Pre-diabetic subjects with insulin resistance had elevated levels of VAT. VAT was more strongly associated with insulin resistance than SAT in Chinese subjects with pre-diabetes.
Objective To examine the effects of resistance training relative to aerobic training on abdominal adipose tissue and metabolic variables in adults with prediabetes. Methods 105 participants with prediabetes were randomized into the resistance training group (RT, n = 35), aerobic training group (AT, n = 35), and control group (CG, n = 35). The participants completed supervised 12-month exercise; the control group followed the primary lifestyle without exercise intervention. The primary outcomes were visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) measured by computed tomography (CT). Secondary outcomes were body composition, lipid profile, and metabolic variables. Results A total of 93 participants completed the study. There were nonsignificant differences between groups before intervention. After training, VAT decreased significantly in AT and RT compared with CG (P = 0.001 and P = 0.014, respectively). Although no significant difference in SAT was found across groups, SAT decreased significantly over time within each exercise group (all P = 0.001). Increase in muscle mass was greater in RT than that in AT and CG (P = 0.031 and P = 0.045, respectively). Compared with CG, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) decreased significantly in RT and AT (P = 0.003 and P = 0.014, respectively). There was a significant difference in the number of prediabetes who converted to diabetes among AT and RT, as compared with the control group (P = 0.031 and P = 0.011, respectively). No significant differences were observed in lipid, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), fasting insulin (FI), 2-hour postprandial glucose (2hPG), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), HOMA-IR, and HOMA-β across groups. Conclusion Both aerobic training and resistance training are effective in reducing abdominal adipose tissue and fasting plasma glucose in adults with prediabetes. Importantly, resistance training but not aerobic training is effective in augmenting muscle mass. Trial Registration The trial is registered with NCT02561377 (date of registration: 24/09/2015).
Aims
To explore the effects of six months of moderate‐intensity aerobic exercise on pancreatic fat content and its impact on β‐cell function.
Materials and Methods
A total of 106 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to either a moderate‐intensity aerobic training group (three times a week, including 5 min warm‐up, 50 min aerobic dancing, and 5 min relaxation, n = 53) or control group (n = 53) with 6‐month intervention. The primary endpoint was change in pancreatic fat content. An intention‐to‐treat analysis was conducted.
Results
Eighty‐six patients completed the study with 43 patients in the aerobic training group. The average age, HbA1c, and pancreatic fat content for all participants (106 patients) were 66.39 ± 5.59 years, 7.05 ± 1.24%, and 10.35 ± 9.20%, respectively. Nearly half (49.06%) of patients were males. Subjects in the aerobic training group saw a significant reduction in pancreatic fat content when compared to controls (p = 0.001). In logistic regression models containing age, diabetes duration, change in BMI, smoking/drinking status, changes in lipid indices, and other abdominal fat content, only reduction in pancreatic fat content (p < 0.05) was an independent protective factor for β‐cell function and HbA1c.
Conclusions
Six months of moderate‐intensity aerobic training significantly reduced the pancreatic fat content. The reduction of pancreatic fat content was an independent protective factor for β‐cell function and HbA1c.
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.