Key result
The glycemic threshold method demonstrated similar mean velocity, heart rate, and oxygen uptake compared to the second ventilatory threshold method for determining the anaerobic threshold in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Why the study?
Does the glycemic threshold method agree with the second ventilatory threshold method for identifying the anaerobic threshold in untrained patients with type 2 diabetes?
Cross-Sectional (n=24)
No
Does the glycemic threshold method agree with the second ventilatory threshold method for identifying the anaerobic threshold in untrained patients with type 2 diabetes?
The glycemic threshold method demonstrates strong agreement with the ventilatory threshold method, offering a practical and low-cost alternative for determining the anaerobic threshold to prescribe exercise in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Glycemic threshold may serve as practical alternative for anaerobic threshold in type 2 diabetes; hypothesis-generating and requires larger validation before practice change.
Purpose: To analyze the agreement between the velocity, heart rate, and oxygen uptake values corresponding to second ventilatory threshold and glycemic threshold in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Twenty-four untrained patients (55.1 ± 8.9 years) were evaluated. Three different parameters of training intensity corresponding to anaerobic threshold, one mechanical (velocity) and two physiological (heart rate and oxygen uptake) parameters, were identified by a classical method (second ventilatory threshold) and by an alternative method (glycemic threshold). To determine the threshold values, patients performed an incremental treadmill test, with an initial velocity of 3 km.h-1 for 3 min, that was then increased by 1 km.h-1 every 2 min. Comparisons between mean values and the degree of agreement between second ventilatory threshold and glycemic threshold were analyzed using the paired t-test and Bland-Altman test, respectively. Results: All patients performed the tests appropriately, and no adverse effects were recorded. Patients demonstrated similar mean velocity (p = 0.25), heart rate (p = 0.97) and oxygen uptake (p = 0.71) between the ventilatory threshold (6.4 ± 0.6 km.h-1, 130.1 ± 18.7 bpm, 15.2 ± 3.5 ml.kg.min-1) and the glycemic threshold (6.2 ± 0.9 km.h-1, 130.2 ± 12.8 bpm, 15.0 ± 3.8 ml.kg.min-1). Conclusions: The present study indicates an agreement between the glycemic and second ventilatory methods in determination of the anaerobic threshold of patients with type 2 diabetes; and thus, either method may be used for these patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Delevatti et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 diabetes (n=24). Glycemic threshold method vs. Second ventilatory threshold method was evaluated on Mean velocity corresponding to anaerobic threshold (km/h) (p=0.25). The glycemic threshold method demonstrated similar mean velocity, heart rate, and oxygen uptake compared to the second ventilatory threshold method for determining the anaerobic threshold in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: