High-fat and high-sucrose diets increase the contribution of gluconeogenesis to glucose appearance (glc R(a)) under basal conditions. They also reduce insulin suppression of glc R(a) and insulin-stimulated muscle glycogen synthesis under euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic conditions. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether these impairments influence liver and muscle glycogen synthesis under hyperglycemic, hyperinsulinemic conditions. Male rats were fed a high-sucrose, high-fat, or low-fat, starch control diet for either 1 (n = 5-7/group) or 5 wk (n = 5-6/group). Studies involved two 90-min periods. During the first, a basal period (BP), [6-3H]glucose was infused. In the second, a hyperglycemic period (HP), [6-3H]glucose, [6-14C]glucose, and unlabeled glucose were infused. Plasma glucose (BP: 111.2 +/- 1.5 mg/dl; HP: 172.3 +/- 1.5 mg/dl), insulin (BP: 2.5 +/- 0.2 ng/ml; HP: 4.9 +/- 0.3 ng/ml), and glucagon (BP: 81.8 +/- 1.6 ng/l; HP: 74.0 +/- 1.3 ng/l) concentrations were not significantly different among diet groups or with respect to time on diet. There were no significant differences among groups in the glucose infusion rate (mg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) necessary to maintain arterial glucose concentrations at approximately 170 mg/dl (pooled average: 6.4 +/- 0.8 at 1 wk; 6.4 +/- 0.7 at 5 wk), percent suppression of glc R(a) (44.4 +/- 7.8% at 1 wk; 63.2 +/- 4.3% at 5 wk), tracer-estimated net liver glycogen synthesis (7.8 +/- 1.3 microg x g liver(-1) x min(-1) at 1 wk; 10.5 +/- 2.2 microg x g liver(-1) x min(-1) at 5 wk), indirect pathway glycogen synthesis (3.7 +/- 0.9 microg x g liver(-1) x min(-1) at 1 wk; 3.4 +/- 0.9 microg x g liver(-1) x min(-1) at 5 wk), or tracer-estimated net muscle glycogenesis (1.0 +/- 0.3 microg x g muscle(-1) x min(-1) at 1 wk; 1.6 +/- 0.3 microg x g muscle(-1) x min(-1) at 5 wk). These data suggest that hyperglycemia compensates for diet-induced insulin resistance in both liver and skeletal muscle.

In Canada, a growing interest within higher education in community engagement practices is evidenced through the establishment of national networks, funding opportunities for community-university research partnerships, and the development of specially designated centres on university campuses. However, based on the literature in continuing education, the role of university continuing education (UCE) units in supporting community engagement is not clear. Many UCE units have been involved and continue to be involved in developing and implementing various types of community engagement activities, yet the work of these units is not widely recognized within the university and the community as contributing substantially to the social purpose mission of the institution. The pressures and tensions relating to balancing the social and economic goals of the UCE unit may be influencing the role of UCE in community engagement. Strategies identified in this article that could assist UCE in embedding community engagement within the practice and in reframing the focus of UCE include the development of a community engagement framework and measurement tools that assess outcomes leading to positive social change.

No abstract

The increased interest in community engagement within higher education provides new opportunities for examining the role of university continuing education (UCE) units in relation to their participation in community university partnerships. This article is based on findings from a qualitative study that used a social theory lens to examine the perspectives and ideas of representatives from the university and the community relating to their experiences and interests in participating in collaborations in support of the social good. While the respondents from community-based research and community organizations identified few constraints affecting their involvement in these kinds of partnerships, the UCE study participants described a number of issues that affected their participation, such as an emphasis on revenue generation and the lack of organizational support for engagement. Considerations for supporting a common space for engagement involving UCE professionals include the development of a partnership model, the adoption of an asset-based approach, affiliations with national organizations and networks, seeking external visibility and recognition, and using social theories to guide the development of community engagement practices.

No abstract