4.0 Article

Physical inactivity is an important lifestyle determinant of insulin resistance in hypertensive patients

Journal

BLOOD PRESSURE
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages 355-361

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08037050410004828

Keywords

drinking; hypertension; insulin sensitivity; physical activity; smoking

Funding

  1. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [U01HL054527] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of the study is to assess the relative impact of lifestyle factors including physical inactivity, cigarette smoking, and alcohol intake on insulin resistance in hypertensive patients. In total, 872 hypertensive patients, of Chinese and Japanese origin, from the Stanford Asia and Pacific Program for Hypertension and Insulin Resistance were included for the current analysis. Homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and the insulin sensitivity index ISI0,120 were chosen as surrogate measures of insulin resistance. Standardized interview-administered questionnaires were used to obtain information on demographic and lifestyle characteristics. The sedentary hypertensive patients were more insulin resistant than the non-sedentary hypertensive. There were significant differences in Loa (HOMA-IR) (0.06-unit increases, p < 0.01) and Log (ISI0.120) (0.05-unit decreases, p < 0.01) between sedentary and non-sedentary hypertensive patients after controlling demographic variables. There were no differences in insulin sensitivity in subjects with different smoking status. Neither smoking nor alcohol intake was persistently associated with insulin resistance in the analysis. Our results suggest that physical inactivity is an important lifestyle determinant of insulin resistance in hypertensive patients. The influences of smoking and alcohol intake on insulin resistance are less significant than physical inactivity in hypertensive subjects.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available