Exercise training reduces fatty acid availability and improves the insulin sensitivity of glucose metabolism

Aims/hypothesis - It is not known whether the beneficial effects of exercise training on insulin sensitivity are due to changes in hepatic and peripheral insulin sensitivity or whether the changes in insulin sensitivity can be explained by adaptive changes in fatty acid metabolism, changes in visceral fat or changes in liver and muscle triacylglycerol content. We investigated the effects of 6 weeks of supervised exercise in sedentary men on these variables. Subjects and methods - We randomised 17 sedentary overweight male subjects (age 50 ± 2.6 years, BMI 27.6 ± 0.5 kg/m2) to a 6-week exercise programme (n = 10) or control group (n = 7). The insulin sensitivity of palmitic acid production rate (Ra), glycerol Ra, endogenous glucose Ra (EGP), glucose uptake and glucose metabolic clearance rate were measured at 0 and 6 weeks with a two-step hyperinsulinaemic–euglycaemic clamp [step 1, 0.3 (low dose); step 2, 1.5 (high dose) mU kg−1 min−1]. In the exercise group subjects were studied >72 h after the last training session. Liver and skeletal muscle triacylglycerol content was measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy and visceral adipose tissue by cross-sectional computer tomography scanning. Results - After 6 weeks, fasting glycerol, palmitic acid Ra (p = 0.003, p = 0.042) and NEFA concentration (p = 0.005) were decreased in the exercise group with no change in the control group. The effects of low-dose insulin on EGP and of high-dose insulin on glucose uptake and metabolic clearance rate were enhanced in the exercise group but not in the control group (p = 0.026; p = 0.007 and p = 0.04). There was no change in muscle triacylglycerol and liver fat in either group. Conclusions/interpretation - Decreased availability of circulating NEFA may contribute to the observed improvement in the insulin sensitivity of EGP and glucose uptake following 6 weeks of moderate exercise.

Working with people affected by cancer – Phase 1 of a mixed methods exploration of practitioner perspectives in nutritional therapy

Introduction - Nutritional therapy (NT) is a bioscience-based branch of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) with National Occupational Standards (NOS) and accredited training courses which include compulsory clinical training. Approximately 900 practitioners are registered with the voluntary regulator, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC), but the number of unregulated practitioners is unknown. Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide; nutrition and lifestyle factors may affect recurrence and survival rates. Many cancer patients and survivors seek individualised advice on diet and use of supplements and appropriately skilled nutritional therapy practitioners (NTP) may be well-placed to safely provide this advice. Little is known of NTPs’ perspectives on working with people affected by cancer; this study seeks to explore their views on training, use of evidence and other resources, to support the development of safe evidence-based practice in this important clinical area. Methods – An on-line anonymised questionnaire collected data from participants recruited from all UK registered NTPs. Recruitment was facilitated by the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT). Quantitative data on practitioner characteristics, years in practice, other therapies practiced and work with cancer clients were collected. Qualitative data on types of evidence used, barriers to practice and perceived training and support needs when working with clients with cancer, were collected and analysed. SPSS was used to produce descriptive statistics. Preliminary Results – 274/888 (31%) of registered NTPs participated. 61% respondents had accredited NT qualifications of which 46% were at degree or post-graduate level. 73% (202) participants indicated they also had other higher education qualifications, including 153 (56%) at degree or above. When asked to describe their position on cancer work, 17% respondents (40/238) indicated no interest, and 35% (84/238) respondents already work with cancer clients (cancer practitioners - CP). A further 48% (114/238) respondents expressed interest in starting cancer work, and typically requested specialist training and practice guidelines to support this area of clinical practice. Cancer practitioners (CP) rated searches of peer-reviewed literature as most useful for information to support practice, whereas commercial product information was rated least useful. CPs requested engagement with mainstream medicine, more access to research evidence and professional recognition to facilitate and support work with cancer clients. A need for professional networking, mentorship and/or supervision was noted by CP and non-CP respondents, which is of interest since 81% all participants worked as sole practitioners exclusively or as part of their practice, <1% worked within the NHS. Discussion & Conclusions – This is the first detailed documentation of NTP perspectives on cancer work. A number of areas have been identified for further detailed evidence to be collected using focus groups and interviews, including detailed training needs, communication with mainstream cancer professionals, access to research evidence, and professional recognition. This work will inform and support the development of professional practice guidelines for NT and inform the development of specialist training and other resources.

Barriers to working with people affected by cancer: Preliminary qualitative data from a mixed methods exploration of practitioner perspectives in nutritional therapy

Introduction: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Nutrition may affect occurrence, recurrence and survival rates and many cancer patients and survivors seek individualized nutrition advice. Appropriately skilled nutritional therapy (NT) practitioners may be well-placed to safely provide this advice, but little is known of their perspectives on working with people affected by cancer. This mixed-methods study seeks to explore their views on training, barriers to practice, use of evidence, and other resources, to support the development of safe evidence-based practice. Preliminary data on barriers to practice are reported here. Methods: Two cohorts of NT practitioners were recruited from all UK registered NT practitioners, by an on-line anonymous survey. 84 cancer practitioners (CP) and 165 non-cancer practitioners (NCP) were recruited. Mixed quantitative and qualitative data was collected by the survey. Content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data on the use of evidence, barriers to practice and perceived needs for working with clients with cancer, for further exploration using interviews and focus groups. Preliminary results: For the NCP cohort, exploring themes of perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer suggested that perceived complexity, risk and need for caution in this area of practice were important barriers. Insufficient specialist knowledge and skills also emerged as barriers. Some NCPs perceived opposition from medical practitioners and other mainstream healthcare professions as an obstacle to starting cancer practice. To overcome these barriers, specialist training emerged as most important. For the CP cohort, in exploring the skills they considered enabled them to undertake cancer work, specialist clinical and technical knowledge emerged strongly. Only 10% CP participants did not want more work with people affected by cancer. 10% CPs reported some NHS referrals, whereas most received clients by self-referral or from other practitioners. When considering barriers that impede their cancer practice, the dominant categories for CPs were hostility or opposition by mainstream oncology professionals, and lack of dialogue and engagement with them. To overcome these barriers, CPs desired engagement with oncology professionals and recognized specialist cancer NT training. For both NCPs and CPs, evidence resources, practice guidelines and practitioner support networks also emerged as potential enablers to cancer practice. Conclusions: This is the first detailed exploration of NT practitioners’ perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer. Acquiring specialist skills and knowledge appears important to enable NCPs to start cancer work, and for CPs with these skills, the perceived barriers appear foremost in the relationship with mainstream cancer professionals. Further exploration of these themes, and other NT practitioner perspectives on working with people affected by cancer, is underway. This work will inform and support the development of professional practice, training and other resources.