4.3 Article

Obesity indices and haemodynamic response to exercise in obese diabetic hypertensive patients: Randomized controlled trial

期刊

OBESITY RESEARCH & CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 475-486

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.orcp.2014.11.001

关键词

Exercise; BMI; WC; Obesity; Diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Obesity, diabetes and hypertension are major worldwide interconnected problems. The aim of this study was to investigate body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DPB) responses to circuit weight training (CWT) or aerobic exercise training (AET) in obese diabetic hypertensive patients (ODHP). Methods: Fifty-nine ODHP were randomly assigned into CWT, AET and control groups. Either CWT or AET was performed thrice weekly for 12 weeks. Variables were evaluated pre-training (evaluation-1), after 3 months (evaluation-2) and 1 month post-training cessation (evaluation-3). Results: At evaluation-2, BMI, WC, SBP, DBP mean values and percentages of decrease were 31.56 +/- 1.48 (9.23%), 104 +/- 5.97 (6.2%), 141 +/- 2.2 (3.09%), 91.2 +/- 1.24 (2.98%) and 32.09 +/- 1.21 (7.11%), 107.66 +/- 3.92 (3.07%), 138.3 +/- 1.17 (4.79%), 88.05 +/- 1.05 (6.02%) for CWT and AET groups respectively (P < 0.05). At evaluation-3, mean values and percentage of decrease in BMI, WC, SBP, DBP were 31.88 +/- 1.54 (8.29%), 105 +/- 5.28 (5.26), 142.6 +/- 2.21 (1.99%), 92.7 +/- 0.86 (1.38%) and 33.26 +/- 1.22 (3.72%), 109.1 +/- 4.15 (1.77%), 140.35 +/- 1.23 (3.38%), 89.5 +/- 0.61 (4.47%) for CWT and AET groups respectively (P < 0.05). There were also significant differences in BMI, WC, SBP, and DBP between groups at evaluation-2 and 3 (P < 0.05). Conclusions: While CWT is the intervention of choice to control obesity indices, AET is still the best intervention to lower blood pressure in ODHP, for a more extended period of time. (C) 2014 Asian Oceanian Association for the Study of Obesity. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据