Background Purpose: to establish if exercise training improves clinical outcomes in people with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Registered with PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/Identifier:CRD42017055491). Data sources: studies were identified through a MEDLINE search strategy (1985 to Jan 12, 2017), Cochrane controlled trials registry, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. Study selection: prospective randomized or controlled trials of exercise training in humans with metabolic syndrome, lasting 12 weeks or more.ResultsWe included 16 studies with 23 intervention groups; 77,000 patient-hours of exercise training. In analyses of aerobic exercise studies versus control: body mass index was significantly reduced, mean difference (MD) −0.29 (kg m−2) (95% CI −0.44, −0.15, p < 0.0001); body mass was significantly reduced, MD −1.16 kg (95% CI −1.83, −0.48, p = 0.0008); waist circumference was significantly reduced MD −1.37 cm (95% CI −2.02, −0.71, p < 0.0001), peak VO2 was significantly improved MD 3.00 mL kg−1 min−1 (95% CI 1.92, 4.08, p < 0.000001); systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were significantly reduced, MD −2.54 mmHg (95% CI −4.34, −0.75, p = 0.006), and, MD −2.27 mmHg (95% CI −3.47, −1.06, p = 0.0002) respectively; fasting blood glucose was significantly reduced MD −0.16 mmol L−1 (95% CI −0.32, −0.01, p = 0.04); triglycerides were significantly reduced MD −0.21 mmol L−1 (95% CI −0.29, −0.13, p < 0.00001); and low density lipoprotein was significantly reduced MD −0.03 mmol L−1 (95% CI −0.05, −0.00, p = 0.02). In analyses of combined exercise versus control: waist circumference, MD −3.80 cm (95% CI −5.65, −1.95, p < 0.0001); peak VO2 MD 4.64 mL kg−1 min−1 (95% CI 2.42, 6.87, p < 0.0001); systolic blood pressure MD −3.79 mmHg (95% CI −6.18, −1.40, p = 0.002); and high density lipoprotein (HDL) MD 0.14 (95% CI 0.04, 0.25, p = 0.009) were all significantly improved. We found no significant differences between outcome measures between the two exercise interventions.ConclusionsExercise training improves body composition, cardiovascular, and, metabolic outcomes in people with metabolic syndrome. For some outcome measures, isolated aerobic exercise appears optimal.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-017-0590-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Exercise training improves some markers of type 1 diabetes severity; particularly body mass, BMI, Peak VO and LDL in adults and insulin dose, waist circumference, LDL and triglycerides in children.

Objectives: To establish if exercise training intensity produces different effect sizes for quality of life in heart failure. Background: Exercise intensity is the primary stimulus for physical and mental adaptation. Methods: We conducted a MEDLINE search (1985 to February 2016) for exercise-based rehabilitation trials in heart failure using the search terms ‘exercise training', ‘left ventricular dysfunction', ‘peak VO₂', ‘cardiomyopathy', and ‘systolic heart dysfunction'. Results: Twenty-five studies were included; 4 (16%) comprised high-, 10 (40%) vigorous-, 9 (36%) moderate- and 0 (0%) low-intensity groups; two studies were unclassified. The 25 studies provided a total of 2,385 participants, 1,223 exercising and 1,162 controls (36,056 patient-hours of training). Analyses reported significant improvement in total Minnesota living with heart failure (MLWHF) total score [mean difference (MD) -8.24, 95% CI -11.55 to -4.92, p < 0.00001]. Physical MLWHF scorewas significantly improved in all studies (MD -2.89, 95% CI -4.27 to -1.50, p < 0.00001). MLWHF total score was significantly reduced after high- (MD -13.74, 95% CI -21.34 to -6.14, p = 0.0004) and vigorous-intensity training (MD -8.56, 95% CI -12.77 to -4.35, p < 0.0001) but not moderate-intensity training. A significant improvement in the total MLWHF score was seen after aerobic training (MD -3.87, 95% CI -6.97 to -0.78, p = 0.01), and combined aerobic and resistance training (MD -9.82, 95% CI -15.71 to -3.92, p = 0.001), but not resistance training. Conclusions: As exercise training intensity rises, so may the magnitude of improvement in quality of life in exercising patients. Aerobic-only or combined aerobic and resistance training may offer the greatest improvements in quality of life.

Background There is no consensus on whether closed kinetic chain (CKC) or open kinetic chain (OKC) exercises should be the intervention of choice following an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury or reconstruction. Methods A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials of OKC versus CKC exercise training in people who had undergone ACL reconstructive surgery. All published studies in this systematic review were comparisons between OKC and CKC groups. Results Seven studies were included. Lysholm knee scoring scale was not significantly different between OKC and CKC exercise patients: MD: −1.03%; CI: −13.02, 10.95; p value = 0.87 (Chi2  =  0.18, df = 1, and p value  =  0.67). Hughston clinic questionnaire scores were not significantly different between OKC and CKC exercise patients: MD: −1.29% (−12.02, 9.43); p value = 0.81 (Chi2  =  0.01, df = 1, and p value = 0.93). Conclusions While OKC and CKC may be beneficial during ACL surgical rehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that either one is superior to the other.