If you have diabetes — or for that matter, nearly any other chronic illness — exercise is one of the most powerful tools that can help you control your weight and blood sugar. And it can help you feel great, too.

The list of exercise benefits is long. Exercise helps control weight, lowers blood pressure, reduces harmful LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, raises healthy HDL cholesterol, strengthens muscles and bones, and reduces anxiety. Exercise can help regulate blood sugar and increase the body’s sensitivity to insulin. Both are important for people with diabetes.

Many studies have documented that exercise is a strong ally in treating diabetes. Here are a few examples:

• All forms of exercise — aerobic, resistance, and a combination of both — have been shown to be equally good at lowering HbA1c values.

• Resistance training and aerobic exercise both helped to lower insulin resistance in previously sedentary older adults at risk for diabetes. Combining the two was better than either one alone.

• People with diabetes who walked at least two hours a week were less likely to die of heart disease than their sedentary counterparts, and those who exercised three to four hours a week cut their risk even more.

• Women with diabetes who spent at least four hours a week doing moderate or vigorous exercise had a 40% lower risk of developing heart disease than those who didn’t exercise.

If you have diabetes, generally it is best to exercise one to three hours after eating, when your blood sugar level is likely to be higher. If you use insulin, be sure to test your blood sugar before exercising. If it is below 100 mg/dL, eat a piece of fruit or have a small snack. This will bump your blood sugar up and help you avoid hypoglycemia. Test again 30 minutes after your snack to be sure your blood sugar level is stable. It’s also a good idea to check your blood sugar after any particularly grueling workout or activity. If you’re taking insulin, your risk of developing hypoglycemia may be highest six to 12 hours after exercising. Experts also caution against exercising if your blood sugar is too high (over 250).

A medical alert bracelet should be part of your workout wardrobe. It should indicate that you have diabetes and whether you take insulin. Also, keep hard candy or glucose tablets with you while exercising in case your blood sugar takes a nosedive.

To learn more about how to live a healthy life with diabetes and ways to keep your blood sugar in check and avoid complications, contact Ronald @gyminmotion 07929 256856.

This quick and simple salad is a delicious solution to the age-old question, “What’s for dinner?” It’s filled with wholesome ingredients, protein and fiber to enhance your hard earned fitness results.

Servings: 6 
Here’s what you need:

For the Salad

• 2 cooked chicken breasts, chopped
• 1.2 cup cherry tomatoes, quartered
• 1 Tablespoon red onion, minced
• 1/2 cup cucumber, chopped
• 4 cups romaine lettuce, chopped
• 4 strips, cooked nitrate-free bacon, chopped
• 1 avocado, chopped

For the Dressing

• 1/8 cup olive oil
• 2 Tablespoons lemon juice
• 1 packet stevia
• 1 teaspoon crushed garlic
• 1 teaspoon Dijon mustard

Instructions

1. Combine all of the salad ingredients in a large salad bowl. Mix to combine.
2. Combine all of the dressing ingredients in a small bowl. Drizzle over the salad and serve.

Nutritional Analysis: One serving equals: 218 calories, 12g fat, 189mg sodium, 5g carbohydrate, 4g fiber, and 22g protein

Legumes play an important role in traditional diets in many parts of the world. They are low in fat, are good sources of protein and fiber, and contain a variety of micronutrients and phytoestrogens (plant estrogens). Phytoestrogens have received a lot of attention for their ability to fight not only cancer, but also heart disease and osteoporosis. They help balance hormones in the body and thus are thought to be particularly valuable for the hormone-dependent cancers: breast cancer and prostate cancer. It is well known that male hormones play a role in prostate cancer development.

Despite their advantages, legumes play a minor role in most Western diets. The typical Western based diet (lower in vegetables and legumes and higher in animal-based foods) can cause an increase in both male and female hormones (androgens and estrogens), while a plant-based diet tends to lower these hormones. This is the basis for the role of diet in the development of hormone-dependent cancers.

Soy foods, such as tofu, soy milk, soy beans, and vegetarian burgers, seem to be particularly rich in cancer-fighting properties. This is at least partially due to a form of phytoestrogen, called isoflavones, that is found primarily in soy. It appears to help prevent prostate cancer by binding to male hormone receptors in the prostate, thus reducing the stimulating effect of male hormones on prostate cell growth.

Epidemiological studies have shown that high levels of isoflavones are often associated with low rates of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. This has been used to explain why countries such as Japan and China that typically consume large amounts of soy have lower risks of these diseases.

The difficulty with consuming soy for reducing risk of prostate cancer is the lack of clinical trial evidence to support its use. As with any dietary component, it is difficult to isolate the effect of a particular food type to prove its effectiveness. One prospective study, including over 12,000 men, did evaluate consumption of soy milk. It found that those who drank soy milk regularly had a reduced risk of prostate cancer. The relationship held up after other factors were controlled for. Other studies need to be done to further establish the benefits of soy. In the meantime, getting more soy foods into your diet can be healthy for many reasons, and lowering your risk of prostate cancer may be one of these.

The prostate gland depends on testosterone for growth and development. Prostate cells, both noncancer and cancer, do too. This is why prostate cancer is sometimes referred to as a hormone-dependent cancer. Higher levels of circulating testosterone lead to higher concentrations in the prostate, and this appears to increase the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, higher testosterone levels are not consistently found in prostate cancer patients, so there is more to the relationship.

A possible protective role of exercise has been proposed based on its ability to lower testosterone levels and to boost the immune system. Exercise causes a temporary reduction in testosterone, so regular exercise can reduce long-term exposure to testosterone. And chronic exercise has been shown to increase the number and activity of natural killer cells, which are part of the immune system that attack cancer cells.

Based on these effects, it seems that exercise should be beneficial, but the evidence concerning the impact of exercise on prostate cancer risk is inconclusive. In a review of 17 epidemiological studies of varying quality, 9 showed a beneficial effect, 5 no effect, and the other 3 actually showed an increased risk related to exercise or physical activity. None of the studies, however, provided conclusive proof, but taken together, they seem to support a weak beneficial effect of regular exercise on prostate cancer risk.

The challenge is proving that men who exercise regularly develop less prostate cancer when all other factors are the same. This requires a prospective long-term randomized study, and this probably will never be done. The best long-term prospective studies that looked at habitual physical activity in adulthood are encouraging, however.

A study of nearly 18,000 alumni of Harvard University showed that those who maintained a high level of physical activity were about half as likely to develop prostate cancer after the age of 70 as those who were least active. Another prospective study evaluated the level of physical fitness, as well as physical activity, on the risk of prostate cancer. Higher fitness levels were associated with lower risk in men under 60, but not in older men. And men who expended more than 1,000 kcal per week in exercise had lower risk than those who did not get this much exercise. The best long-term study of men's health is the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. It began in 1986 and has followed over 47,000 men in various health occupations since then. Data was collected in the beginning, and periodically through the study, on many factors including physical activity. The only positive result through 1994 was that at least 3 hours per week of vigorous physical activity was associated with a reduced risk of metastatic prostate cancer. But no relationship was observed between physical activity and the incidence of total or advanced prostate cancer. The same study, however, found an inverse relation between physical activity and BPH, more activity meant a lower likelihood of urinary symptoms or surgery for BPH. Walking 2–3 hours per week was enough to lower the risk of BPH.

The bottom line is that questions remain about the relation between exercise and prostate cancer, but there is no question that regular exercise is good for general health. So, it is wise to get some moderate exercise on most days of the week, and you may be protecting yourself from prostate problems, too.

Boston, MA – Men who do weight training regularly—for example, for 30 minutes per day, five days per week—may be able to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes by up to 34%, according to a new study by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and University of Southern Denmark researchers. And if they combine weight training and aerobic exercise, such as brisk walking or running, they may be able to reduce their risk even further—up to 59%.

This is the first study to examine the role of weight training in the prevention of type 2 diabetes. The results suggest that, because weight training appears to confer significant benefits independent of aerobic exercise, it can be a valuable alternative for people who have difficulty with the latter.  

The study will be published online in Archives of Internal Medicine on August 6, 2012. 

“Until now, previous studies have reported that aerobic exercise is of major importance for type 2 diabetes prevention,” said lead author Anders Grøntved, visiting researcher in the Department of Nutrition at HSPH and a doctoral student in exercise epidemiology at the University of Southern Denmark. “But many people have difficulty engaging in or adhering to aerobic exercise. These new results suggest that weight training, to a large extent, can serve as an alternative to aerobic exercise for type 2 diabetes prevention.” 

Type 2 diabetes is a major public health concern and it’s on the rise. An estimated 346 million people worldwide have type 2 diabetes, and diabetes-related deaths are expected to double between 2005 and 2030, according to the World Health Organization. More than 80% of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. 

The researchers, including senior author Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at HSPH, followed 32,002 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study from 1990 to 2008. Information on how much time the men spent each week on weight training and aerobic exercise came from questionnaires they filled out every two years. The researchers adjusted for other types of physical activity, television viewing, alcohol and coffee intake, smoking, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, and a number of dietary factors. During the study period, there were 2,278 new cases of diabetes among the men followed. 

The findings showed that even a modest amount of weight training may help reduce type 2 diabetes risk. The researchers categorized the men according to how much weight training they did per week—between 1 and 59 minutes, between 60 and 149 minutes, and at least 150 minutes—and found that the training reduced their type 2 diabetes risk by 12%, 25%, and 34%, respectively, compared with no weight training. Aerobic exercise is associated with significant benefits as well, the researchers found—it reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by 7%, 31%, and 52%, respectively, for the three categories above. 

The researchers also found that the combination of weight training and aerobic exercise confers the greatest benefits: Men who did more than 150 minutes of aerobics as well as at least 150 minutes of weight training per week had a 59% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes. 

Grøntved said that further research is needed to confirm the results of the study as well as to analyze whether or not the findings can be generalized to women. 

“This study provides clear evidence that weight training has beneficial effects on diabetes risk over and above aerobic exercise, which are likely to be mediated through increased muscle mass and improved insulin sensitivity,” said Hu. “To achieve the best results for diabetes prevention, resistance training can be incorporated with aerobic exercise.” 

Other HSPH authors included Eric Rimm, associate professor in the Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, and Walter Willett, Frederick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition and chair of the Department of Nutrition. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health (DK58845 and CA55075). 

“A Prospective Study of Weight Training and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Men,” Anders Grøntved, Eric B. Rimm, Walter C. Willett, Lars B. Andersen, Frank B. Hu, Archives of Internal Medicine, online August 6, 2012.

The story of a four-year-old boy in India who has been running distances of up to 60 kilometers has led to a lot of discussions, including among the Take The Magic Step® team. We spoke to Dr. Henning Ohlert about appropriate exercise for young children, as well as about some strategies for parents to deal with this issue.

Dr. Ohlert, 46, is a lecturer of training science at the University of Potsdam. He was a professional athlete for ten years, and as a 23-year-old ran the 800 meters in 1:45.9. He is working on a long-term study of motor skills and development of ten-year-old children.

©  Betty Shepherd

How much exercise can a child cope with?

Over the years, our attitude towards children’s capabilities has changed tremendously. Basically, you could say that children are “little champions of endurance.” The big advantage of children is that they stop what they are doing automatically when they feel that they are getting tired and reach their physical limits. If children are tired out during playing, they simply take a break, and once they have recovered, they get active again. I think that you cannot do anything wrong with children-you just cannot challenge them physically in the wrong way. They know how to adjust themselves, and will utter their disapproval when it gets too much for them. And this disapproval should be respected.

What you have to watch out for with children, however, is problems with their thermoregulation; that is, the loss of body warmth during physical activity. Children get red faces when they are playing, bouncing around or playing sports. The body warmth which develops causes fast panting while breathing. The reason for this is that their perspiration system with does not function as that of an adult yet. That’s why you have to be careful to prevent children from overheating. In general, however, children have quite a sensitive feeling for the right proportion of activity and rest. It is highly dangerous, though, what is demanded of the little boy in India.

How can parents tell what and how much they can expect and ask from their children?

I believe you can ask more from children than most parents would think. You can judge by certain subjective criteria if a physical activity is enough: the color of the skin (for example, if the paleness of the skin is extreme), the frequency of the breath, the heart rate as well as the quality of movements. You will realize pretty quickly that movements seem to become uncontrolled and the way children fall changes. These are clear indications for the necessity of a break.

© Betty Shepherd

At what age should children start to train on a regular basis?

In order to answer this question, you would have to define the term “systemically organized training” first. I think that until a child has reached the age of eight, we shouldn’t call it training. There is nothing wrong with daily exercise or physical activities. Children should be active in various non-specific ways and thereby gain a broad range of experiences. This is the best prerequisite for successful involvement in sports later on.

Is there such a thing as unathletic children?

In my opinion, there is no such thing as unsporty kids. At times someone gets called “unathletic” just because he is judged by certain skills and abilities. It is just normal, however, that you are not able to do things which you have never done or practiced before. Often you get also judged by your family background. But just because your parents consider themselves unathletic, it does not necessarily have to mean that the son or daughter is as well. Every child is athletic. The question is only if she is athletic enough to become a champion.

Don’t children have a natural urge to move?

Absolutely. Unfortunately, this urge is lost throughout the ontogenetic development. At puberty, this urge to move decreases. This is when young athletes often lose interest in their sport and don’t show up for training anymore.

Should parents try to intervene?

It would not be good if the enthusiasm for the sport got completely lost. It is normal and should be tolerated that there are phases of less motivation. You should still try to talk to your child, his or her coach and friends about the situation, options and possible wasted opportunities.

Children tend to change their enthusiasm for different things quite quickly. Today they are playing tennis, tomorrow they want to become a professional swimmer, the day after tomorrow a famous basketball player. Sometimes they are not sure at all. Should children do several kinds of sport or should they better concentrate on one?

I strongly recommend that children experience a rather broad range of physical activities. I assume that not every child should be trained to become a Davis Cup player. Instead, most children will just want to play tennis for fun, or they just want to go inline skating, running or play soccer. I am a great supporter of children practicing a variety of sports.

Is it naive to believe that children will be grateful one day if parents put some pressure on them and force them to keep up a certain sport, hoping that they will be successful and the sport turns out to be the right one for the child?

This wish or hope might be honorable, but children think differently. Children think very emotionally, and are not as rational as adults are. The reasons why children give up on something are not easily understood. A little bit of pressure might not be wrong. It is a great achievement, however, if children discover themselves what they like.

Should parents tell their children which expectations they have regarding their sporting performance?

Parents’ expectations should not put too much negative pressure on the children. There is a lot of evidence in pedagogy that children fail just because their parents were asking too much of them. Children often act paralyzed if they are put under too much pressure. Then they are often criticized for failing mentally, but no one realizes how much pressure has been put on them: “You have to do this, you have to do that!”

Parents have to learn to judge their children’s mental condition and figure out how they can teach them ambition and determination. As a matter of fact, a runner participates in a race to get to the finish line among the best and not far behind the first ones. Consequently, you can, of course, tell your children that sport is often about being better and faster than others. This should be done sensibly, however, and without any pressure. It is nearly impossible to get children’s enthusiasm back if you have put them off doing sports once and if sports have become a trauma for them. This is proven by scientific research. The next chance you get to convince them of doing sports again is when they have grown up and when stress at work and an unhealthy diet have caused health problems and the cardiologist tells them, “You have to get moving, you have to exercise!”

© Betty Shepherd

On the other hand, children are often highly motivated when their parents watch them at training or competitions.

It is obvious that children are extremely motivated when they realize that their parents fully support what they are doing. At some stage, however, their own motivation will become so high that they don’t need their mother’s or father’s support anymore. But even professional athletes are more motivated when their parents are in the stadium or along the race course, no matter if in tennis, soccer or running. The question is just how parents react to their children’s failure. It is important that you find out together-maybe even with the coach-where mistakes might have been made and how you could adapt the training. Children have to feel that you support them and don’t give up on them.

What should parents do if their child suddenly, after two years, does not like judo anymore and would rather want to do athletics or tennis? Should parents demand that their children continue doing what they have started to do and not to give up on something just because it is no fun at the time?

I don’t find it too bad to change from one kind of sport to the other. You should have a conversation and clarify why they don’t like the sport they used to do anymore. There are certainly understandable reasons for it. And if they are not understandable, you still should not act against your child’s wish.

What should parents do if they recognize sporting talent in their child, but are not sure if they want to support it?

If someone thinks his child has got talent in some area which is illustrated by being better at something than other children of the same age, I would recommend approaching a sporting club close by and asking if there are facilities to support this talent specifically. I don’t find it very good to place children in “talent factories” far away from home where they waste a lot of time traveling to and from the place. Children should be able to pursue their training without many hassles. If they further develop and prove their talent, there are more opportunities of support in young adulthood, such as elite sporting schools or scholarships.

And vice versa: How are mothers and fathers to act if children desperately want to become professional athletes, but just seem to lack the talent?

I would still give the child the same chances, as eventually the “moment of truth” will show if the child is as good as she thinks she is. In cases of constant failure, however, you should be honest with your child, and tell him that another kind of sport might be more suitable for him. There are a lot of children who change to another kind of sport after the advice of a friend or parents and who have become really successful at it. Children who are motivated and ambitious should initially do what they prefer and should try things out.

If parents for some reason think that they should apply sanctions against their child-maybe because of bad marks at school-are prohibiting going to training and doing sports reasonable disciplinary measures?

I find prohibiting sports as punishment pedagogically not wise. Children have a natural urge to move and to play in order to cope with stress and emotions, and you cannot just switch this behavioral pattern off. If they are aggressive at school, they will be aggressive at sports, too. But particularly here, those negative emotions can be turned around into positive ones-through the pure movement, through the contact with the coach, through the group dynamics in team sports where bonding and camaraderie are crucial.