Key result
Resistance training resulted in the lowest number of non-responses across 20 health and performance outcomes in insulin-resistant adult women compared to other training modalities and control.
Why the study?
Does high-intensity interval training, resistance training, or concurrent training improve cardiometabolic and performance outcomes in insulin-resistant adult women?
RCT (n=45)
Randomly assigned
Does high-intensity interval training, resistance training, or concurrent training improve cardiometabolic and performance outcomes in insulin-resistant adult women?
Resistance training is highly effective at reducing the prevalence of non-response across various cardiometabolic and performance outcomes in insulin-resistant women.
RT may minimize non-responder prevalence across outcomes in insulin-resistant women; leaves open optimal regimen selection pending larger trials.
We aimed to investigate which among 20 cardiometabolic and performance outcomes do and do not respond to high-intensity interval training (HIT), resistance training (RT), or concurrent training (CT) in insulin-resistant adult women. A secondary aim was to report the training-induced changes and the prevalence of non-responders. Forty-five insulin-resistant adult women were randomly assigned to one of the following 4 groups: HIT (39.2 ± 9.5 years [y]; body mass index [BMI], 29.3 ± 3.3; n = 14), RT (33.9 ± 9.3 y; BMI, 29.4 ± 5.5; n = 8), CT (43.3 ± 8.1 y; BMI, 29.1 ± 2.9; n = 10), and a control group (CG, 40.1 ± 11.4 y; BMI, 28.3 ± 3.5; n = 13). Nine body composition, 3 cardiovascular, 3 metabolic, and 5 performance outcomes were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks of intervention. Considering all outcomes, the lowest number of total non-responses for one or more variables was found in the RT group, followed by the CT and HIT groups. Individuals in the CG group were classified as non-responders for almost all the variables. Moreover, there were several significant changes in body composition and metabolic parameters, including fasting glucose (HIT: -5.7, RT -5.1 mg/d), fasting insulin (HIT: -0.6, RT -0.6 μIU/mL), and HOMA-IR (HIT: -0.3, RT -0.4), in addition to improvements in cardiovascular and performance parameters. Also, there were significant differences among groups in the prevalence of non-responders for the variables where a non-response was detected. Overall, the study suggests that independent of the mode of training including volume and frequency, RT has an important ability to reduce the prevalence of non-response to improve the 20 outcomes of health and performance in insulin-resistant adult women.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Álvarez et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Insulin resistance (n=45). High-intensity interval training (HIT), resistance training (RT), or concurrent training (CT) vs. Control group was evaluated on Number of total non-responses across 20 cardiometabolic and performance outcomes. Resistance training resulted in the lowest number of non-responses across 20 health and performance outcomes in insulin-resistant adult women compared to other training modalities and control.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: