Key result
Aerobic interval training improves VO2max by ~2.6 ml/kg/min vs continuous training in T2D.
Why the study?
Does vigorous to maximal aerobic interval training improve cardiometabolic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes compared to moderate-intensity continuous training or non-exercise training?
Meta-Analysis (n=189)
Does vigorous to maximal aerobic interval training improve cardiometabolic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes compared to moderate-intensity continuous training or non-exercise training?
Effect estimate: WMD 2.60 ml/kg/min (95% CI 1.32 to 3.88)
p-value: p=<0.001
Aerobic interval training improves VO2max and HbA1c more effectively than moderate-intensity continuous training in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Supports prioritizing interval over moderate continuous training in type 2 diabetes; confirms superior cardiometabolic benefits in meta-analysis.
Vigorous to maximal aerobic interval training (INT) has received remarkable interest in improving cardiometabolic outcomes for type 2 diabetes patients recently, yet with inconsistent findings. This meta-analysis was aimed to quantify its effectiveness in type 2 diabetes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searches of 3 databases to October 2017, which evaluated the effects of INT with a minimal training duration of 8 weeks versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) or non-exercise training (NET) among type 2 diabetes patients on outcomes including cardiorespiratory fitness, glycemic control, body composition, blood pressure, and lipid profiles. Weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with the random-effects model. Nine datasets from 7 RCTs with 189 patients were included. Compared with MICT, INT improved maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) by 2.60 ml/kg/min (95% CI: 1.32 to 3.88 ml/kg/min, P <0.001) and decreased haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by 0.26% (95% CI: -0.46% to -0.07%, P = 0.008). These outcomes for INT were also significant versus energy expenditure-matched MICT, with VO2max increased by 2.18 ml/kg/min (P = 0.04) and HbA1c decreased by 0.28% (P = 0.01). Yet their magnitudes of changes were larger compared with NET, with VO2max increased by 6.38 ml/kg/min (P <0.001) and HbA1c reduced by 0.83% (P = 0.004). Systolic blood pressure could be lowered by INT compared with energy expenditure-matched MICT or NET (both P <0.05), but other cardiometabolic markers and body composition were not significantly altered in general. In conclusion, despite a limited number of studies, INT improves cardiometabolic health especially for VO2max and HbA1c among patients with type 2 diabetes, and might be considered an alternative to MICT. Yet the optimal training protocols still require to be established.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qiu et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis in Type 2 Diabetes (n=189). Vigorous to maximal aerobic interval training (INT) vs. Moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) or non-exercise training (NET) was evaluated on Maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) (WMD 2.60 ml/kg/min, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.88, p=<0.001). Aerobic interval training improved maximal oxygen consumption by 2.60 ml/kg/min and decreased HbA1c by 0.26% compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: