Nikseresht Mahmoud, Agha-Alinejad Hamid, Azarbayjani Mohammad A, Ebrahim Khosrow
1Department of Exercise Physiology, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran; 2Department of Physical Education, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran; and 3Department of Sport and Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Physical Education, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Sep;28(9):2560-8. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000441.
Regular exercise training has been shown to reduce systemic inflammation, but there is limited research directly comparing different types of training. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of nonlinear resistance training (NRT) and aerobic interval training (AIT) on serum interleukin-10 (IL-10), IL-20, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) levels, insulin resistance index (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance), and aerobic capacity in middle-aged men who are obese. Sedentary volunteers were assigned to NRT (n = 12), AIT (n = 12), and (CON, n = 10) control groups. The experimental groups performed 3 weekly sessions for 12 weeks, whereas the CON grouped maintained a sedentary lifestyle. Nonlinear resistance training consisted of 40-65 minutes of weight training at different intensities with flexible periodization. Aerobic interval training consisted of running on a treadmill (4 sets of 4 minutes at 80-90% of maximal heart rate, with 3-minute recovery intervals). Serum IL-10, IL-20, and TNF-α levels did not change significantly in response to training (all p > 0.05), but IL-10:TNF-α ratio increased significantly with AIT compared with CON (2.95 ± 0.84 vs. 2.52 ± 0.65; p = 0.02). After the training period, maximal oxygen uptake increased significantly in AIT and NRT compared with CON (both p < 0.001; 46.7 ± 5.9, 45.1 ± 3.2, and 41.1 ± 4.7 ml·kg·min, respectively) and in AIT than in NRT (p = 0.001). The 2 exercise programs were equally effective at reducing insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance) (both p ≤ 0.05; AIT: 0.84 ± 0.34, NRT: 0.84 ± 0.27, and CON: 1.62 ± 0.56) and fasting insulin levels (both p ≤ 0.05; AIT: 3.61 ± 1.48, NRT: 3.66 ± 0.92, and CON: 6.20 ± 2.64 μU·ml), but the AIT seems to have better anti-inflammatory effects (as indicated by the IL-10:TNF-α ratio) compared with NRT.
常规运动训练已被证明可减轻全身炎症,但直接比较不同类型训练的研究有限。本研究的目的是比较非线性阻力训练(NRT)和有氧间歇训练(AIT)对肥胖中年男性血清白细胞介素-10(IL-10)、IL-20和肿瘤坏死因子-α(TNF-α)水平、胰岛素抵抗指数(胰岛素抵抗稳态模型评估)和有氧能力的影响。久坐不动的志愿者被分配到NRT组(n = 12)、AIT组(n = 12)和对照组(CON,n = 10)。实验组每周进行3次训练,共12周,而CON组保持久坐不动的生活方式。非线性阻力训练包括40 - 65分钟不同强度的重量训练,采用灵活的周期化训练。有氧间歇训练包括在跑步机上跑步(4组,每组4分钟,强度为最大心率的80 - 90%,每组间有3分钟的恢复间隔)。血清IL-10、IL-20和TNF-α水平在训练后无显著变化(所有p > 0.05),但与CON组相比,AIT组的IL-10:TNF-α比值显著升高(2.95 ± 0.84 vs. 2.52 ± 0.65;p = 0.02)。训练期结束后,与CON组相比,AIT组和NRT组的最大摄氧量显著增加(均p < 0.001;分别为46.7 ± 5.9、45.1 ± 3.2和41.1 ± 4.7 ml·kg·min),且AIT组高于NRT组(p = 0.001)。两种运动方案在降低胰岛素抵抗(胰岛素抵抗稳态模型评估)方面同样有效(均p ≤ 0.05;AIT组:0.84 ± 0.34,NRT组:0.84 ± 0.27,CON组:1.62 ± 0.56)以及空腹胰岛素水平方面同样有效(均p ≤ 0.