Recent guidelines on exercise for weight loss and weight maintenance include resistance training as part of the exercise prescription. Yet few studies have compared the effects of similar amounts of aerobic and resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight adults. STRRIDE AT/RT, a randomized trial, compared aerobic training, resistance training, and a combination of the two to determine the optimal mode of exercise for obesity reduction. Participants were 119 sedentary, overweight or obese adults who were randomized to one of three 8-mo exercise protocols: 1) RT: resistance training, 2) AT: aerobic training, and 3) AT/RT: aerobic and resistance training (combination of AT and RT). Primary outcomes included total body mass, fat mass, and lean body mass. The AT and AT/RT groups reduced total body mass and fat mass more than RT (P < 0.05), but they were not different from each other. RT and AT/RT increased lean body mass more than AT (P < 0.05). While requiring double the time commitment, a program of combined AT and RT did not result in significantly more fat mass or body mass reductions over AT alone. Balancing time commitments against health benefits, it appears that AT is the optimal mode of exercise for reducing fat mass and body mass, while a program including RT is needed for increasing lean mass in middle-aged, overweight/obese individuals.
Aerobic training (AT) improves the metabolic syndrome (MS) and its component risk factors; however, to our knowledge, no randomized clinical studies have addressed whether resistance training (RT) improves the MS when performed alone or combined with AT. Sedentary, overweight dyslipidemic men and women, aged 18 to 70 years completed a 4-month inactive run-in period and were randomized to 1 of 3 eight-month exercise programs (n = 196). The exercise programs were (1) RT (3 days/week, 3 sets/day of 8 to 12 repetitions of 8 different exercises targeting all major muscle groups); (2) AT (~120 minutes/week at 75% of the maximum oxygen uptake), and (3) AT and RT combined (AT/RT) (exact combination of AT and RT). Of the 196 randomized patients, 144 completed 1 of the 3 exercise programs. The 86 participants with complete data for all 5 MS criteria were used in the present analysis, and a continuous MS z score was calculated. Eight months of RT did not change the MS score. AT improved the MS score (p <0.07) and showed a trend toward significance compared to RT (p <0.10). AT/RT significantly decreased the MS score and was significantly different from RT alone. In conclusion, RT was not effective at improving the MS score; however, AT was effective. Combined AT and RT was similarly effective but not different from AT alone. When weighing the time commitment versus health benefit, the data suggest that AT alone was the most efficient mode of exercise for improving cardiometabolic health.
While the benefits of exercise are clear, many unresolved issues surround the optimal exercise prescription. Many organizations recommend aerobic training (AT) and resistance training (RT), yet few studies have compared their effects alone or in combination. The purpose of this study, part of Studies Targeting Risk Reduction Interventions Through Defined Exercise-Aerobic Training and/or Resistance Training (STRRIDE/ AT/RT), was to compare the effects of AT, RT, and the full combination (AT/RT) on central ectopic fat, liver enzymes, and fasting insulin resistance [homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)]. In a randomized trial, 249 subjects [18 -70 yr old, overweight, sedentary, with moderate dyslipidemia (LDL cholesterol 130 -190 mg/dl or HDL cholesterol Յ40 mg/dl for men or Յ45 mg/dl for women)] performed an initial 4-mo run-in period. Of these, 196 finished the run-in and were randomized into one of the following 8-mo exercise-training groups: 1) RT, which comprised 3 days/wk, 8 exercises, 3 sets/ exercise, 8 -12 repetitions/set, 2) AT, which was equivalent to ϳ19.2 km/wk (12 miles/wk) at 75% peak O2 uptake, and 3) full AT ϩ full RT (AT/RT), with 155 subjects completing the intervention. The primary outcome variables were as follows: visceral and liver fat via CT, plasma liver enzymes, and HOMA. AT led to significant reductions in liver fat, visceral fat, alanine aminotransferase, HOMA, and total and subcutaneous abdominal fat (all P Ͻ 0.05). RT resulted in a decrease in subcutaneous abdominal fat (P Ͻ 0.05) but did not significantly improve the other variables. AT was more effective than RT at improving visceral fat, liver-to-spleen ratio, and total abdominal fat (all P Ͻ 0.05) and trended toward a greater reduction in liver fat score (P Ͻ 0.10). The effects of AT/RT were statistically indistinguishable from the effects of AT. These data show that, for overweight and obese individuals who want to reduce measures of visceral fat and fatty liver infiltration and improve HOMA and alanine aminotransferase, a moderate amount of aerobic exercise is the most time-efficient and effective exercise mode. aerobic training; liver fat; resistance training; weight lifting; homeostasis model assessment WHILE THE BENEFITS OF BEING physically active are clear, many unresolved issues surround the optimal exercise prescription for these benefits. Many organizations recommend both aerobic training (AT) and resistance training (RT) for all adults. However, these recommendations are mainly based on the evaluation of each modality separately, as few studies have investigated the effects of combined AT and RT regimens compared with each modality individually. Furthermore, adherence to exercise recommendations of physicians is notoriously poor, and many patients cite lack of time as a reason for noncompliance. Understanding the effects of AT and RT is of critical importance if we are to apply evidence-based approaches to exercise recommendations to a wide population.Visceral fat and liver fat are associated with type 2 diabetes, metaboli...
OBJECTIVEInsulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction both are important contributors to the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes. Exercise training improves insulin sensitivity, but its effects on β-cell function are less well studied.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSSedentary, overweight adults were randomized to control or one of three 8-month exercise programs: 1) low amount/moderate intensity, 2) low amount/vigorous intensity, or 3) high amount/vigorous intensity. Of 387 randomized, 260 completed the study and 237 had complete data. Insulin sensitivity (Si), acute insulin response to glucose (AIRg), and the disposition index (DI = Si × AIRg) were modeled from an intravenous glucose tolerance test.RESULTSCompared with control subjects, all three training programs led to increases in DI. However, the moderate-intensity group experienced a significantly larger increase in DI than either of the vigorous-intensity groups and through a different mechanism. The high-amount/vigorous-intensity group improved Si and had a compensatory reduction in AIRg, whereas the moderate-intensity group had a similar improvement in Si but almost no reduction in AIRg. Importantly, the inactive control group experienced a significant increase in fasting glucose.CONCLUSIONSTo the extent that the DI accurately reflects β-cell function, we observed that both moderate- and vigorous-intensity exercise training improved β-cell function, albeit through distinct mechanisms. It is not clear which of these mechanisms is preferable for maintenance of metabolic health. While moderate-intensity exercise led to a larger improvement in DI, which may reflect a transition toward a more normal DI, longer-term investigations would be necessary to determine which was more effective at reducing diabetes risk.
Aims/hypothesis Targeted metabolomic and transcriptomic approaches were used to evaluate the relationship between skeletal muscle metabolite signatures, gene expression profiles and clinical outcomes in response to various exercise training interventions. We hypothesised that changes in mitochondrial metabolic intermediates would predict improvements in clinical risk factors, thereby offering novel insights into potential mechanisms. Methods Subjects at risk of metabolic disease were randomised to six months of inactivity or one of five aerobic and/or resistance training programmes (n = 112). Pre/post-intervention assessments included cardiorespiratory fitness (V̇O2peak), serum triacylglycerols (TGs) and insulin sensitivity (SI). In this secondary analysis, muscle biopsy specimens were used for targeted mass spectrometry-based analysis of metabolic intermediates and measurement of mRNA expression of genes involved in metabolism. Results Exercise regimens with the largest energy expenditure produced robust increases in muscle concentrations of even-chain acylcarnitines (median 37–488%), which correlated positively with increased expression of genes involved in muscle uptake and oxidation of fatty acids. Along with free carnitine, the aforementioned acylcarnitine metabolites were related to improvements in V̇O2peak, TGs and SI (R = 0.20–0.31, p < 0.05). Muscle concentrations of the tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates succinate and succinylcarnitine (R = 0.39 and 0.24, p < 0.05) emerged as the strongest correlates of SI. Conclusions/interpretation The metabolic signatures of exercise-trained skeletal muscle reflected reprogramming of mitochondrial function and intermediary metabolism and correlated with changes in cardiometabolic fitness. Succinate metabolism and the succinate dehydrogenase complex emerged as a potential regulatory node that intersects with whole-body insulin sensitivity. This study identifies new avenues for mechanistic research aimed at understanding the health benefits of physical activity. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00200993 and NCT00275145
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.