Scientists from a major university conducted a study focusing on adults with type 1 diabetes to compare how different training modalities affect blood sugar control. The findings suggest that men may benefit from both continuous and interval training, while women with the same condition showed greater improvements with continuous exercise. The research appeared in a prominent cardiology journal, the American Journal of Cardiology, and adds important nuance to exercise prescriptions for people living with type 1 diabetes.
The study recruited nineteen adults diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, including both men and women. In the initial testing phase, participants underwent baseline assessments of blood glucose levels. They then completed a 30 minute session of moderate intensity aerobic activity on a treadmill to gauge real-time metabolic responses and safety markers during activity. Following this initial trial, participants advanced to an interval training protocol characterized by alternating one minute bouts at low to moderate intensity. These intervals were performed at 40 percent and 60 percent of each participant’s calculated VO2max, a measure that estimates the maximum rate of oxygen consumption and serves as a proxy for aerobic energy expenditure. VO2max is a key indicator used to tailor exercise intensity to individual fitness levels. For comparison, continuous exercise sessions were conducted at a steady 50 percent VO2max throughout the workout.
Researchers monitored heart rate, blood pressure, and blood glucose immediately before, right after, and twenty minutes post each workout to capture immediate and short-term responses. The results demonstrated sex-specific patterns in glycemic response. In men, both continuous aerobic exercise and interval training produced meaningful reductions in blood glucose levels after the sessions, indicating acute improvements in glycemic control. In women, the glucose-lowering effect was observed primarily after the continuous, steady-state exercise, with less pronounced changes following interval bouts. These differences highlight the potential need for personalized strategies that account for sex when prescribing physical activity for type 1 diabetes management. In clinical practice, recognizing that men may experience benefits from multiple training formats while women might respond more robustly to steady aerobic effort could inform safer and more effective program designs.
Beyond short-term responses, investigators noted that the duration and intensity of exercise should align with the individual’s starting glycemic status. Long-term, moderate intensity activity appears particularly suitable for individuals who begin with higher blood glucose levels. For those with already lower glucose values, there is a nontrivial risk of hypoglycemia during or after exercise, underscoring the importance of careful monitoring and potential adjustment of carbohydrate intake or insulin dosing around workouts. The study emphasizes that exercise is not one-size-fits-all; personalization based on sex, baseline glycemia, and overall health is essential for maximizing benefits while minimizing risks.
Interestingly, the investigation touches on a broader context in metabolic health by noting that a plant with recognized blood sugar–lowering properties has been discussed in prior literature related to diabetes management. This historical reference underscores a larger conversation about complementary approaches to glycemic control alongside structured exercise and medical therapy. The takeaway remains clear: physical activity, when appropriately prescribed and monitored, can meaningfully influence blood sugar regulation in people living with type 1 diabetes, with sex-specific nuances that clinicians should consider in program design. The study thereby contributes to an evolving evidence base that supports personalized exercise prescriptions as a cornerstone of comprehensive diabetes care.