Regular exercise training has been shown to reduce systemic inflammation, but there is limited research directly comparing different types of training. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of nonlinear resistance training (NRT) and aerobic interval training (AIT) on serum interleukin-10 (IL-10), IL-20, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) levels, insulin resistance index (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance), and aerobic capacity in middle-aged men who are obese. Sedentary volunteers were assigned to NRT (n = 12), AIT (n = 12), and (CON, n = 10) control groups. The experimental groups performed 3 weekly sessions for 12 weeks, whereas the CON grouped maintained a sedentary lifestyle. Nonlinear resistance training consisted of 40-65 minutes of weight training at different intensities with flexible periodization. Aerobic interval training consisted of running on a treadmill (4 sets of 4 minutes at 80-90% of maximal heart rate, with 3-minute recovery intervals). Serum IL-10, IL-20, and TNF-α levels did not change significantly in response to training (all p > 0.05), but IL-10:TNF-α ratio increased significantly with AIT compared with CON (2.95 ± 0.84 vs. 2.52 ± 0.65; p = 0.02). After the training period, maximal oxygen uptake increased significantly in AIT and NRT compared with CON (both p < 0.001; 46.7 ± 5.9, 45.1 ± 3.2, and 41.1 ± 4.7 ml·kg·min, respectively) and in AIT than in NRT (p = 0.001). The 2 exercise programs were equally effective at reducing insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance) (both p ≤ 0.05; AIT: 0.84 ± 0.34, NRT: 0.84 ± 0.27, and CON: 1.62 ± 0.56) and fasting insulin levels (both p ≤ 0.05; AIT: 3.61 ± 1.48, NRT: 3.66 ± 0.92, and CON: 6.20 ± 2.64 μU·ml), but the AIT seems to have better anti-inflammatory effects (as indicated by the IL-10:TNF-α ratio) compared with NRT.
Both the HIIT and MCT groups had similar effects on inflammatory markers and insulin resistance in men who are overweight, but the HIIT seems to have better anorectic effects (as indicated by nesfatin) compared with MCT.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of nonlinear resistance training (NRT) and aerobic interval training (AIT), and detraining on selected inflammatory markers in men who are middle aged and obese. Subjects first were matched by aerobic capacity, age, and percentage body fat and then randomly assigned to NRT (n = 12), AIT (n = 10) and, control (CON, n = 11) groups. The experimental groups performed 3 weekly sessions for 12 weeks followed by a 4-week detraining period. Nonlinear resistance training consisted of 40-65 minutes of weight training with flexible periodization. Aerobic interval training consisted of running on a treadmill (4 × 4 minutes at 80-90% maximal heart rate, with 3-minute recovery intervals). Compared with CON, serum levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) did not significantly change after training, but adiponectin (ADPN) increased significantly only with AIT (5.09 ± 2.29 vs. 4.36 ± 0.84 μg·ml). No significant changes in CRP and TNF-α occurred in both training groups after detraining, but ADPN (NRT: 3.6 ± 1.2 and AIT: 3.4 ± 1.7 vs. CON: 4.7 ± 1.2 μg·ml) and IL-6 (NRT: 5.8 ± 3.3 and AIT: 5.5 ± 2.9 vs. CON: 2.3 ± 1.2 pg·ml) worsened significantly. Both the AIT and NRT were equally effective at reducing soluble intercellular cell adhesion molecule 1 (NRT: 187.2 ± 117.5 and AIT: 215.2 ± 142.4 vs. CON: 416.2 ± 205.9 ng·ml) and insulin (NRT: 4.0 ± 1.0 and AIT: 4.8 ± 2.7 vs. CON: 7.4 ± 3.0 μU·ml) levels, but these variables returned to the pretraining levels after detraining. The practical applications are that both the AIT and NRT and detraining had similar effects on most inflammatory markers in men who are obese, but the AIT seems to have better anti-inflammatory effects (as indicated by ADPN) compared with NRT.
Purpose: The present study compared the effects of 2 different high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols on arterial stiffness, lipid profiles, and inflammatory markers in hypertensive patients. Methods: Thirty hypertensive (stage 1) patients, aged 48.0 ± 3.2 yr, were randomly allocated to the short-duration HIIT (SDHIIT, n = 10), long-duration HIIT (LDHIIT, n = 10), and control (n = 10) groups. After a 2-wk preparatory phase of continuous mild training, patients in the SDHIIT group performed 8 wk of HIIT including 27 repetitions of 30-sec activity at 80% to 100% of JOURNAL/jcprh/04.03/01273116-201901000-00009/9FSM1/v/2023-09-11T074646Z/r/image-gif o 2peak interspersed with 30-sec passive/active (10%-20% of JOURNAL/jcprh/04.03/01273116-201901000-00009/9FSM1/v/2023-09-11T074646Z/r/image-gif o 2peak) recovery. Patients in the LDHIIT group performed 8 wk of HIIT, 32 min/session including 4 repetitions of 4-min activity at 75% to 90% of JOURNAL/jcprh/04.03/01273116-201901000-00009/9FSM1/v/2023-09-11T074646Z/r/image-gif o 2peak interspersed with 4-min passive/active (15%-30% of JOURNAL/jcprh/04.03/01273116-201901000-00009/9FSM1/v/2023-09-11T074646Z/r/image-gif o 2peak) recovery. Blood pressure (BP), pulse wave velocity (PWV), inflammatory markers, and lipid profiles were measured before and after training. Results: Significant (P < .05) reductions in systolic blood pressure and PWV were found following 2 training protocols, though, only the changes in PWV following the SDHIIT were significantly different than those in the LDHIIT and control groups. Interleukin-6 and triglycerides decreased and interleukin-10 increased significantly (P < .01) following both HIIT programs, whereas the differences between the 2 training protocols were not statistically significant. C-reactive protein and lipids did not change significantly following HIIT. Conclusions: Performing HIIT improves systolic blood pressure and inflammatory markers in patients with stage 1 hypertension irrespective of the HIIT intensity and duration, and PWV improvement is intensity related.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.