Morning exercise and pre-breakfast metformin interact to reduce glycaemia in people with Type 2 Diabetes: a randomized crossover trial

1. Introduction

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus is a growing, global health challenge [4]. Exercise is often recommended by front-line clinicians as a potent therapeutic treatment in people with type 2 diabetes which can improve insulin sensitivity [1]. However, little is known regarding the optimal time of day to perform exercise for people with Type 2 Diabetes. Previous evidence suggests that morning high intensity interval training over two weeks increases blood glucose levels in people with type 2 diabetes [2], drawing parallels to the dawn phenomenon. Conversely, evening exercise reduced glycaemia on the day of exercise in people with type 2 diabetes [2]. These apparently divergent outcomes of morning vs. evening exercise highlight that it is imperative to optimise the timing of exercise for people with type 2 diabetes.

Several other studies have assessed the time-of-day effect of exercise upon glycaemic or insulin-related outcomes. For example, cross-sectional data in 775 participants demonstrates that moderate-to-vigorous exercise in the afternoon or evening was associated with a greater reduction of insulin resistance compared with an evenly distributed daily time-pattern of exercise [5]. Further associative evidence [6], demonstrates that in 2,416 participants that moderate-to-vigorous physical activity performed in the afternoon is associated with improvements in glycaemic control in people with diabetes. In a randomised trial, men who were overweight or obese demonstrated improvements in glycaemic control after evening exercise, while a group who exercised in the morning saw no improvements in glycaemic control [7]. In another randomised trial assessing people with compromised metabolism, a group that performed exercise training in the evening experienced superior beneficial improvements in fasting plasma glucose levels compared to a group that performed exercise training in the morning [8]. Skeletal muscle is key in the metabolic response to exercise [1] and it has been demonstrated that people with type 2 diabetes have an intrinsically altered circadian rhythm in skeletal muscle, both at the level of the molecular clock, and of mitochondrial function [9]. Therefore, it is not clear whether the divergent time-of-day effect of exercise on glycaemic regulation is due to an intrinsic metabolic disruption, or whether this phenomenon will persist in people who are metabolically healthy. Indeed, glycaemic regulation does not appear to be different in metabolically healthy participants between a single bout of morning or afternoon exercise [10].

Metformin is the most commonly prescribed initial pharmacological intervention in type 2 diabetes and is known to alter skeletal muscle mitochondrial adaptions to exercise [3]. Further, it has been suggested that metformin may interfere with the glucose-lowering effect of acute exercise [11, 12]. However, it is unclear whether there is an interaction between metformin and exercise at different times of the day. Optimising exercise timing in people with type 2 diabetes is critically important, but also is to understand any interactions with widely prescribed pharmacological treatments. Furthermore, previous trials [2, 13] in people with type 2 diabetes have not assessed whether compensatory physical activity, altered diet, or changed sleeping patterns underlie any time-of-day exercise effect. In this 16-week randomised crossover study, we aimed to investigate glycaemic outcomes of moderate intensity exercise at different times of the day in people with type 2 diabetes also being prescribed metformin monotherapy. Secondary outcomes included total physical activity, medication timing, diet, and sleep. Based on previous evidence [2, 5–8], we hypothesised that evening exercise would be more efficacious in lowering glycaemia in the trial.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design & Ethical approval

The study was conducted following ethical approval from the UK Health Research Authority’s Integrated Research Application System (IRAS), and via the London Centre Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 20/PR/0990; IRAS project ID: 292015) and in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2008. Informed written consent was obtained from participants during recruitment. The trial was preregistered - Research Registry Unique Identifying Number: researchregistry6311. Nine males and nine females with type 2 diabetes also being prescribed metformin monotherapy completed a remote, randomised, crossover two-arm trial. An overview of the study’s design is shown in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Study Design. HR, Heart rate. Figure created with Biorender.

3. Results

3.1. Participants recruitment and characteristics

Of the forty positive responses received, nine male and nine females with type 2 diabetes being prescribed metformin completed the 16-week crossover intervention; see Figure 2 for consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow chart. Following randomization, eight participants withdrew for personal reasons, four of them from the winter cohort and four from summer group. After completion of the trial, five participants did not meet the exercise intervention requirements, finishing with eleven participants from winter; and seven from the summer cohort. In terms of crossover sequence, the study finished with eight participants who did morning exercise first and ten participants who did evening exercise first. Sleep data corresponds to fifteen participants who fulfilled this requirement, glucose data was missing from one participant during the last 2 weeks of the morning period and from two participants during the last 2 weeks of evening exercise. Baseline characteristics of study participants that completed the trial are shown in Table 1 (Characteristics according to different stratification are shown in supplementary Tables 1,2,3,4,5).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study participants.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow chart.

3.2. Adherence to exercise intervention

The total number of exercise sessions participants were asked to complete during each exercise period was 21. The exercise completion rate was consistent (p=0.47) between morning (19.1±1.3 sessions) and evening exercise (18.1±1.4 sessions) (Supplementary Figure 1). Total physical activity was similar between the arms of the trial (Figure 3A, B). The number of mean daily steps recorded during baseline was 6798.0±595.6. During exercise days participants completed a mean daily total of 10814.0±530.7 steps and 10373.0±514.6 steps during morning and evening, respectively (p=0.15). During rest days participants completed a mean daily total of 6843.0±561.8 steps and 6344.0±514.3 steps during morning and evening, respectively (p=0.24). Total hours of sleep registered from Garmin devices (8.3±0.3) was significantly higher (p=0.03) the hours of sleep recorded from self-reported MCTQ (7.67±0.2) (Supplementary Figure 2). The total hours of sleep indicated a trend (one-way ANOVA: p=0.06) showing longer sleep duration during evening exercise (8.3±0.2 hours) compared with morning exercise (7.9±0.2 hours), however there was no difference compared with baseline (p=0.31, p=0.40, morning exercise, evening exercise, respectively) (Figure 3C). Sleep architecture such as deep sleep, light sleep, REM sleep and time awake showed no significant difference between baseline, morning and evening exercise (p=0.35, p=0.57, p=0.06, p=0.20, respectively) (Supplementary Figure 3). Participants were instructed to exercise at an estimated 70% of max-HR, which was 111.4±1.3 bpm. Exercise intensity during morning and evening exercise was similar (Figure 3D), as measured by HR (117.2±1.9 bpm and 117.3±2.7 bpm, respectively, p=0.93). Overall, our results show no differences in physical activity or compensatory activity between morning and evening exercise.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Step count, max-HR and total sleep hours during the morning and evening exercise periods. The values are shown for number of steps on (A) Days when the participants performed exercise (n=18) and (B) Rest days (n=18); (C) Total sleep hours during exercise (n=15) and (D) Max-HR (n=18) throughout trial; blue lines are mean±SEM, dotted line (Figure D) represents 70% Max-HR estimated; HR, Heart rate. Step count, total hours of sleep and sleep insights were analysed using one-way ANOVA, total hours of sleep from Garmin devices vs MCTQ and Max-HR were analysed using paired t-test.

3.3. Changes in glucose during exercise intervention

There was a significant decrease (p=0.02) in acute (first 24 hours of exercise) AUC glycemia during morning exercise (180.6±16.1 mmol/L) compared with baseline (210.3±18.0 mmol/L), whereas there were no significant differences in acute glycemia levels during evening exercise compared with baseline (p=0.12). No change in acute glucose levels between morning and evening exercise were observed (p=0.14) (Figure 4A). An hour-by-hour time-course of glucose readings did not indicate a difference in glycemia during the trial (p>0.05) (Figure 4B).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Acute 24-hour glucose levels. (A) Area under the curve (AUC) values for glucose levels during the first 24 hours of exercise. (n=18) (B) Time-course plot hourly glucose levels for the first 24 hours of exercise during baseline, morning, and evening intervention (n=18). Wk, week. *p< 0.05. Values are mean±SEM, lines represent individual values. Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA followed up by Holm-Šídák’s multiple comparisons test.

24-hour AUC glucose during baseline (210.3±18.0 mmol/L), morning (197.3±13.9 mmol/L) and evening (206.7±14.9 mmol/L) during weeks 1-2 did not differ significantly (p=0.24) (Figure 5A). Further, no difference in glucose concentration was observed at any time point during the 24-hour time-course between baseline, morning, and evening exercise, during weeks 1-2 (Figure 5B). Similar findings were observed at weeks 5-6 (Figure 5D).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

24-hour glucose levels in response to exercise intervention. (A) Area under the curve (AUC) 24-hour glucose for week 1-2 of exercise intervention (n=18) (B) Time-course plot 24-hour glucose in weeks 1-2 (n=18) (C) Area under the curve (AUC) 24-hour glucose for week 5-6 of exercise intervention (n=17) (D) Time-course plot 24-hour glucose in weeks 5-6 (n=17). Wk, week. Values are mean±SEM, lines represent individual values. Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA followed up by Holm-Šídák’s multiple comparisons test.

No significant interaction effect was observed for sex x time of the exercise (Supplementary Figure 4). There was a trend (p=0.07) showing lower AUC glucose levels in summer (222.4±6.1) compared to the winter (169.8±0.9). This consistent pattern persisted throughout the entire intervention period, however, this difference in AUC glucose levels between winter and summer did not reach statistical significance (p=0.07) (Supplementary Figure 5).

3.4. Caloric intake during exercise intervention

There were no changes in dietary energy intake during breakfast (p=0.30), baseline (390.5±38.2 Kcal), morning weeks 1-2 (355.0±22.8 Kcal), evening weeks 1-2 (353.1±49.6 Kcal), morning weeks 5-6 (311.6±27.21 Kcal), evening weeks 5-6 (354.2±40.71 Kcal) throughout the trial (Figure 6A). Energy intake during lunch was significantly different (p=0.03) between morning weeks 1-2 (534.3±61.0 Kcal) and evening weeks 5-6 (402.7±45.5 Kcal) (Figure 6B). However, no significant differences were observed (p=0.64) when comparing evening weeks 5-6 with the energy intake at baseline (470.4±41.3 Kcal). There was no difference in caloric ingestion of dinner (p=0.14) (Figure 6C) between arms of the trial. No changes in caloric intake were detected between comparable periods of the trial.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6.

Mean caloric intake during exercise intervention. Data collected from self-reported 4-days food diaries for (A) Size of breakfast (n=14), (B) Size of lunch (n=14) and (C) Size of dinner (n=14). Values are mean±SEM. Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA followed up by Holm-Šídák’s multiple comparisons test.

There were no differences (p=0.33) in total daily caloric intake consumed during baseline (570.6±142.1 Kcal), morning weeks 1-2 (573.3±149.9 Kcal), evening weeks 1-2 (533.1±116.8 Kcal), morning weeks 5-6 (585.2±165.6 Kcal) and evening weeks 5-6 (545.2±167.3 Kcal) (Figure 7). Throughout the trial, caloric intake was significantly higher (p=<0.001) during dinner (843.1±23.8 Kcal), compared with breakfast (349.0±13.0 Kcal) and lunch (492.4±27.3 Kcal).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7.

Total daily caloric intake. Data collected from self-reported 4-days food diaries from baseline (n = 14), morning weeks 1-2 (n = 14), evening weeks 1-2 (n=15), morning weeks 5-6 (n=14), evening weeks 5-6 (n=13). Values are mean±SEM. Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA followed up by Holm-Šídák’s multiple comparisons test.

3.5. Meals and metformin timing

Acute 24 AUC glucose was lower (p=0.01) in participants taking metformin before breakfast (152.5±10.6 mmol/L) compared with participants taking metformin after breakfast (227.2±27.5 mmol/L) only when the participants performed morning exercise (Figure 8B). No differences were observed for metformin before or after breakfast for the baseline and evening exercise arms of the trial (p=0.17 and p=0.67, respectively), nor for metformin before or after dinner during baseline, or morning or afternoon exercise (p=0.44 and p=0.25, respectively) (Supplementary Figure 6).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8.

Meal and metformin timing. Area under the curve (AUC) values for glucose levels during the first 24 hours of exercise for (A) Baseline, metformin pre-breakfast (n=9), metformin post-breakfast (n=5); (B) Morning exercise, metformin pre-breakfast (n=8), metformin post-breakfast (n=5); (C) Evening exercise, metformin pre-breakfast (n=10), metformin post-breakfast (n=4). *p< 0.05. Values are mean±SEM. Data were analysed using unpaired t-test.

During morning exercise (weeks 1-2), participants taking metformin before breakfast exhibited a trend (p=0.07) to have lower AUC glucose levels (165.4±3.3 mmol/L) compared with participants taking metformin after breakfast (223.3± 25.1 mmol/L) (Figure 9). During weeks 5-6 of the exercise protocol, glucose was significantly lower (p=0.04) for participants taking metformin before breakfast (168.8±5.6), rather than after breakfast (224.5±21.2) only during morning exercise. No differences in AUC glucose for metformin before/after breakfast were observed for the evening arm of the trial throughout the protocol (evening arms, weeks 1-2, p=0.80, weeks 5-6 p=0.72).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 9.

Meal and metformin timing throughout the trial. Area under the curve (AUC) values for glucose levels for Baseline period, metformin pre-breakfast (n=9), metformin post-breakfast (n=5); Morning exercise (weeks 1-2), metformin pre-breakfast (n=8), metformin post-breakfast (n=6); Evening exercise (weeks 1-2), metformin pre-breakfast (n=10), metformin post-breakfast (n=4); Morning exercise (weeks 5-6), metformin pre-breakfast (n=8), metformin post-breakfast (n=6); Evening exercise (weeks 5-6), metformin pre-breakfast (n=9), metformin post-breakfast (n=4). *p< 0.05. Values are mean±SEM. Blue dots are participants that changed metformin intake timing between different periods of the trial, lines represent individual crossover values. Data were analysed using two-way mixed-model ANOVA followed up by Holm-Šídák’s multiple comparisons test.

4. Discussion

These data demonstrate that morning moderate intensity exercise acutely reduces glycaemia in people with type 2 Diabetes also being prescribed metformin. While evening exercise had no effect upon glycaemia. The acute reduction of glycaemia in the morning trial was apparently driven by people who consumed metformin before breakfast, rather than after breakfast. Indeed, morning exercise combined with pre-breakfast metformin persistently reduced AUC glucose compared to morning exercise combined with post-breakfast metformin up to the final week (week 6) of the intervention. In this crossover trial, there was no significant difference in exercise intensity, caloric intake or total physical activity between the arms of the trial (morning vs evening exercise). These findings support the assertion that an interaction with intrinsic circadian biology may be linked to the observed effects.

Interestingly, we observed that the acute morning exercise decrease in glycaemia was apparently driven by people who consumed metformin before breakfast rather than after breakfast. Many people taking metformin struggle to maintain regular physical activity [15], which may be a result of a lower tolerance of exercise when metformin is concomitant [16]. Furthermore, metformin may interfere with the glucose-lowering effect of acute exercise [11, 12]. Therefore, identifying strategies to optimise concomitant prescription of these therapies is essential. Our data suggests that it may be possible to optimise timing of these concomitant therapies to augment their therapeutic effect. It should be noted that these specific data in the current study are not crossover, however, the magnitude of difference (33% decreased AUC glucose in pre-breakfast group, Figure 8) suggests a real effect. Additionally, an interaction effect on glycaemia between morning exercise and pre-breakfast metformin intake appeared to persist throughout the trial since the group taking metformin before breakfast had lower AUC glucose than the post breakfast group into week 6 of the morning exercise intervention. These findings have parallels to previous data that suggest consuming metformin before a meal improved efficacy upon glycaemic regulation [17]. This effect on glycaemia may be partly related to metformin’s pharmacokinetic interaction with meal intake and intrinsic circadian rhythms. For example, compared with the fasting state, bioavailability of metformin is 24% lower, and the peak concentration delayed about 37 min when an 850 mg tablet is administered with food [18]. Additionally, metformin’s pharmacology significantly depends on time-of-day in humans, which may be related to glomerular filtration rate, renal plasma flow (RPF) and renal organic cation transporter (OCT) 2 activity [19]. Although the half-life of metformin in the blood is relatively long (∼18 hours depending on dose/method [20]), less is known regarding accumulation in skeletal muscle, a key organ in the response to exercise [1]. It is known that concomitant exercise alters the pharmacokinetics of acute metformin administration [16, 20], with differing skeletal muscle concentrations of metformin before, during and after exercise [16]. It is plausible then, that exercise at different times of the day in addition to timing of metformin intake may interact with the pharmacokinetics and glycaemic modulating effects of metformin. This is supported by our findings since we observed a glucose lowering effect of pre-breakfast metformin only during morning exercise periods of the trial. Thus, further research should aim to fully elucidate the interaction between meal-timing, exercise and medication intake.

As described above, skeletal muscle plays a key role in the metabolic response to exercise, and this organ has an intrinsically disrupted rhythm in people with type 2 Diabetes [9]. However, it is plausible that metformin treatment may interact with skeletal muscle circadian metabolism to alter time-of-day exercise effects observed in other studies in people with impaired metabolism. Supportive of this is the lack of effect upon glycaemia in response to exercise at different times of the day in people who are metabolically healthy [10] and who presumably do not have disrupted metabolic circadian rhythms. However, the aforementioned study [10] only monitored response to a single bout of exercise, while the current study was a 16-week trial in which participants did two 6-week training periods. Moderate intensity exercise did not increase glycaemia in people with type 2 Diabetes being prescribed metformin. These data indicate that in terms of glycaemic response, morning moderate intensity exercise is not deleterious in people with type 2 diabetes being prescribed metformin and does not exacerbate the dawn phenomenon in the same manner as HIIT [2].

Indeed, exercise modality may interact with circadian rhythm to alter exercise outcomes. High-intensity exercise capacity is consistently higher in the afternoon/evening compared to morning, while diurnal differences in exercise capacity are less clear with moderate intensity exercise [21]. This phenomenon may underlie the findings of Teo et al. (2020), who found no time-of-day differences in glycaemic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes in response to combined walking exercise and resistance training [13]. This exercise modality [13] contrasts with the HIIT protocol used in previous studies with conflicting findings [2]. However, it should be noted that Teo et al. (2020) did not measure glycaemic outcomes in a circadian manner [13]. Whereas, in the current study we have measured 24-hour glucose over a total period of 10-weeks. Additionally, participants completed moderate intensity exercise outdoors in

Scotland, which may influence diurnal outcomes compared to exercise protocols completed at a higher intensity or in a different environment. In a laboratory setting, fifty minutes of walking at 3 different times of day and at different timing in relation to meals did not lower 24-hour glucose concentrations in people with type 2 diabetes [22]. Together with the results from the current study, these data suggest that moderate intensity exercise may not give rise to time-of-day dependent glycaemic perturbations of the same magnitude as high intensity exercise.

The current study had some limitations. Our prior statistical power calculations suggested a sample size of 30 in order to detect differences in hour-by-hour glucose readings. Although we met our recruitment target, we had a higher-than-expected withdrawal rate, with 18 participants eligible for final analysis. We conducted this study mainly during the C-19 global pandemic, which directly and indirectly impacted on participants’ ability to complete the 16-week trial. Nevertheless, the strength of our study is the cross-over design, giving greater statistical power than a cross-sectional design. We aimed to recruit people with type 2 diabetes who were being prescribed metformin monotherapy, i.e. no other glycaemic regulating pharmaceutical treatments. This criterium allowed us to investigate a time-of-day exercise interaction with metformin treatment specifically, rather than being confounded by other pharmaceutical treatments. As previously noted, metformin timing intake was not a primary outcome of this study, and therefore our comparisons between different metformin intake timings are not crossover. Thus, it is possible that existing differences in glycaemic regulation between groups are responsible for some of the observed differences (e.g. Supplementary table 4). However, it is likely that metformin intake timing is highly habitual, and it is plausible that participants who habitually take metformin before breakfast may experience better long-term control of glycaemia as a direct result. A further strength of the study was the excellent adherence of participants to the exercise protocol, with >85-90% exercise session completion rate over 6-weeks and no difference in self-monitored exercise intensity between arms of the trial. The advantage of conducting self-monitored exercise trials is that this is likely to better recapitulate many real-world settings in which clinicians’ recommendations to exercise are mostly self-monitored rather than monitored by practitioners. Participants were instructed to maintain their normal diet during the trial, and total caloric intake was not different between arms of the trial, indicating adherence to this instruction. However, it should be noted that dietary intake was self-reported.

In summary, our study demonstrates an acute decrease in glycaemia in response to morning exercise in people with type 2 diabetes also being prescribed metformin. The reduction of glycaemia was driven by participants who consumed metformin before breakfast, rather than after breakfast, indicating an interaction between meal-timing, metformin intake and exercise. In this trial we monitored diet, exercise intensity, and physical activity throughout the trial, none of which appeared to contribute to the time-of-day dependent effect of exercise on glycaemia. Many people being prescribed metformin struggle to maintain regular physical activity [15], and metformin may interfere with the glucose-lowering effect of acute exercise [11, 12]. Thus, finding strategies to augment the therapeutic effect of these treatments when concomitant is essential in the management of type 2 diabetes. Our research indicates that it may be possible to optimise the timing recommendations for concomitant exercise and metformin treatment. Specifically, our findings suggest that morning moderate intensity exercise combined with pre-breakfast metformin intake may benefit the management of glycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes.

6. Funding

This study was funded by a European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes/Lilly Young Investigator Award and an NHS Grampian Endowment Research Grant, both to B.M.G. B.M.G. was also supported by a fellowship from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF19OC0055072). B.J.P.C. was supported by a Mexican Government CONAHCyT PhD Studentship (CVU: 516989).