4.7 Article

Increasing daily walking improves glucose tolerance in overweight women

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 356-362

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00144-0

Keywords

steps; physical activity; health; pedometer; blood pressure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Physical activity (PA) has been shown to benefit glucose tolerance. Walking is a convenient low-impact mode of PA and is reported to be the most commonly performed activity for those with diabetes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a recommendation to accumulate 10,000 steps/day for 8 weeks was effective at improving glucose tolerance in overweight, inactive women. Methods. Eighteen women (53.3 +/- 7.0 years old, 35.0 +/- 5.1 kg/m(2)) with a family history of type 2 diabetes completed a 4-week control period followed by an 8-week walking program with no changes in diet. The walking program provided a goal of accumulating at least 10,000 steps/day, monitored by a pedometer. Results. During the control period, participants walked 4972 steps/day. During the intervention period, the participants increased their accumulated steps/day by 85% to 9213, which resulted in beneficial changes in 2-h postload glucose levels (P < 0.001), AUC(glucose) (P 0.025), systolic blood pressure (P < 0.001), and diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.002). There were no changes in body mass, body fat percentage, and waist circumference during the walking intervention. Conclusions. The 10,000 steps/day recommendation resulted in improved glucose tolerance and a reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in overweight women at risk for type 2 diabetes. This demonstrates that activity can be accumulated throughout the day and does not have to result in weight loss to benefit this population. (C) 2003 American Health Foundation and Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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