Interesting article. I'm a huge fan of exercise for controlling blood sugar (along with diet of course). I think everyone should exercise to improve their fitness.

For my needs the short bouts of exercise practice outlined isn't sustainable. I could never use the term "exercise snack". I'm either exercising or having a snack. "Exercise snack" is an odd concept. Researchers are locked up in a room for long periods of time, these terms somehow make sense to them. They should get out more often.

I prefer to get up and knock out my exercise to start the day. I can't imagine trying to schedule an exercise session before every meal every day.

Wife: "Honey it's time for dinner"
Husband: "Give me 15 minutes, I have to get in my exercise snack before we eat"

Seriously?

Actually, the terms the researches used and the reported results both make a lot of sense.

The term is a comparison, likening the length of a shorter exercise session to a "snack" where the longer session is inferred to be the "meal." If I were to find fault with the terminology, it wouldn't be with how good the analogy is. It would be because the researchers thought those of us with dietary challenges needed a food analogy in order to relate to their exercise findings. It's unintentionally insulting.

The actual result is unsurprising. That's just nature's tendency to minimize entropy and prefer a more "reversible" (effort in the right amount spread out over a longer period of time) process. It is nature's efficiency.

Whether or not the theoretical findings fit into someone's schedule is irrelevant to their validity. This is just a report of the way nature works. That's not something we can really negotiate away. It is, however, up to each of us to adapt the theory to our everyday practicalities.

The general understanding we should take is this: the more you spread your workouts throughout the day, the better. I know people with time-intensive jobs and/or other commitments who find they prefer two shorter workout sessions over one longer one anyway. I can emulate the same thing knowing it may benefit my sugar control. I can do my calisthenics in the morning and walking in the evening. If someone else has the flexibility of breaking his or her workouts into three sessions, each time before he or she eats, great!

Whether or not the theoretical findings fit into someone's schedule is irrelevant to their validity.

I did not question the validity of the study or the results.

It is, however, up to each of us to adapt the theory to our everyday practicalities.,,,
....If someone else has the flexibility of breaking his or her workouts into three sessions, each time before he or she eats, great!

It doesn't seem like a practical approach for the majority of the population. Let's face it, most people aren't willing to exercise even once a day. Now we're going to ask them to exercise before every meal?

BigGuy47, it was not my intention to start a point-by-point argument. I'm trying to contribute, in a supportive way, a point I think is important.

I still believe that if someone takes the information in this article, adds a dash of good ol' horse sense to work it into his or her schedule, it is useful and not at all impractical. If someone cannot do as exactly as prescribed in the study, they could take the general points "spreading workouts out is better" and "try to workout close to meals" and design a schedule that is acceptable to them and still incorporates a portion of the suggestions (and hopefully a portion of the results).

For instance, I won't be doing three workouts a day. But, I'm going to try and roughly split my current once/day workout into a morning and evening schedule and see if that has a positive impact on my BG levels.