ObjectiveThe International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recently proposed new criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We compared prevalence rates, risk factors, and the effect of ethnicity using the World Health Organization (WHO) and modified IADPSG criteria.MethodsThis was a population-based cohort study of 823 (74% of eligible) healthy pregnant women, of whom 59% were from ethnic minorities. Universal screening was performed at 28±2 weeks of gestation with the 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Venous plasma glucose (PG) was measured on site. GDM was diagnosed as per the definition of WHO criteria as fasting PG (FPG) ≥7.0 or 2-h PG ≥7.8 mmol/l; and as per the modified IADPSG criteria as FPG ≥5.1 or 2-h PG ≥8.5 mmol/l.ResultsOGTT was performed in 759 women. Crude GDM prevalence was 13.0% with WHO (Western Europeans 11%, ethnic minorities 15%, P=0.14) and 31.5% with modified IADPSG criteria (Western Europeans 24%, ethnic minorities 37%, P< 0.001). Using the WHO criteria, ethnic minority origin was an independent predictor (South Asians, odds ratio (OR) 2.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26–3.97); Middle Easterners, OR 2.13 (1.12–4.08)) after adjustments for age, parity, and prepregnant body mass index (BMI). This increased OR was unapparent after further adjustments for body height (proxy for early life socioeconomic status), education and family history of diabetes. Using the modified IADPSG criteria, prepregnant BMI (1.09 (1.05–1.13)) and ethnic minority origin (South Asians, 2.54 (1.56–4.13)) were independent predictors, while education, body height and family history had little impact.ConclusionGDM prevalence was overall 2.4-times higher with the modified IADPSG criteria compared with the WHO criteria. The new criteria identified many subjects with a relatively mild increase in FPG, strongly associated with South Asian origin and prepregnant overweight.

Recorded time in MVPA and energy expenditure varies substantially among physical activity monitors. Thus, when comparing physical activity level among studies, it is essential to know the type of physical activity monitor being used.

BFRRE induced selective type I fiber increases in MFA (BFRRE: 12% vs. Con: 0%, p<0.01) and myonuclear number (BFRRE: 17% vs. Con: 0%, p=0.02). Type II MFA was unaltered in both groups. BFRRE induced greater changes in VL CSA (7.7% vs. 0.5%, p=0.04), which correlated with the increases in MFA of type I fibers (r=0.81, p=0.02). No group differences were observed in SC and strength changes, although MVIT increased with BFRRE (p=0.04), whereas 1RM increased in Con (p=0.02).Two blocks of low-load BFRRE in the front squat exercise resulted in increased quadriceps CSA associated with preferential hypertrophy and myonuclear addition in type 1 fibres of national level powerlifters.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate muscle hypertrophy, strength, and myonuclear and satellite cell (SC) responses to high-frequency blood flow-restricted resistance exercise (BFRRE). Thirteen individuals [24 ± 2 yr (mean ± SD), 9 men] completed two 5-day blocks of 7 BFRRE sessions, separated by a 10-day rest period. Four sets of unilateral knee extensions to voluntary failure at 20% of one repetition maximum (1RM) were conducted with partial blood flow restriction (90–100 mmHg). Muscle samples obtained before, during, 3 days, and 10 days after training were analyzed for muscle fiber area (MFA), myonuclei, SC, and mRNA and miRNA expression. Muscle size was measured by ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging and strength with 1RM knee extension. With the first block of BFRRE, SC number increased in both fiber types (70%–80%, P < 0.05), whereas type I and II MFA decreased by 6 ± 7% and 15 ± 11% ( P < 0.05), respectively. With the second block of training, muscle size increased by 6%–8%, whereas the number of SCs (type I: 80 ± 63%, type II: 147 ± 95%), myonuclei (type I: 30 ± 24%, type II: 31 ± 28%), and MFA (type I: 19 ± 19%, type II: 11 ± 19%) peaked 10 days after the second block of BFRRE, whereas strength peaked after 20 days of detraining (6 ± 6%, P < 0.05). Pax7- and p21 mRNA expression were elevated during the intervention, whereas myostatin, IGF1R, MyoD, myogenin, cyclinD1 and -D2 mRNA did not change until 3–10 days postintervention. High-frequency low-load BFRRE induced robust increases in SC, myonuclei, and muscle size but modest strength gains. Intriguingly, the responses were delayed and peaked 10–20 days after the training intervention, indicating overreaching. NEW & NOTEWORTHY In line with previous studies, we demonstrate that high-frequency low-load blood flow-restricted resistance exercise (HF-BFRRE) can elicit robust increases in satellite cell and myonuclei numbers, along with gains in muscle size and strength. However, our results also suggest that these processes can be delayed and that with very strenuous HF-BFRRE, there may even be transient muscle fiber atrophy, presumably because of accumulated stress responses. Our findings have implications for the prescription of BFR exercise.

No abstract

Total energy expenditure, aerobic fitness and hours in moderate to very vigorous intensity physical activity were not reduced and energy intake and body fat measured with skinfolds not increased among Norwegian adolescents with asthma.

Exercise during cancer treatment improves cancer‐related fatigue (CRF), but the importance of exercise intensity for CRF is unclear. We compared the effects of high‐ vs low‐to‐moderate‐intensity exercise with or without additional behavior change support (BCS) on CRF in patients undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant cancer treatment. This was a multicenter, 2x2 factorial design randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trials NCT02473003) in Sweden. Participants recently diagnosed with breast (n = 457), prostate (n = 97) or colorectal (n = 23) cancer undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant treatment were randomized to high intensity (n = 144), low‐to‐moderate intensity (n = 144), high intensity with BCS (n = 144) or low‐to‐moderate intensity with BCS (n = 145). The 6‐month exercise intervention included supervised resistance training and home‐based endurance training. CRF was assessed by Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI, five subscales score range 4‐20), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue scale (FACIT‐F, score range 0‐52). Multiple linear regression for main factorial effects was performed according to intention‐to‐treat, with post‐intervention CRF as primary endpoint. Overall, 577 participants (mean age 58.7 years) were randomized. Participants randomized to high‐ vs low‐to‐moderate‐intensity exercise had lower physical fatigue (MFI Physical Fatigue subscale; mean difference −1.05 [95% CI: −1.85, −0.25]), but the difference was not clinically important (ie <2). We found no differences in other CRF dimensions and no effect of additional BCS. There were few minor adverse events. For CRF, patients undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant treatment for breast, prostate or colorectal cancer can safely exercise at high‐ or low‐to‐moderate intensity, according to their own preferences. Additional BCS does not provide extra benefit for CRF in supervised, well‐controlled exercise interventions.

BackgroundCancer-related fatigue is a common problem in persons with cancer, influencing health-related quality of life and causing a considerable challenge to society. Current evidence supports the beneficial effects of physical exercise in reducing fatigue, but the results across studies are not consistent, especially in terms of exercise intensity. It is also unclear whether use of behaviour change techniques can further increase exercise adherence and maintain physical activity behaviour. This study will investigate whether exercise intensity affects fatigue and health related quality of life in persons undergoing adjuvant cancer treatment. In addition, to examine effects of exercise intensity on mood disturbance, adherence to oncological treatment, adverse effects from treatment, activities of daily living after treatment completion and return to work, and behaviour change techniques effect on exercise adherence. We will also investigate whether exercise intensity influences inflammatory markers and cytokines, and whether gene expressions following training serve as mediators for the effects of exercise on fatigue and health related quality of life.Methods/designSix hundred newly diagnosed persons with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer undergoing adjuvant therapy will be randomized in a 2 × 2 factorial design to following conditions; A) individually tailored low-to-moderate intensity exercise with or without behaviour change techniques or B) individually tailored high intensity exercise with or without behaviour change techniques. The training consists of both resistance and endurance exercise sessions under the guidance of trained coaches. The primary outcomes, fatigue and health related quality of life, are measured by self-reports. Secondary outcomes include fitness, mood disturbance, adherence to the cancer treatment, adverse effects, return to activities of daily living after completed treatment, return to work as well as inflammatory markers, cytokines and gene expression.DiscussionThe study will contribute to our understanding of the value of exercise and exercise intensity in reducing fatigue and improving health related quality of life and, potentially, clinical outcomes. The value of behaviour change techniques in terms of adherence to and maintenance of physical exercise behaviour in persons with cancer will be evaluated.Trial registration NCT02473003, October, 2014.