ExPhy Research Group, Department of Physical Education, University of Cadiz, Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain.
Instituto de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica de Cádiz (INiBICA), Cádiz, Spain.
Sports Med. 2024 Dec;54(12):3127-3149. doi: 10.1007/s40279-024-02114-0. Epub 2024 Oct 2.
Exercise is a non-pharmacological intervention for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT). Despite diverse exercise protocol variations, the impact of these variations in HIIT on T2DM anthropometrics, glycemic control, and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) remains unclear.
The aim was to examine the influence of HIIT protocol characteristics on anthropometrics, glycemic control, and CRF in T2DM patients and compare it to control (without exercise) and MICT.
This review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021281398) and follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The search, employing "high-intensity interval training" and "diabetes mellitus" in PubMed and Web of Science databases, with a "randomized controlled trial" filter, spanned articles up to January 2023.
Of 190 records, 29 trials were included, categorized by HIIT interval duration, training volume, and intervention period. Long-duration, high-volume, and long-term HIIT yields superior outcomes compared to control conditions for body mass, waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose, Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), glycosylated hemoglobin (%HbA1c), and CRF. The findings favored HIIT over MICT for body mass in long-duration, high-volume, and short-term intervals (mean difference [MD] - 3.45, - 3.13, and - 5.42, respectively, all p < 0.05) and for CRF in long and medium work intervals and high volume (MD 1.91, 2.55, and 2.43, respectively, all p < 0.05), as well as in medium and long-term intervention (MD 2.66 and 2.21, respectively, all p < 0.05). Regardless of specific HIIT characteristics, no differences were found in the HIIT versus MICT comparison for glycemic control.
Specific HIIT protocol characteristics influence changes in anthropometrics, glycemic control, and CRF compared to control groups. However, compared to MICT, only longer duration, higher volume, and short-term HIIT improved body mass, waist circumference, and CRF in individuals with T2DM.
运动是 2 型糖尿病(T2DM)的一种非药物干预措施,包括中等强度持续训练(MICT)和高强度间歇训练(HIIT)。尽管运动方案存在多种变化,但 HIIT 对 T2DM 人体测量学、血糖控制和心肺功能(CRF)的影响仍不清楚。
本研究旨在检查 HIIT 方案特征对 T2DM 患者人体测量学、血糖控制和 CRF 的影响,并将其与对照组(无运动)和 MICT 进行比较。
本综述在 PROSPERO(CRD42021281398)上注册,并遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。通过在 PubMed 和 Web of Science 数据库中使用“高强度间歇训练”和“糖尿病”进行搜索,并使用“随机对照试验”过滤器,检索截至 2023 年 1 月的文章。
在 190 条记录中,有 29 项试验被纳入,根据 HIIT 间隔持续时间、训练量和干预期进行分类。与对照组相比,长时间、高容量和长期 HIIT 对体重、腰围、空腹血糖、胰岛素抵抗稳态模型评估(HOMA-IR)、糖化血红蛋白(%HbA1c)和 CRF 具有更好的效果。对于长时间、高容量和短期间隔的体重,以及长时间和中时间间隔和高容量的 CRF,HIIT 优于 MICT(平均差[MD]–3.45、–3.13 和–5.42,均 p<0.05),以及在中时间和长时间干预中(MD 分别为 2.66 和 2.21,均 p<0.05)。无论 HIIT 方案的具体特征如何,HIIT 与 MICT 比较在血糖控制方面均无差异。
与对照组相比,特定的 HIIT 方案特征会影响人体测量学、血糖控制和 CRF 的变化。然而,与 MICT 相比,只有较长的持续时间、更高的容量和短期 HIIT 才能改善 T2DM 患者的体重、腰围和 CRF。