Cited by 212Physical Activity and HealthDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

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

Open access
Duvivier, Bernard M. F. M., Schaper, Nicolaas C., Hesselink, Matthijs K. C., van Kan, Linh, Stienen, Nathalie, Winkens, Bjorn, Koster, Annemarie, Savelberg, Hans H. C. M.·2017·Diabetologia

Abstract

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: , 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-016-4161-7

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individuals with diabetes and prediabetes often have barriers to exercise due to being frail or functionally compromised, making it difficult for them to tolerate long-lasting moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity as recommended (at least 150 min/week).

    “However, individuals with diabetes and prediabetes often have barriers to exercise due to being frail or functionally compromised;9 therefore, tolerating long-lasting moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) as recommended (at least 150 min/week) is difficult for them.8”

    From Accelerometer-measured physical activity, sedentary behavior, and incidence of macrovascular and microvascular events in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus and prediabetes (2025) · cites this paper as [9]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In one study, replacing sitting with light-intensity walking and standing for 4.5 hours a day or cycling for 65 minutes a day improved 24-hour glucose compared with control, but insulin resistance was only significantly reduced in the light-intensity group.

    “One study compared patients sitting for 14 hours daily against those replacing some of the sitting time with cycling for 65 minutes a day or those performing a combination of light-intensity walking and standing for 4.5 hours a day.Glucose levels over 24 hours, measured as area under the curve, improved in both groups with light-intensity walking and standing (À711 min × mmol/L) and those who cycl”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [3]World Health Organization Global recommendations on physical activity for health 2010 Geneva WHO Press 26180873

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duvivier, B. M. F. M., Schaper, N. C., Hesselink, M. K. C., van Kan, L., Stienen, N., Winkens, B., Koster, A., & Savelberg, H. H. C. M.
Affiliations
Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Corresponding author
Duvivier, Bernard M. F. M.
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2016-11-30
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
490-498
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2556532561
Cited by
212
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 1
FWCI
12.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Novo Nordisk B.V.
  • Kootstra Talent Fellowship from the Centre for Research Innovation, Support and Policy of Maastricht University Medical Centre +
  • Roche
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre +
  • Medtronic
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, sedentary behavior, standing, structured exercise, cycling, glycemic control, insulin resistance, HOMA2-IR, free-living physical activity, step count, accelerometry, glucose monitoring, energy expenditure, free-living conditions, non-pharmacological treatment
MeSH terms
Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Insulin, Insulin Resistance, Male, Middle Aged, Posture, Exercise, Walking, Cross-Over Studies, Lipid Metabolism, Sedentary Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review