Long-term effects of daily postprandial physical activity on blood glucose: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that a bout of moderate or light postprandial physical activity effectively blunts the postprandial increase in blood glucose. The objective of this study was to test whether regular light postprandial physical activity can improve glycemia in persons with hyperglycemia or with a high risk of hyperglycemia. We randomized 56 participants to an intervention or a control group. They were diagnosed as hyperglycemic, not using antidiabetics, or were categorized as high-risk individuals for type 2 diabetes. The intervention group was instructed to undertake a minimum 30 min of daily light physical activity, starting a maximum of 30 min after a meal in addition to their usual physical activity for 12 weeks. The control group maintained their usual lifestyle. Blood samples were taken pre- and post-test. Forty participants completed the study and are included in the results. The self-reported increase in daily physical activity from before to within the study period was higher in the intervention group compared with control (41 ± 25 vs. 2 ± 16 min, p < 0.001). Activity diaries and accelerometer recordings supported this observation. The activity in the intervention group started earlier after the last meal compared with control (30 ± 13 vs. 100 ± 57 min, p = 0.001). There were no within- or between-group differences in any glycemic variable from pre- to post-test. In conclusion, the present study does not seem to support the notion that regular light postprandial physical activity improves blood glucose in the long term in persons with hyperglycemia or with high risk of hyperglycemia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".