Key result
Unsupervised high-intensity interval training over 12 weeks significantly improved HbA1c levels compared to standard care (p=0.03) but had no effect on cardiovascular autonomic function.
Why the study?
The impact of unsupervised high-intensity interval training on cardiovascular autonomic function in adults with type 2 diabetes had not been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.
Does unsupervised high-intensity interval training improve cardiovascular autonomic function and glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes?
RCT (n=22)
Random allocation sequence
No
Does unsupervised high-intensity interval training improve cardiovascular autonomic function and glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes?
In adults with type 2 diabetes, 12 weeks of unsupervised high-intensity interval training improves glycaemic control but does not significantly alter cardiovascular autonomic function.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports unsupervised HIIT for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes; leaves open effects on cardiovascular autonomic function.
Background: This is the first randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of unsupervised high-intensity interval training on cardiovascular autonomic function in adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods: A total of 22 individuals with type 2 diabetes (age 60 ± 2 years, 17 males) lay in a supine position for 20 min for evaluation of cardiovascular autonomic function, which included (1) time domain measures of heart rate variability, (2) frequency domain measures of heart rate variability and blood pressure variability and (3) baroreflex receptor sensitivity. Participants were randomised into 12 weeks of high-intensity interval training (3 sessions/week) or standard care control group. Results: After 12 weeks, the between-group change in HbA 1c (%) was significant (high-intensity interval training: 7.13 ± 0.31 to 6.87 ± 0.29 vs Control: 7.18 ± 0.17 to 7.36 ± 0.21, p = 0.03). There were no significant changes in measures of heart rate variability; R-R interval (ms) (high-intensity interval training: 954 ± 49 to 973 ± 53 vs Control: 920 ± 6 to 930 ± 32, p = 0.672), low frequency/high frequency (high-intensity interval training: 0.90 ± 0.21 to 0.73 ± 0.07 vs Control: 1.20 ± 0.29 to 1.00 ± 0.17, p = 0.203), or blood pressure variability; systolic blood pressure low frequency/high frequency (high-intensity interval training: 0.86 ± 0.21 to 0.73 ± 0.10 vs Control: 1.06 ± 0.26 to 0.91 ± 0.14, p = 0.169). At baseline, HbA 1c was negatively correlated with baroreflex receptor sensitivity ( r = –0.592, p < 0.01). Conclusion: High-intensity interval training improves glycaemic control but has limited effect on cardiovascular autonomic regulation in patients with type 2 diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cassidy et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes (n=22). Unsupervised high-intensity interval training vs. Standard care was evaluated on Change in HbA1c (p=0.03). Unsupervised high-intensity interval training over 12 weeks significantly improved HbA1c levels compared to standard care (p=0.03) but had no effect on cardiovascular autonomic function.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: