Endurance athletes and Hb A1c

Marbles

Savage
Classified Approved
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
5,990
Location
AK
Until recently, I was not aware of most of the below, and I doubt many providers are as it applies to a small subset of American society. But, probably a much larger subset of RS, so I figured I would share it here and perhaps save someone else some stress.

At my recent well check my A1c was in the American prediabetic range at 5.8%. I'm also over weight by BMI, but not over fat by Dexa scan (19.2% body fat). So, at an office visit I look like a higher risk individual than I am and lifestyle modification was recommended (weight loss, exercise, diet improvement).

Endurance athletes commonly have Hb A1c's that are high by the American standards, but have excellent metabolic flexibility (not prediabetic, no metabolic syndrome).

The question becomes, does one have glucose regulation issues as this influences lifestyle recommendations. In the end accurate assessment, not denial, is the goal. Health care providers see a lot of denial, and the arguments in this post would certainly come across as such. So, the following things can clarify the clinical picture for both patient and provider:
-A normal fasting glucose argues against this (mine was normal).
-A normal fasting insulin argues against this (mine is normal, I had to request it)
-If my provider remains concerned, I will ask for a glucose challenge test as that gives the most direct assessment of glucose management in the body.
-A LPIR (Lipoprotein Insulin Resistance score) comes up, I'm not sure if it is validated in endurance athletes, and being an indirect measure used to assess risk it is of questionable value in any population it was not validated in.

The other difficulty is proper fueling as an athlete, which is driven by lots of carbs. The key here is full blown diabetes should consume carbs at the level recommended for none diabetes during exercise. So on heavy days 900+ grams of carbs (over 3500 calories of carbs) fall within my recommend consumption range.

The ADA (American Diabetic Association) is the only organization that recommends the 5.6% threshold on Hb A1c as being prediabetic, the rest of the world uses 6.0%. Athletes engaging in more that 300 minutes of moderat to high intensity cardio a week probably shouldn't be concerned until they are 6.0%.

The 300 minute cut point is based on intuition, there is not much hard data available on athletes when it comes to this topic. Anyone getting less than 300 minutes a week is leaving easy long term health gains on the table anyway, so increasing would be to their benefit regardless of if the Hb A1c is a sign of a problem or not.
 
It is not uncommon for a variety of reasons, most notably the higher rate of RBC turnover.
I think you mean reduced rate of RBC turnover. Higher rates produce artificially low A1c levels.




A side not of general interest, many people who write about this discuss "exercise induced insulin resistance" which is amusing as insulin secretion is known to decrease during exercise; and insulin sensitivity is known to increase during exercise. It is why exercise is so beneficial for type 2 diabetics and why type 1 diabetics have lower insulin needs during prolonged exercise.

It is true that athletes can have blood glucose that holds as high as 180 during exercise, but insulin resistance is not the cause (insulin resistance implies that glucose cannot enter cells for use), rather it is a well tuned metabolism that can poor on the fuel to sustain rapid consumption.
 
Very interesting topic and one I wasn’t aware of. I don’t have much to add but I appreciate the insight in case I ever encounter this situation with patients, especially in the sports medicine world. I’ll be following along with interest.
 
I’m probably missing something here, but if the recommendations are weight loss, exercise, diet improvement, those could very well be valid, even for a self-described “endurance athlete,” yes?

And it’s quite possible for self-described endurance athletes to be unhealthy, yes?

I do agree that the “normal” ranges need to be contextualized and understood, and I’ve been quite frustrated at what I perceive to be modern medicine’s focus on just checking the boxes without wanting to really dig in and understand an individual and what those numbers mean to that individual.

At the same time, I think people—self-described endurance athletes especially—tend to overestimate the health benefits of whatever they are doing.
 
See. I’m a believer that over exercise can be a risk factor in itself. I think the induced hypoxic stress on organs and the muscle breakdown byproducts can both be harmful.
 
I’ve had high, pre diabetic range, A1c levels for the last couple of years and they kept inching up slowly. I was very miffed by this as I was eating reasonably healthy and super active all of the time. I quit drinking entirely and that didn’t seem to make any difference over the course of 12 months.

Finally, I switched to 90% keto diet for 3 months + started supplementing Chromium, Alpha Lapoic Acid and Berberine and my levels dropped back into normal range within that 3 month window.
 
I’m probably missing something here, but if the recommendations are weight loss, exercise, diet improvement, those could very well be valid, even for a self-described “endurance athlete,” yes?

And it’s quite possible for self-described endurance athletes to be unhealthy, yes?

I do agree that the “normal” ranges need to be contextualized and understood, and I’ve been quite frustrated at what I perceive to be modern medicine’s focus on just checking the boxes without wanting to really dig in and understand an individual and what those numbers mean to that individual.
There is a reason why I brought up additional tests. As I said, denial is common, and not the goal, and yes, those can be valid recommendations for most, most of the time. To be clear, based on the information she had, her recommendations were very reasonable.

A summary of the points below:
-Weight loss, consider fat mass vs lean mass.
-Exercise above 300min/wk has minimal health benefits.
-Diet can almost always be improved, but how matters.

Below I use myself as an example because you are correct, this is complex. Hopefully it can help someone think through their own stuff.

On more exercise:
When a heavy week is 10+ hours of aerobic training, the recommendation to pile on more is dangerous. While not harmful, once 300 minutes a week are hit, increasing further brings very small health gains based on the available evidence. So, you go past 300 minutes a week for reasons other than health as the returns are too small to justify the investment.

On diet:
99.99% of use can improve our diet (and that includes me), the question is how. Under a heavy training load, cutting carbs is not an improvement; based on current evidence, it too would be harmful; especially if paired with increasing load.

On weight loss:
This is were a Dexa scan (or other highly accurate assessment of body composition) comes in. I listed body fat percentage above, but really FMI (fat mass index) is probably the best as adding muscle mass will lower the percentage, but is unlikely to make adding fat acceptable. A normal FMI is 3-6. Mine is 5.2. In my case, I would like too loose weight, but like adding exercises past 300 minutes, the long term health benefits are small at best. My reasons are improved performance and cosmetic.

If I dropped only fat mass, an FMI of 4 would still leave me over weight by BMI and would not meaningfully alter my metabolic health. An FMI of 3 would put me in the normal weight BMI. I look "gaunt" (to quote my wife) at that weight. For myself, I would be fine dropping a little muscle too, but I'm not going to engage in unhealthy behavior to do so, nor am I willing to cut out strength training.

A high (5.6-5.9) A1c with normal fasting glucose is very different than a high A1c with high fasting glucose. If the A1c is over 6.0 or up, then look hard for a pathologic reason (iron deficiency, liver issues, diabetes). For most healthy people, a few lab tests is enough.
-Normal CBC rules out iron deficiency
-Normal LFTs and protein argues the liver is fine
-Normal fasting glucose and/or fasting insulin strongly argues for normal glucose metabolism. A glucose challenge test would give the best assessment of glucose metabolism.

At the same time, I think people—self-described endurance athletes especially—tend to overestimate the health benefits of whatever they are doing.
There is some truth to this. It is one reason why I bring up additional assessments. Along the same lines, endurance athletes build up more coronary artery plaque than their non-enduance peers. This is not enough to undo the protection given by the endurance training (on average endurance athletes live longer), but it does suggest more benefits from good lipid control. Denial is ignoring genetically crappy lipid levels, and many people do this.
 
See. I’m a believer that over exercise can be a risk factor in itself. I think the induced hypoxic stress on organs and the muscle breakdown byproducts can both be harmful.
Truly elite athletes (such as olympians) outlive non-elite peers. There are all kinds of confounders in there, but it pretty reliability puts to bed the idea that a lot of training is unhealthy long term.
 
Back
Top