Summary: The aim of this meta‐analysis was to quantify the effects of high‐intensity interval training (HIIT) on markers of glucose regulation and insulin resistance compared with control conditions (CON) or continuous training (CT). Databases were searched for HIIT interventions based upon the inclusion criteria: training ≥2 weeks, adult participants and outcome measurements that included insulin resistance, fasting glucose, HbA1c or fasting insulin. Dual interventions and participants with type 1 diabetes were excluded. Fifty studies were included. There was a reduction in insulin resistance following HIIT compared with both CON and CT (HIIT vs. CON: standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.49, confidence intervals [CIs] −0.87 to −0.12, P = 0.009; CT: SMD = −0.35, −0.68 to −0.02, P = 0.036). Compared with CON, HbA1c decreased by 0.19% (−0.36 to −0.03, P = 0.021) and body weight decreased by 1.3 kg (−1.9 to −0.7, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in other outcomes overall. However, participants at risk of or with type 2 diabetes experienced reductions in fasting glucose (−0.92 mmol L⁻¹, −1.22 to −0.62, P < 0.001) compared with CON. HIIT appears effective at improving metabolic health, particularly in those at risk of or with type 2 diabetes. Larger randomized controlled trials of longer duration than those included in this meta‐analysis are required to confirm these results.

OBJECTIVE To summarize the evidence on effectiveness of translational diabetes prevention programs, based on promoting lifestyle change to prevent type 2 diabetes in real-world settings and to examine whether adherence to international guideline recommendations is associated with effectiveness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Bibliographic databases were searched up to July 2012. Included studies had a follow-up of ≥12 months and outcomes comparing change in body composition, glycemic control, or progression to diabetes. Lifestyle interventions aimed to translate evidence from previous efficacy trials of diabetes prevention into real-world intervention programs. Data were combined using random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression considering the relationship between intervention effectiveness and adherence to guidelines. RESULTS Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The primary meta-analysis included 22 studies (24 study groups) with outcome data for weight loss at 12 months. The pooled result of the direct pairwise meta-analysis shows that lifestyle interventions resulted in a mean weight loss of 2.32 kg (95% CI −2.92 to −1.72; I² = 93.3%). Adherence to guidelines was significantly associated with a greater weight loss (an increase of 0.4 kg per point increase on a 12-point guideline-adherence scale). CONCLUSIONS Evidence suggests that pragmatic diabetes prevention programs are effective. Effectiveness varies substantially between programs but can be improved by maximizing guideline adherence. However, more research is needed to establish optimal strategies for maximizing both cost-effectiveness and longer-term maintenance of weight loss and diabetes prevention effects.

Research examining sedentary behaviour as a potentially independent risk factor for chronic disease morbidity and mortality has expanded rapidly in recent years. We present a narrative overview of the sedentary behaviour measurement literature. Subjective and objective methods of measuring sedentary behaviour suitable for use in population-based research with children and adults are examined. The validity and reliability of each method is considered, gaps in the literature specific to each method identified and potential future directions discussed. To date, subjective approaches to sedentary behaviour measurement, e.g. questionnaires, have focused predominantly on TV viewing or other screen-based behaviours. Typically, such measures demonstrate moderate reliability but slight to moderate validity. Accelerometry is increasingly being used for sedentary behaviour assessments; this approach overcomes some of the limitations of subjective methods, but detection of specific postures and postural changes by this method is somewhat limited. Instruments developed specifically for the assessment of body posture have demonstrated good reliability and validity in the limited research conducted to date. Miniaturization of monitoring devices, interoperability between measurement and communication technologies and advanced analytical approaches are potential avenues for future developments in this field. High-quality measurement is essential in all elements of sedentary behaviour epidemiology, from determining associations with health outcomes to the development and evaluation of behaviour change interventions. Sedentary behaviour measurement remains relatively under-developed, although new instruments, both objective and subjective, show considerable promise and warrant further testing.

Diabetes mellitus is a complex metabolic disorder associated with an increased risk of microvascular and macrovascular disease; its main clinical characteristic is hyperglycaemia. The last century has been characterised by remarkable advances in our understanding of the mechanisms leading to hyperglycaemia. The central role of insulin in glucose metabolism regulation was clearly demonstrated during the early 1920s, when Banting, Best, Collip and Macleod successfully reduced blood glucose levels and glycosuria in a patient treated with a substance purified from bovine pancreata. Later, during the mid-1930s, clinical observations suggested a possible distinction between ‘insulin-sensitive’ and ‘insulin-insensitive’ diabetes. Only during the 1950s, when a reliable measure of circulating insulin was available, was it possible to translate these clinical observations into pathophysiological and biochemical differences, and the terms ‘insulin-dependent’ (indicating undetectable insulin levels) and ‘non-insulin-dependent’ (normal or high insulin levels) started to emerge. The next 30 years were characterised by pivotal progress in the field of immunology that were instrumental in demonstrating an immune-mediated loss of insulin-secreting β-cells in subjects with ‘insulin-dependent’ diabetes. At the same time, new experimental techniques allowing measurement of insulin ‘impedance’ showed a reduced peripheral effect of insulin in subjects with ‘non-insulin-dependent’ diabetes (insulin resistance). The difference between the two types of diabetes emerging from decades of observations and experiments was further formally recognised in 1979, when the definitions ‘type I’ and ‘type II’ diabetes were introduced to replace the former ‘insulin-dependent’ and ‘non-insulin-dependent’ terms. In the following years, many studies elucidated the natural history and temporal contribution of insulin resistance and β-cell insulin secretion in ‘type II’ diabetes. Furthermore, a central role for insulin resistance in the development of a cluster of cardiometabolic alterations (dyslipidaemia, inflammation, high blood pressure) was suggested. Possibly as a consequence of the secular changes in diabetes risk factors, in the last 10 years the limitation of a simple distinction between ‘type I’ and ‘type II’ diabetes has been increasingly recognised, with subjects showing the coexistence of insulin resistance and immune activation against β-cells. With the advancement of our cellular and molecular understanding of diabetes, a more pathophysiological classification that overcomes the historical and simple ‘glucocentric’ view could result in a better patient phenotyping and therapeutic approach.

In recent years there has been a growing interest in the relationship between sedentary behaviour (sitting) and health outcomes. Only recently have there been studies assessing the association between time spent in sedentary behaviour and the metabolic syndrome. The aim of this study is to quantify the association between sedentary behaviour and the metabolic syndrome in adults using meta-analysis. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched using medical subject headings and key words related to sedentary behaviours and the metabolic syndrome. Reference lists of relevant articles and personal databases were hand searched. Inclusion criteria were: (1) cross sectional or prospective design; (2) include adults ≥18 years of age; (3) self-reported or objectively measured sedentary time; and (4) an outcome measure of metabolic syndrome. Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for metabolic syndrome comparing the highest level of sedentary behaviour to the lowest were extracted for each study. Data were pooled using random effects models to take into account heterogeneity between studies. Ten cross-sectional studies (n = 21393 participants), one high, four moderate and five poor quality, were identified. Greater time spent sedentary increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by 73% (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55–1.94, p<0.0001). There were no differences for subgroups of sex, sedentary behaviour measure, metabolic syndrome definition, study quality or country income. There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 0.0%, p = 0.61) or publication bias (Eggers test t = 1.05, p = 0.32). People who spend higher amounts of time in sedentary behaviours have greater odds of having metabolic syndrome. Reducing sedentary behaviours is potentially important for the prevention of metabolic syndrome.