4.7 Article

A prospective study of cardiorespiratory fitness and risk of type 2 diabetes in women

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 550-555

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1870

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL62508, R01 HL062508] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG006945-13, R01 AG006945-14, R01 AG006945, AG06945, R37 AG006945, R01 AG006945-15] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - The purpose of this study was to determine the independent and joint associations of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and BMI with the incidence of type 2 diabetes in women. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - An observational cohort of 6 249 women, aged 20-79 years was free of baseline cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes CRF was measured using a maximal treadmill exercise test. BMI was computed from measured height and weight. The incidence of type 2 diabetes was identified primarily by 1997 American Diabetes Association criteria. RESULTS - During a 17-year follow-up, 143 cases of type 2 diabetes occurred. Compared with the least fit third, the multivariate (including BMI)-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.59-1.25) for the middle third and 0.61 (0.38-0.96) for the upper third of CRF. For BMI, the multivariate (including CRF)-adjusted HR (95% CI) was 2.34 (1.55-3.54) for overweight individuals and 3.70 (2.12-6.44) for obese individuals, compared with normal-weight patients. In the combined analyses, overweight/obese unfit (the lowest one-third of CRF) women had significantly higher risks compared with normal-weight fit (the upper two-thirds of CRF) women. CONCLUSIONS - Low CRF and higher BMI were independently associated with incident type 2 diabetes. The protective effect of CRF was observed in individuals who were overweight or obese, but CRF did not eliminate the increased risk in these groups. These findings underscore the critical importance of promoting regular physical activity and maintaining normal weight for diabetes prevention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据