The effect of preprandial versus postprandial physical activity on glycaemia: Meta-analysis of human intervention studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis aims to investigate the effect of preprandial physical activity (PA) versus postprandial PA on glycaemia in human intervention studies. Medline and Embase.com were searched until February 2023 for intervention studies in adults, directly comparing preprandial PA versus postprandial PA on glycaemia. Studies were screened using ASReview (34,837) and full text was read by two independent reviewers (42 full text, 28 included). Results were analysed using pooled mean differences in random-effects models. Studies were either acute response studies (n = 21) or Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) over multiple weeks (n = 7). In acute response studies, postprandial outcomes followed the expected physiological patterns, and outcomes measured over 24 h showed no significant differences. For the RCTs, glucose area under the curve during a glucose tolerance test was slightly, but not significantly lower in preprandial PA vs postprandial PA (-0.29[95 %CI:-0.66, 0.08]mmol/L,I2 = 64.36 %). Subgroup analyses (quality, health status, etc.) did not significantly change the outcomes. In conclusion, we found no differences between preprandial PA versus postprandial PA on glycaemia both after one PA bout as well as after multiple weeks of PA. The studies were of low to moderate quality of evidence as assessed by GRADE, showed contradictive results, included no long-term studies and used various designs and populations. We therefore need better RCTs, with more similar designs, in larger populations and longer follow-up periods (≥12 weeks) to have a final answer on the questions eat first, then exercise, or the reverse?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".