4.5 Article

Similar magnitude of post-exercise hyperglycemia despite manipulating resistance exercise intensity in type 1 diabetes individuals

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sms.12472

关键词

Blood glucose; patient; weights training; catecholamines; growth hormone; interleukin-6

资金

  1. European Social Fund (ESF) through European Union

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to compare the glycemic and glucoregulatory hormone responses to low- and moderate-intensity morning resistance exercise (RE) sessions in type 1 diabetes (T1DM). Following maximal strength assessments (1RM), eight T1DM (HbA(1C):72 +/- 12mmol/mol, age:34 +/- 7 years, body mass index:25.7 +/- 1.6kg/m(2)) participants attended the research facility on two separate occasions, having fasted and taken their usual basal insulin but omitting rapid-acting insulin. Participants performed six exercises for two sets of 20 repetitions at 30%1RM during one session [low-intensity RE session (LOW)] and two sets of 10 repetitions at 60%1RM during another session [moderate-intensity RE session (MOD)], followed by 65-min recovery. Sessions were matched for total mass lifted (kg). Venous blood samples were taken before and after exercise. Data (mean +/- SEM) were analyzed using analysis of variance (P0.05). There were no hypoglycemic occurrences throughout the study. Blood glucose rose similarly between sessions during exercise (P=0.382), remaining comparable between sessions throughout recovery (P>0.05). There was no effect of RE intensity on metabolic acidosis (P>0.05) or peak growth hormone responses (P=0.644), but a tendency for greater catecholamine responses under LOW (individualized peak concentrations: adrenaline MOD 0.55 +/- 0.13 vs LOW 1.04 +/- 0.37nmol/L, P=0.155; noradrenaline MOD 4.59 +/- 0.86 vs LOW 7.11 +/- 1.82nmol/L, P=0.082). The magnitude of post-exercise hyperglycemia does not differ between equal volume low and moderate intensity RE sessions performed in the morning.

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

4.5
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