School of Physical Education and Sport Training, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai 200438, China.
Department of Endocrinology, Yangpu Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200090, China.
J Diabetes Res. 2022 Jan 13;2022:9273830. doi: 10.1155/2022/9273830. eCollection 2022.
This study is aimed at comparing the effects of different exercise intensities, namely, high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), on body composition, heart and lung fitness, and blood glucose, and blood pressure indices in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using power cycling. A total of 96 T2DM volunteers who met the inclusion criteria were recruited from a hospital in Yangpu, Shanghai. Based on the blood index data of their medical examination results which comprised blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and insulin, 37 volunteers were included in the study. Exercise prescription was determined based on T2DM exercise guidelines combined with medical diagnosis and exercise test results, and the patients were randomly assigned to three groups: HIIT group, MICT group, and control (CON) group. HIIT involved one-minute power cycling (80%-95% maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max)), one-minute passive or active rest (25%-30% VO2max), and two-minute rounds of eight groups. MICT required the use of a power bike for 30 minutes of continuous training (50%-70% VO2max) five times a week. The CON group was introduced to relevant medicine, exercise, and nutrition knowledge. The exercise interventions were completed under the supervision of an exercise instructor and hospital doctors. The same indicators were measured after 12 weeks of intervention, and the results of the two tests within and between groups were analyzed for comparison. The weight index of the MICT intervention showed statistically significant within-group differences (difference = 3.52, 95% CI = 2.11-4.92, = 0.001 < 0.01); group differences for the MICT and CON groups were also statistically significant (difference = 3.52 ± 2.09, Cd1 = -0.39 ± 1.25, = 0.004 < 0.01). Body mass index (BMI) analysis revealed that the overall means of BMI indicators were not statistically different between groups ( = 0.369, = 0.694 > 0.05) and the before and after values of the MICT and CON (difference = -1.30 ± 0.79, Cd1 = -0.18 ± 0.45, = 0.001 < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was observed in the overall mean VOmax index between the groups after the 12-week intervention ( = 2.51, = 0.100 > 0.05). A statistically significant difference was found in the overall means of the data between the two groups (difference = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.23-0.40, = 0.001 < 0.01). Analysis of fasting blood glucose (FBG) indicators revealed statistically significant differences between the MICT and control groups ( = 0.028 < 0.05). Analysis of HbA1c and fasting insulin (FI) indicators revealed no statistically significant difference in the overall HbA1c index after the 12-week exercise intervention ( = 0.523, = 0.598 > 0.05), and the overall difference before and after the experiment between the groups was statistically significant ( = 6.13, = 0.006 < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was found in the FI index overall after the 12-week exercise intervention ( = 2.50, = 0.1 > 0.05). Analysis of systolic blood pressure (SBP) revealed statistically significant difference before and after the HIIT and CON interventions (Hd7 = -1.10 ± 1.79, Cd7 = 1.2 ± 1.31, = 0.018 < 0.05) and statistically significant difference before and after the MICT and CON interventions (Md7 = -0.99 ± 0.91, Cd7 = 1.40 ± 1.78, = 0.02 < 0.05). The diastolic blood pressure (DBP) revealed no statistically significant within-group differences before and after. Exercise interventions applying both low-volume HIIT and MICT, with both intensity exercises designed for power cycling, improved health-related indicators in the participants; low-volume HIIT had more time advantage. The current experiment compared HIIT with MICT in a safe manner: 50% of the exercise time produced similar benefits and advantages in the two indicators of VOmax and FI. However, MICT was superior to HIIT in the two indicators of body weight (weight) and BMI. The effect of power cycling on FI has the advantages of both aerobic and resistance exercise, which may optimize the type, intensity, and time of exercise prescription according to the individual or the type of exercise program. Our results provide a reference for the personalization of exercise prescription for patients with T2DM.
本研究旨在比较两种不同运动强度,即高强度间歇训练(HIIT)和中等强度持续训练(MICT),对 2 型糖尿病(T2DM)患者的身体成分、心肺功能以及血糖和血压指数的影响,使用功率自行车进行实验。共招募了 96 名符合纳入标准的 T2DM 志愿者,他们来自上海杨浦区的一家医院。根据他们的体检结果的血压、空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)和胰岛素的血液指数数据,将 37 名志愿者纳入研究。根据 T2DM 运动指南并结合医学诊断和运动测试结果制定运动处方,将患者随机分配到三组:HIIT 组、MICT 组和对照组(CON)。HIIT 涉及一分钟的功率自行车(80%-95%最大摄氧量(VO2max))、一分钟的被动或主动休息(25%-30% VO2max),以及两轮八组。MICT 需要使用功率自行车进行 30 分钟的连续训练(50%-70% VO2max),每周 5 次。CON 组介绍了相关的药物、运动和营养知识。运动干预在运动指导员和医院医生的监督下完成。干预 12 周后测量相同的指标,并对组内和组间的两项测试结果进行分析比较。MICT 干预的体重指数显示组内差异有统计学意义(差异=3.52,95%CI=2.11-4.92,=0.001<0.01);MICT 组和 CON 组之间的组间差异也有统计学意义(差异=3.52±2.09,Cd1=-0.39±1.25,=0.004<0.01)。体重指数(BMI)分析显示,各组 BMI 指标的总体平均值无统计学差异(=0.369,=0.694>0.05),MICT 和 CON 前后值的差异也无统计学意义(差异=-1.30±0.79,Cd1=-0.18±0.45,=0.001<0.01)。12 周干预后,总体 VOmax 指数的组间差异无统计学意义(=2.51,=0.100>0.05)。两组之间的数据总体平均值存在统计学差异(差异=0.32,95%CI=0.23-0.40,=0.001<0.01)。空腹血糖(FBG)指标分析显示,MICT 组和对照组之间存在统计学差异(=0.028<0.05)。HbA1c 和空腹胰岛素(FI)指标分析显示,12 周运动干预后总体 HbA1c 指数无统计学差异(=0.523,=0.598>0.05),组间实验前后的总体差异有统计学意义(=6.13,=0.006<0.01)。12 周运动干预后 FI 指数总体无统计学差异(=2.50,=0.1>0.05)。收缩压(SBP)分析显示,HIIT 和 CON 干预前后的差异有统计学意义(Hd7=-1.10±1.79,Cd7=1.2±1.31,=0.018<0.05),MICT 和 CON 干预前后的差异也有统计学意义(Md7=-0.99±0.91,Cd7=1.40±1.78,=0.02<0.05)。舒张压(DBP)在前后没有组内差异。应用低容量 HIIT 和 MICT 的两种强度运动干预,都改善了参与者的健康相关指标;低容量 HIIT 具有更多的时间优势。本实验以安全的方式比较了 HIIT 和 MICT:50%的运动时间在 VOmax 和 FI 两个指标上产生了相似的益处和优势。然而,MICT 在体重(体重)和 BMI 两个指标上优于 HIIT。功率自行车对 FI 的影响具有有氧运动和抗阻运动的优势,根据个人或运动方案的类型,可以优化运动方案的类型、强度和时间。我们的研究结果为 T2DM 患者的运动处方个性化提供了参考。