Comprehensive lifestyle modifications delay diabetes progression
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63666/ejsmr.1694-9013.4.I.2026.91Keywords:
Multivariable, predictor, Diabetes mellitus, stagingAbstract
Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is the most common endocrine disease in the world. The majority of patients with DM (90–95%) develop type 2 diabetes mellitus. This type of DM arises through the gradual loss of insulin secretion which may be partly related to obesity, physical inactivity, pancreatic beta-cell function decline and eventual hyperglycemia. The hypothesis of this study was to investigate whether lifestyle modification delay diabetes progression or not. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at the department of pathology of Dhaka National Medical College from July 2025 to October 2025. Total 148 subjects were classified into two groups. Well controlled DM patients (HbA1c less than or equal 6.5) were considered as an unknown stage (n=85) and poor controlled DM patients (HbA1c greater than or equal 8) were considered as stage 1-3 (n= 63). Purposive sampling was done according to availability of patients. Ethical clearance was obtained from the appropriate authority to get permission to collect data. The collected data were entered into the computer and analyzed by using SPSS (version 20.1) Results: Patients with stage 1-3 tended to be older (mean age 47.9 vs. 44.9 years, p= 0.063). Alcohol use was significantly more prevalent in stage 1-3 (52.7% vs. 47.3%, p=0.014), while physical activity pattern was similar across groups (p=0.615 active vs. inactive comparisons). Pregnancy/lactation status among female participants also didn’t differ by staging (57.9% unknown stage vs. 42.1% stage 1-3, p=0.6). Patients with a low-risk profile (non-smokers, non- drinkers, and physically active) were significantly more prevalent in the Unknown Stage (32.2%) compared to Stage 1-3 (27.0%, p=0.04). No significant differences were observed for other lifestyle combinations (all p>0.05), though trends suggest higher rates of high-risk behaviors (smoking + alcohol + inactivity) in Stage 1-3 patients (24.3% vs. 18.6%, p= 0.34). Multivariable logistic regression confirmed older age (per decade: aOR=1.32, 95% CI:1.08- 1.61, p= 0.01) as independent predictors of Stage 1-3 diabetes, while physical activity was protective (aOR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.38 -0.98, p= 0.04). Male gender showed no significant association (p= 0.62). These results, derived through maximum likelihood estimation, demonstrate that modifiable lifestyle factors significantly influence diabetes progression. Conclusion: Physically active patients were significantly more prevalent in the Unknown Stage compared to Stage 1-3. These findings support that comprehensive lifestyle modifications may delay diabetes progression.
References
1. Cleven, L., Krell-Roesch, J., Nigg, C.R. and Woll, A. (2020). The association between physical activity with incident obesity, coronary heart disease, diabetes and hypertension in adults: a systematic review of longitudinal studies published after 2012. BMC Public Health, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08715-4.
2. Zhao, S., Chen, M., Qi, G., Qi, M., Dai, X., Chu, X., Chen, W., Tian, K., Liu, T. and Shi, X. (2025). Association and risk factors among injury, physical activity, and adult hypertension and diabetes in a cohort from Southwest China. Discover Public Health, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-025-00815-z.
3. Lee, J.-Y., Ryu, S. and Sung, K.-C. (2018). Association of baseline level of physical activity and its temporal changes with incident hypertension and diabetes mellitus. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 25(10), pp.1065–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487318774419.
4. Chomiuk, T., Niezgoda, N., Mamcarz, A. and Śliż, D. (2024). Physical activity in metabolic syndrome. Frontiers in physiology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1365761.
5. Tsimihodimos, V., Gonzalez-Villalpando, C., Meigs, J.B. and Ferrannini, E. (2018). Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus. Hypertension, 71(3), pp.422–428. https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.117.10546.
6. Sigal, R., Cep, M., Bacon, S., Boulé, N., Dasgupta, K., Kenny, G. and Riddell, M. (2018). 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines Physical Activity and Diabetes Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Physical Activity and Diabetes, [online] 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.10.008.
7. Chetty, L., Govender, N., Govender, G.M. and Reddy, P. (2021). Demographic stratification of Type 2 diabetes and comorbidities in district healthcare in KwaZulu-Natal. South African Family Practice, 63(1), p.9. https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v63i1.5218.
8. Elimam, H., Abdulla, A.M. and Taha, I.M. (2019). Inflammatory markers and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 13(1), pp.800–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2018.11.061.
9. Ikram Imken and Nadia Idrissi Fatmi (2024). A new mathematical model of drinking alcohol among diabetes population taking anti-diabetic drugs: an optimal control approach. Communications in Mathematical Biology and Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.28919/cmbn/8359.
10. Holst, C., Becker, U., Jørgensen, M.E., Grønbæk, M. and Tolstrup, J.S. (2017). Alcohol drinking patterns and risk of diabetes: a cohort study of 70,551 men and women from the general Danish population. Diabetologia, 60(10), pp.1941–1950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-017-4359-3.
11. Mohan, V. and Pradeepa, R. (2021). Epidemiology of Type 2 Diabetes in India. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 69(11), p.2932. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.ijo_1627_21.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eurasian Journal of Scientific and Multidisciplinary Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.









