IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i22p4524-d287461.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anthropometric, Cardiopulmonary and Metabolic Benefits of the High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate, Low-Intensity or Control for Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ivan Lora-Pozo

    (Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain)

  • David Lucena-Anton

    (Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain)

  • Alejandro Salazar

    (Department of Statistics and Operational Research, University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain
    Institute of Research and Innovation in Biomedical Sciences of the Province of Cadiz (INiBICA), University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain
    Observatory of Pain, Grünenthal Foundation-University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain)

  • Alejandro Galán-Mercant

    (Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain
    Institute of Research and Innovation in Biomedical Sciences of the Province of Cadiz (INiBICA), University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain)

  • Jose A. Moral-Munoz

    (Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain
    Institute of Research and Innovation in Biomedical Sciences of the Province of Cadiz (INiBICA), University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain)

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of high-intensity interval training compared with no intervention and other types of training interventions for people with Type 2 diabetes. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that used high-interval intensity training to improve anthropometric, cardiopulmonary and metabolic conditions were conducted. The search was performed during October–December 2017 using the databases PubMed, Web of Science and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the PEDro scale. A total of 10 articles were included in this meta-analysis. After statistical analysis, favorable results were obtained for high-Intensity Interval Training compared with control (non-intervention): [Weight: Standardized mean difference (SMD) = −2.09; confidence interval (CI) 95%: (−3.41; −0.78); body-mass index: SMD = −3.73; CI 95%: (−5.53; −1.93); systolic blood pressure: SMD = −4.55; CI 95%: (−8.44; −0.65); VO 2max : SMD = 12.20; CI 95%: (0.26; 24.14); HbA 1c : SMD = −3.72; CI 95%: (−7.34; −0.10)], moderate intensity continuous training: [body-mass index: SMD = −0.41; CI 95%: (−0.80; −0.03); VO 2max : SMD = 1.91; CI 95%: (0.18; 3.64)], and low intensity training: [Weight: SMD = −2.06; CI 95%: (−2.80; −1.31); body-mass index: SMD = −3.04; CI 95%: (−5.16; −0.92); systolic blood pressure: SMD = −2.17; CI 95%: (−3.93; −0.41); HbA 1c : SMD = −1.58; CI 95%: (−1.84; −1.33)]. The results show that high-intensity interval training can be a useful strategy in order to improve anthropometric, cardiopulmonary and metabolic parameters in people with Type 2 diabetes. Despite this, it could be essential to clarify and unify criteria in the intervention protocols, being necessary new lines of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivan Lora-Pozo & David Lucena-Anton & Alejandro Salazar & Alejandro Galán-Mercant & Jose A. Moral-Munoz, 2019. "Anthropometric, Cardiopulmonary and Metabolic Benefits of the High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate, Low-Intensity or Control for Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:22:p:4524-:d:287461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/22/4524/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/22/4524/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vicky Van Stappen & Julie Latomme & Greet Cardon & Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij & Mina Lateva & Nevena Chakarova & Jemina Kivelä & Jaana Lindström & Odysseas Androutsos & Esther González-Gil & Pilar De Migue, 2018. "Barriers from Multiple Perspectives Towards Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour, Physical Activity and Dietary Habits When Living in Low Socio-Economic Areas in Europe. The Feel4Diabetes Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Enrique Albert Pérez & Marina Poveda González & Rosa María Martínez-Espinosa & Mariola D Molina Vila & Manuel Reig García-Galbis, 2019. "Practical Guidance for Interventions in Adults with Metabolic Syndrome: Diet and Exercise vs. Changes in Body Composition," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-31, September.
    3. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    2. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    6. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    7. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    9. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    12. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    13. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    14. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    15. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    18. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    20. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:22:p:4524-:d:287461. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.