Acute high‐intensity interval exercise reduces the postprandial glucose response and prevalence of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-volume endurance exercise (END) improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) but many individuals cite 'lack of time' as a barrier to regular participation. High-intensity interval training (HIT) is a time-efficient method to induce physiological adaptations similar to END, but little is known regarding the effect of HIT in T2D. Using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), we examined the 24-h blood glucose response to one session of HIT consisting of 10 × 60 s cycling efforts at ~90% maximal heart rate, interspersed with 60 s rest. Seven adults with T2D underwent CGM for 24-h on two occasions under standard dietary conditions: following acute HIT and on a non-exercise control day (CTL). HIT reduced hyperglycaemia measured as proportion of time spent above 10 mmol/l (HIT: 4.5 ± 4.4 vs. CTL: 15.2 ± 12.3%, p = 0.04). Postprandial hyperglycaemia, measured as the sum of post-meal areas under the glucose curve, was also lower after HIT vs. CTL (728 ± 331 vs. 1142 ± 556 mmol/l·9 h, p = 0.01). These findings highlight the potential for HIT to improve glycaemic control in T2D.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".