Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montréal, 110 avenue des Pins, Montreal, Quebec, H2W 1R7, Canada; Department of Medicine, Endocrinology division, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 3840 rue Saint-Urbain, Montreal, Quebec, H2W 1T8, Canada.
Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montréal, 110 avenue des Pins, Montreal, Quebec, H2W 1R7, Canada; Nutrition Department, Université de Montréal, 2405 chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1A8, Canada.
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2021 Mar 10;31(3):921-929. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2020.11.005. Epub 2020 Nov 13.
There is debate over the independent and combined effects of caloric restriction (CR) and physical activity (PA) on reduction in fat mass and in epicardial fat thickness. We compared the impact of a similar energy deficit prescription by CR or by CR combined with PA on total fat mass, epicardial fat thickness, and cardiometabolic profile in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
In this 16-week randomized controlled study, 73 individuals were randomly enrolled to receive: 1) a monthly motivational phone call (Control), 2) a caloric deficit of -700 kilocalories/day (CR), or 3) a caloric deficit of -500 kilocalories/day combined with a PA program of -200 kilocalories/day (CR&PA). Total fat mass, epicardial fat, and cardiometabolic profile were measured at baseline and after 16 weeks. While comparable weight loss occurred in both intervention groups (-3.9 ± 3.5 kg [CR], -5.1 ± 4.7 kg [CR&PA], -0.2 ± 2.9 kg [Control]), changes in total fat mass were significantly different between all groups (-2.4 ± 2.9 kg [CR], -4.5 ± 3.4 kg [CR&PA], +0.1 ± 2.1 kg [Control]; p < 0.05) as well as epicardial fat thickness (-0.4 ± 1.6 mm [CR], -1.4 ± 1.4 mm [CR&PA], +1.1 ± 1.3 mm [Control]; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in trends for cardiometabolic parameters improvement between groups.
For a similar energy deficit prescription and comparable weight loss, the combination of CR&PA provides a greater reduction in fat mass and epicardial fat thickness than CR alone in individuals with comparable weight loss and with a similar energy deficit prescription. These results, however, do not translate into significant improvements in cardiometabolic profiles. CLINICALTRIALS.
NCT01186952.
关于热量限制（CR）和体力活动（PA）对减少脂肪量和心外膜脂肪厚度的独立和联合作用存在争议。我们比较了通过 CR 或 CR 联合 PA 实现相似能量亏空处方对 2 型糖尿病患者总脂肪量、心外膜脂肪厚度和心脏代谢特征的影响。
在这项为期 16 周的随机对照研究中，73 名患者被随机分为三组：1）每月接受一次动机性电话咨询（对照组），2）每天热量亏空 700 千卡（CR 组），或 3）每天热量亏空 500 千卡并联合每天 200 千卡的体力活动方案（CR&PA 组）。在基线和 16 周后测量总脂肪量、心外膜脂肪和心脏代谢特征。尽管两组干预均发生了相当的体重减轻（-3.9±3.5kg [CR 组]，-5.1±4.7kg [CR&PA 组]，0.2±2.9kg [对照组]），但各组间总脂肪量的变化存在显著差异（-2.4±2.9kg [CR 组]，-4.5±3.4kg [CR&PA 组]，+0.1±2.1kg [对照组]；p<0.05）以及心外膜脂肪厚度（-0.4±1.6mm [CR 组]，-1.4±1.4mm [CR&PA 组]，+1.1±1.3mm [对照组]；p<0.05）。各组间心脏代谢参数改善趋势无显著差异。
对于相似的能量亏空处方和相当的体重减轻，CR&PA 联合治疗比单独的 CR 治疗能更显著地降低脂肪量和心外膜脂肪厚度，尽管各组的能量亏空处方和体重减轻相当。然而，这些结果并不能转化为心脏代谢特征的显著改善。临床试验。
NCT01186952。
