4.7 Article

The effects of aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise on metabolic control, inflammatory markers, adipocytokines, and muscle insulin signaling in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

期刊

METABOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL
卷 60, 期 9, 页码 1244-1252

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2011.01.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais, FAPEMIG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 3 different modalities of exercise on metabolic control, insulin resistance, inflammatory markers, adipocytoldnes, and tissue expression of insulin receptor substrate (IRS)-1 after 12 weeks of training among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Forty-eight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly assigned to 4 groups of training (3 times a week, 60 minutes per session): aerobic group (n = 12), resistance group (n = 12), combined (aerobic and resistance) group (n = 12), and control group (n = 12). Fasting and postprandial blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin, lipid profile, insulin resistance index (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance), adipocytokines (adiponectin, visfatin, and resistin), tumor necrosis factor, interleukin, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) were measured at baseline and at the end of the study. Patients also underwent a muscle microbiopsy before and after training to quantify IRS-1 expression. All 4 groups displayed decreases in blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, postprandial plasma glucose, lipid profile, and hs-CRP (P < .05); and there was no difference across the groups. After training, the IRS-1 expression increased by 65% in the resistance group (P < .05) and by 90% in the combined group (P < .01). Exercise training favorably affects glycemic parameters, lipid profile, blood pressure, and hs-CRP. In addition, resistance and combined training can increase IRS-1 expression. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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