4.6 Article

Effect of Resistance Training and Caloric Restriction on the Metabolic Syndrome

期刊

MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 413-419

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001122

关键词

METABOLIC SYNDROME; OBESITY; RESISTANCE TRAINING; CALORIC RESTRICTION; WEIGHT LOSS; OLDER ADULTS

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01AG020583]
  2. Wake Forest Claude D Pepper Older Americans Independence Center [P30AG21332]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) is greatest in older obese adults, and effective evidence-based treatment strategies are lacking. This study determined the efficacy of adding caloric restriction (CR) for weight loss to resistance training (RT) on MetS and its individual components in older overweight and obese adults. Methods: We performed a 5-month randomized controlled trial in 126 older (65-79 yr) overweight and obese (body mass index = 27-35 kg.m(-2)) men and women who were assigned to a progressive 3-d.wk(-1) moderateintensity RT with (RT + CR) or without caloric restriction (RT). MetS components, according to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III, were determined before and immediately after the interventions. Results: Body mass decreased in RT + CR (-5.67% loss of initial mass) but was unchanged in RT (-0.15%). Compared with RT, RT + CR resulted in reduced VLDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures (P between 0.000 and 0.013). The RT group showed no significant within-group changes in MetS criteria. Abdominal obesity, hypertension, the number of metabolic abnormalities and the presence of MetS significantly decreased with RT + CR. There were significant group differences for abdominal obesity, hypertension, and number of metabolic abnormalities. Conclusion: RT + CR is an effective strategy for improving some of the metabolic abnormalities associated with MetS among older overweight and obese adults.

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

4.6
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