4.4 Article

High-intensity aerobic interval training improves aerobic fitness and HbA1c among persons diagnosed with type 2 diabetes

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 117, Issue 3, Pages 455-467

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-017-3540-1

Keywords

Exercise intensity; Interval training; Maximal oxygen uptake; HbA1c; Fat oxidation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It remains to be established how high-intensity aerobic interval training (HAIT) affects risk factors associated with type 2 diabetes (TD2). This study investigated effects of HAIT on maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), glycated Hemoglobin type A1C (HbA1c), insulin resistance (IR), fat oxidation (FatOx), body weight (BW), percent body fat (%BF), lactate threshold (LT), blood pressure (BP), and blood lipid profile (BLP) among persons with T2D. Results were compared to the effects after a moderate-intensity training (MIT) program. Thirty-eight individuals with T2D completed 12 weeks of supervised training. HAIT consisted of 4 x 4 min of walking or running uphill at 85-95% of maximal heart rate, and MIT consisted of continuous walking at 70-75% of maximal heart rate. A 21% increase in VO2max (from 25.6 to 30.9 ml kg(-1) min(-1), p < 0.001), and a reduction in HbA1c by -0.58% points (from 7.78 to 7.20%, p < 0.001) was found in HAIT. BW and body mass index (BMI) was reduced by 1.9% (p < 0.01). There was a tendency towards an improved FatOx at 60% VO2max (14%, p = 0.065). These improvements were significant different from MIT. Both HAIT and MIT increased velocity at LT, and reduced %BF, waist circumference, hip circumference, and BP, with no significant differences between the two groups. Correlations were found between change in VO2max and change in HbA1c when the two intervention groups were combined (R = -0.52, p < 0.01). HAIT is an effective exercise strategy to improve aerobic fitness and reduce risk factors associated with T2D.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available