (3) seated rest with no drink provided (Rest). Treadmill exercise involved 90 minutes at ∼80% age-predicted maximum heart rate. Seven males and 2 females (aged 23 ± 1 years; body mass index 24.0 ± 2.7 kg·m-2) completed all conditions in a randomised order. Matsuda index improved by 22% (2.2 [0.3, 4.0] au, p = 0.03) and HOMA2-IR improved by 10% (-0.04 [-0.08, 0.00] au, p = 0.04) in CHO-deficit versus CHO-replace, without corresponding changes in postprandial glycaemia. Outcomes were similar between Rest and other conditions. These data suggest that improvements to insulin sensitivity in healthy populations following acute moderate/vigorous intensity endurance exercise may be dependent on the presence of a carbohydrate-energy deficit. Novelty: Restoration of carbohydrate balance following acute endurance exercise attenuated whole-body insulin sensitivity. Exercise per se failed to enhance whole-body insulin sensitivity. Maximising or prolonging the post-exercise carbohydrate deficit may enhance acute benefits to insulin sensitivity.

The Energy Cost of Sitting versus Standing Naturally in Man.

PURPOSE: Prolonged sitting is a major health concern, targeted via government policy and the proliferation of height-adjustable workstations and wearable technologies to encourage standing. Such interventions have the potential to influence energy balance and thus facilitate effective management of body/fat mass. It is therefore remarkable that the energy cost of sitting versus standing naturally remains unknown. METHODS: Metabolic requirements were quantified via indirect calorimetry from expired gases in 46 healthy men and women (age, 27 ± 12 yr; mass, 79.3 ± 14.7 kg; body mass index, 24.7 ± 3.1 kg·m, waist/hip, 0.81 ± 0.06) under basal conditions (i.e., resting metabolic rate) and then, in a randomized and counterbalanced sequence, during lying, sitting and standing. Critically, no restrictions were placed on natural/spontaneous bodily movements (i.e., fidgeting) to reveal the fundamental contrast between sitting and standing in situ while maintaining a comfortable posture. RESULTS: The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) increment in energy expenditure was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06-0.31 kJ·min) from resting metabolic rate to lying was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03-0.27 kJ·min) from lying to sitting and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.53-0.77 kJ·min) from sitting to standing. An ancillary observation was that the energy cost of each posture above basal metabolic requirements exhibited marked interindividual variance, which was inversely correlated with resting heart rate for all postures (r = -0.5; -0.7 to -0.1) and positively correlated with self-reported physical activity levels for lying (r = 0.4; 0.1 to 0.7) and standing (r = 0.6; 0.3-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions designed to reduce sitting typically encourage 30 to 120 min·d more standing in situ (rather than perambulation), so the 12% difference from sitting to standing reported here does not represent an effective strategy for the treatment of obesity (i.e., weight loss) but could potentially attenuate any continued escalation of the ongoing obesity epidemic at a population level.