4.5 Review

Aerobic exercise and lipids and lipoproteins in women: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH
Volume 13, Issue 10, Pages 1148-1164

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2004.13.1148

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women is the leading cause of mortality in the United States, and less than optimal lipid and lipoprotein levels are major risk factors for CVD. The purpose of this study was to use the meta-analytic approach to examine the effects of aerobic exercise on lipids and lipoproteins in women. Methods: Studies were retrieved via computerized literature searches, review of reference lists, hand searching selected journals, and expert review of our reference list. The inclusion of studies was limited to randomized controlled trials published in the English language literature between January 1955 and January 2003 in which aerobic exercise was used as the primary intervention in adult women aged greater than or equal to18 years. One or more of the following lipids and lipoproteins were assessed: total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and triglycerides (TG). Results: Using a random effects model, statistically significant improvements were observed for all lipids and lipoproteins (TC, (X) over bar +/- SEM, -4.3 +/- 1.3 mg/dl, 95% CI -6.9 to -1.7 mg/dl; HDL-C, (X) over bar SEM, 1.8 +/- 0.9 mg/dl, 95% CI 0.1 to 3.5 mg/dl; LDL-C, (X) over bar SEM, -4.4 +/- 1.1 mg/dl, 95% Cl -6.5 to -2.2 mg/dl; TG, (X) over bar SEM, -4.2 +/- 2.1 mg/dl, 95% CI -8.4 to -0.1 mg/dl). Reductions of approximately 2%, 3%, and 5%, respectively, were observed for TC, LDL-C, and TG, whereas an increase of 3% was observed for HDL-C. Conclusions: Aerobic exercise is efficacious for increasing HDL-C and decreasing TC, LDLC, and TG in women.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available