Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication linked to adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Lifestyle-related factors such as physical activity, diet, and maternal body composition may modify GDM risk and influence management, yet integrated clinical data from real-world settings remain limited. The study aimed to compare lifestyle behaviors, physical activity, dietary practices, supplementation use, environmental exposures, family history of metabolic disease, and body composition between pregnant women diagnosed with GDM and pregnant women with normal glucose tolerance.
This was a cross-sectional observational study conducted in Poland. The analysis included 80 pregnant women in total: 30 women with clinically diagnosed GDM and 50 control participants with normal glucose tolerance. The source reports the overall sample sizes and group allocation but does not provide further demographic breakdowns, gestational ages at assessment, or recruitment details in the abstract.
Participants completed structured questionnaires that evaluated dietary behaviors, physical activity, use of dietary supplements, and other lifestyle factors. Body composition was measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis and skinfold thickness measurements. Selected anthropometric parameters, including pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), were recorded and compared between the groups. The abstract indicates that nonparametric statistical tests were used to compare groups, but detailed statistical methodology and additional measurement protocols were not reported in the abstract.
Women with GDM reported markedly higher rates of adherence to a prescribed diet compared with controls (77% vs 0%; P<0.0001). The GDM group also reported substantially greater self-reported nutritional knowledge (93% vs 4%; P<0.001). The authors interpret these differences as likely reflecting behavioral changes following the diagnosis of GDM rather than preexisting differences between groups.
Despite similar pre-pregnancy BMI between groups, measurable differences in body composition were identified. Women with GDM had greater skinfold thickness (median 21.5 mm) compared with controls (19.0 mm), with a reported P value of 0.011. Total body water percentage was higher in the GDM group (34.6% vs 31.9%; P=0.032). The abstract does not provide other body composition compartments (for example fat mass or lean mass) or longitudinal changes.
A positive family history of obesity and diabetes was more frequent among women with GDM. Specifically, family history of obesity was reported in 63% of the GDM group versus 38% of controls (P=0.049), and family history of diabetes in 53% versus 28% (P=0.043). Use of dietary supplementation was common across the cohort and did not differ significantly between women with GDM and controls according to the abstract.
The abstract notes reduced physical activity in both groups, indicating low activity levels among pregnant participants overall. The authors do not report a statistically significant between-group difference for physical activity measures in the abstract. Further details on how activity was quantified (questionnaire instrument, intensity thresholds, or duration) are not provided in the abstract.
In this real-world Polish cohort, GDM was associated with specific differences in body composition (increased skinfold thickness and higher total body water) and with a higher prevalence of family history of metabolic disease, despite similar pre-pregnancy BMI between groups. The markedly higher rates of dietary adherence and reported nutritional knowledge among women with GDM likely reflect behavior change after diagnosis. Both groups demonstrated reduced physical activity, suggesting a broader need to address activity levels in pregnancy.
These findings highlight that BMI alone may not capture body composition differences relevant to GDM and that family history and post-diagnostic behavior changes should be considered when evaluating lifestyle interventions in pregnant women.
The abstract reports the study design, sample size (80 participants), assessment methods, and main outcome differences, but it does not include additional methodological details in the abstract text. Information not reported in the abstract includes recruitment criteria and setting, gestational age distribution, specific questionnaire instruments or validation, detailed bioelectrical impedance parameters beyond total body water, adjustment for potential confounders, and effect sizes or confidence intervals beyond reported P values. These details were not reported in the source abstract and would require consulting the full text for comprehensive appraisal.