{"title":"在2型糖尿病患者的心脏代谢危险因素方面,等能量高强度间歇运动是否优于中等强度连续运动?一项单盲随机对照研究。","authors":"Gulin Findikoglu, Abdurrahim Altinkapak, Guzin Fidan Yaylali","doi":"10.1080/17461391.2023.2167238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) with equal energy expenditure on glycaemic and cardiometabolic risk factors in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) when compared to the control. Sixty-three people with T2DM were randomly assigned to HIIT, MICT, or non-exercising controls. Individuals were trained with HIIT at 90 and 30% of their VO<sub>2</sub>peak (1:2 min ratio) starting from 8 up to 16 intervals and MICT at 50% of VO<sub>2</sub>peak, on a cycle ergometer, 3 times/week for 12 weeks under supervision. The primary outcome measure was the change in HbA1c. Aerobic capacity, cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, body composition, glycaemic, and cardiometabolic risk factors were measured at the beginning and the end of the 12-week training period. There was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT or when compared to the control for HbA1c, glucose, insulin resistance, blood lipids, cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, body composition, and abdominal and visceral fat (<i>p</i><sub>adj </sub>> 0.05). HIIT and MICT increased VO<sub>2</sub>peak significantly compared to controls (<i>p</i> < 0.05) but not to each other (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Both HIIT and MICT improved VO<sub>2</sub>peak and HbA1c after 12 weeks of training compared to their baseline, furthermore, only MICT caused additional improvements in cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, and abdominal fat compared to baseline (<i>p</i> < 0.05). As a conclusion, isoenergetic HIIT or MICT did not improve HbA1c. The two protocols were equally efficient for improvement in aerobic capacity but had little effect on other cardiometabolic factors.<b>Trial registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03682445.<b>Highlights</b>HIIT and MICT with equal energy expenditure were equally efficient for aerobic capacity compared to controls.Isoenergetic HIIT or MICT were not superior for improving HbA1c.Isoenergetic HIIT and MICT were not superior to each other for anthropometric measures, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is isoenergetic high-intensity interval exercise superior to moderate-intensity continuous exercise for cardiometabolic risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus? A single-blinded randomized controlled study.\",\"authors\":\"Gulin Findikoglu, Abdurrahim Altinkapak, Guzin Fidan Yaylali\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17461391.2023.2167238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) with equal energy expenditure on glycaemic and cardiometabolic risk factors in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) when compared to the control. Sixty-three people with T2DM were randomly assigned to HIIT, MICT, or non-exercising controls. Individuals were trained with HIIT at 90 and 30% of their VO<sub>2</sub>peak (1:2 min ratio) starting from 8 up to 16 intervals and MICT at 50% of VO<sub>2</sub>peak, on a cycle ergometer, 3 times/week for 12 weeks under supervision. The primary outcome measure was the change in HbA1c. Aerobic capacity, cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, body composition, glycaemic, and cardiometabolic risk factors were measured at the beginning and the end of the 12-week training period. There was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT or when compared to the control for HbA1c, glucose, insulin resistance, blood lipids, cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, body composition, and abdominal and visceral fat (<i>p</i><sub>adj </sub>> 0.05). HIIT and MICT increased VO<sub>2</sub>peak significantly compared to controls (<i>p</i> < 0.05) but not to each other (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Both HIIT and MICT improved VO<sub>2</sub>peak and HbA1c after 12 weeks of training compared to their baseline, furthermore, only MICT caused additional improvements in cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, and abdominal fat compared to baseline (<i>p</i> < 0.05). As a conclusion, isoenergetic HIIT or MICT did not improve HbA1c. The two protocols were equally efficient for improvement in aerobic capacity but had little effect on other cardiometabolic factors.<b>Trial registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03682445.<b>Highlights</b>HIIT and MICT with equal energy expenditure were equally efficient for aerobic capacity compared to controls.Isoenergetic HIIT or MICT were not superior for improving HbA1c.Isoenergetic HIIT and MICT were not superior to each other for anthropometric measures, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk factors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2023.2167238\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2023.2167238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
本研究的目的是比较与对照组相比,高强度间歇训练(HIIT)和中等强度连续训练(MICT)在同等能量消耗的情况下对2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者血糖和心脏代谢危险因素的影响。63名T2DM患者被随机分配到HIIT、MICT或非运动对照组。从8到16个间隔开始,以90%和30%的VO2峰值(1:2分钟比例)对个体进行HIIT训练,并在周期测力计上以50%的VO2峰进行MICT训练,每周3次,为期12周。主要的结果指标是HbA1c的变化。在12周训练期开始和结束时,测量有氧能力、心血管反应、人体测量、身体成分、血糖和心脏代谢风险因素。HIIT和MICT之间没有显著差异,或者与对照组相比,HbA1c、葡萄糖、胰岛素抵抗、血脂、心血管反应、人体测量、身体成分以及腹部和内脏脂肪没有显著差异(padj > 与对照组相比,HIIT和MICT显著增加了VO2峰值(p p > 与基线相比,HIIT和MICT在训练12周后均改善了VO2peak和HbA1c,此外,只有MICT在心血管反应、人体测量和腹部脂肪方面比基线有了额外的改善(p 试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03682445。与对照组相比,具有相同能量消耗的HighlightsHIIT和MICT在有氧能力方面同样有效。等能量HIIT或MICT在改善HbA1c方面并不优越。等能量HIT和MICT在人体测量、身体成分和心脏代谢危险因素方面并不相互优越。
Is isoenergetic high-intensity interval exercise superior to moderate-intensity continuous exercise for cardiometabolic risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus? A single-blinded randomized controlled study.
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) with equal energy expenditure on glycaemic and cardiometabolic risk factors in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) when compared to the control. Sixty-three people with T2DM were randomly assigned to HIIT, MICT, or non-exercising controls. Individuals were trained with HIIT at 90 and 30% of their VO2peak (1:2 min ratio) starting from 8 up to 16 intervals and MICT at 50% of VO2peak, on a cycle ergometer, 3 times/week for 12 weeks under supervision. The primary outcome measure was the change in HbA1c. Aerobic capacity, cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, body composition, glycaemic, and cardiometabolic risk factors were measured at the beginning and the end of the 12-week training period. There was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT or when compared to the control for HbA1c, glucose, insulin resistance, blood lipids, cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, body composition, and abdominal and visceral fat (padj > 0.05). HIIT and MICT increased VO2peak significantly compared to controls (p < 0.05) but not to each other (p > 0.05). Both HIIT and MICT improved VO2peak and HbA1c after 12 weeks of training compared to their baseline, furthermore, only MICT caused additional improvements in cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, and abdominal fat compared to baseline (p < 0.05). As a conclusion, isoenergetic HIIT or MICT did not improve HbA1c. The two protocols were equally efficient for improvement in aerobic capacity but had little effect on other cardiometabolic factors.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03682445.HighlightsHIIT and MICT with equal energy expenditure were equally efficient for aerobic capacity compared to controls.Isoenergetic HIIT or MICT were not superior for improving HbA1c.Isoenergetic HIIT and MICT were not superior to each other for anthropometric measures, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk factors.