4.7 Article

Low cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with elevated C-reactive protein levels in women with type 2 diabetes

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 320-325

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.2.320

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - The purpose of this study was to examine differences in novel markers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women with type 2 diabetes stratified according to cardiorespiratory fitness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A total of 28 women (mean age 57 +/- 6 years) with type 2 diabetes who were free from overt CVD were placed into low cardiorespiratory fitness (LCF) or average cardiorespiratory fitness (ACF) groups based on a graded exercise test to exhaustion. A group of eight women without type 2 diabetes were also examined and served as healthy control subjects. The median (V) over dot o(2 peak) value was used as a cutoff for group determination. We assessed both conventional CVD risk factors, including blood pressure, BMI, and lipid stiffness, fasting insulin and C-reactive protein (CRP). RESULTS - (V) over dot o(2peak) values were 69 +/- 14 and 91 +/- 24% of predicted values for sedentary age-matched healthy individuals in the LCF and ACF groups, respectively. BMI was significantly greater in the LCF group (P < 0.05); however, no differences were observed in age, lipid profile, or resting hemodynamics. CRP was 3.3-fold higher in the LCF group (6.3 +/- 41. vs. 1.9 +/- 1.7 mg/l, P < 0.05), whereas other novel markers of CVD were not significantly different between the groups. Significant negative relationships were observed between (V) over dot o(2 peak) and both CRP (r = -0.49) and the homeostasis model assessment index (r = -0.48) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS - The novel finding of this investigation is that low cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with elevated CRP and reduced fasting glucose control in women with type 2 diabetes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available