Exercise Timing in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The timing of exercise relative to meal consumption has recently been identified as potentially moderating the effectiveness of exercise on glycemic responses in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature related to exercise timing, relative to meal consumption, and glycemic control in individuals with T2DM. METHODS: Systematic searches in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov Registry databases were performed to identify articles published in English from inception to October 2017. Two authors independently extracted data and evaluated the quality of studies using the Cochrane Collaboration Data Collection Form and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, respectively. A qualitative synthesis was performed on the included studies, and results summarized in tables. RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials with a total of 346 participants were included. Improvements in glycemia (glucose concentrations and glucose area under the curve) and insulin area under the curve appeared more consistent when exercise was performed during the postmeal period as compared with the premeal period; however, this observation was largely based on indirect comparisons between studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence from randomized controlled trials that exercise performed 30 min after meal consumption may convey greater improvements in glycemic control for individuals with T2DM. However, there are only two studies that have directly assessed the role of exercise timing on glycemic management, and adopted methodologies are heterogeneous. Future low-risk trials in this field are warranted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".