Eccentric-only versus concentric-only resistance training effects on biochemical and physiological parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes.

IF 2.8
Christine Kudiarasu, Wafina Rohadhia, Yoshihiro Katsura, Tomoko Koeda, Favil Singh, Kazunori Nosaka
{"title":"Eccentric-only versus concentric-only resistance training effects on biochemical and physiological parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes.","authors":"Christine Kudiarasu,&nbsp;Wafina Rohadhia,&nbsp;Yoshihiro Katsura,&nbsp;Tomoko Koeda,&nbsp;Favil Singh,&nbsp;Kazunori Nosaka","doi":"10.1186/s13102-021-00384-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefits of resistance training for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are well documented; however, the effects of exercise with different muscle contraction types such as eccentric versus concentric contractions on physiological outcomes for this population are not clear. This study compared eccentric-only (ECC) and concentric-only resistance training (CON) to test the hypothesis that ECC would be superior to CON to improve insulin sensitivity, lipid profile, body composition, muscle strength and physical function of patients with T2D.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with T2D (50-79 years) were allocated to the ECC (n = 9) or CON group (n = 9). Resistance exercises (chest press, lateral pulldown, bicep curl, triceps extension, leg extension, leg curl, calf raise, abdominal crunch) consisting of 2-3 sets of 10 eccentric-only (5 s) or concentric-only contractions (1-2 s) was performed twice a week for 12 weeks. Changes in blood biomarkers, body composition, muscle strength and physical function from pre- to post-intervention were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall rating of perceived exertion (RPE, 1-10 Borg scale) was lower (p < 0.05) for ECC (2.9 ± 1.2) than CON (5.4 ± 1.1). No significant changes in blood biomarkers were found for both groups. Lean mass increased [effect size (ES) = 0.148, ECC 3.2 ± 6.9%; CON 3.6 ± 2.3%], and fat mass decreased (ES = 0.545, ECC - 6.1 ± 12.4%; CON - 7.1 ± 16.4%) (p < 0.05) similarly. One-repetition maximal strength of each exercise increased (p < 0.05) for both ECC (12-37%) and CON (27-68%). Both groups improved (p < 0.05) 6-min walk distance (ES = 0.083, ECC 12.2 ± 2.3%; CON 12.5 ± 15.3%) and chair rise time (ES = 0.463, ECC - 13.4 ± 25.4%; CON - 20.0 ± 53.3%) but only ECC improved (p < 0.05) the timed up-and-go test (- 11.3 ± 13.6%, ES 0.014). No significant changes in balance tests were found for both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results did not fully support the hypothesis but showed that ECC was as effective as CON to improve body composition, muscle strength, and physical function with lesser RPE. Future studies should investigate whether larger differences between ECC and CON are evident when increasing the exercise frequency and matching the intensities of the two-exercise protocols. Trial registration ACTRN12621001026819 (retrospectively registered on 5th Aug 2021).</p>","PeriodicalId":520573,"journal":{"name":"BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"162"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8686274/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-021-00384-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: The benefits of resistance training for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are well documented; however, the effects of exercise with different muscle contraction types such as eccentric versus concentric contractions on physiological outcomes for this population are not clear. This study compared eccentric-only (ECC) and concentric-only resistance training (CON) to test the hypothesis that ECC would be superior to CON to improve insulin sensitivity, lipid profile, body composition, muscle strength and physical function of patients with T2D.

Methods: Adults with T2D (50-79 years) were allocated to the ECC (n = 9) or CON group (n = 9). Resistance exercises (chest press, lateral pulldown, bicep curl, triceps extension, leg extension, leg curl, calf raise, abdominal crunch) consisting of 2-3 sets of 10 eccentric-only (5 s) or concentric-only contractions (1-2 s) was performed twice a week for 12 weeks. Changes in blood biomarkers, body composition, muscle strength and physical function from pre- to post-intervention were compared between groups.

Results: Overall rating of perceived exertion (RPE, 1-10 Borg scale) was lower (p < 0.05) for ECC (2.9 ± 1.2) than CON (5.4 ± 1.1). No significant changes in blood biomarkers were found for both groups. Lean mass increased [effect size (ES) = 0.148, ECC 3.2 ± 6.9%; CON 3.6 ± 2.3%], and fat mass decreased (ES = 0.545, ECC - 6.1 ± 12.4%; CON - 7.1 ± 16.4%) (p < 0.05) similarly. One-repetition maximal strength of each exercise increased (p < 0.05) for both ECC (12-37%) and CON (27-68%). Both groups improved (p < 0.05) 6-min walk distance (ES = 0.083, ECC 12.2 ± 2.3%; CON 12.5 ± 15.3%) and chair rise time (ES = 0.463, ECC - 13.4 ± 25.4%; CON - 20.0 ± 53.3%) but only ECC improved (p < 0.05) the timed up-and-go test (- 11.3 ± 13.6%, ES 0.014). No significant changes in balance tests were found for both groups.

Conclusion: These results did not fully support the hypothesis but showed that ECC was as effective as CON to improve body composition, muscle strength, and physical function with lesser RPE. Future studies should investigate whether larger differences between ECC and CON are evident when increasing the exercise frequency and matching the intensities of the two-exercise protocols. Trial registration ACTRN12621001026819 (retrospectively registered on 5th Aug 2021).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

偏心与同心阻力训练对2型糖尿病患者生化和生理参数的影响
背景:抗阻训练对2型糖尿病(T2D)患者的益处已得到充分证实;然而,不同肌肉收缩类型(如偏心收缩和同心收缩)的运动对该人群生理结果的影响尚不清楚。本研究比较了偏心阻力训练(ECC)和同心阻力训练(CON),以验证ECC在改善t2dm患者胰岛素敏感性、血脂、身体成分、肌肉力量和身体功能方面优于CON的假设。方法:将50 ~ 79岁的成年T2D患者分为ECC组(n = 9)和CON组(n = 9)。阻力练习(胸部按压、侧拉、二头肌弯曲、三头肌伸展、腿部伸展、腿部弯曲、小腿抬高、腹部收缩),包括2-3组,每组10次单离心收缩(5秒)或单离心收缩(1-2秒),每周进行两次,持续12周。比较干预前后血液生物标志物、身体成分、肌肉力量和身体功能的变化。结果:感知运动的总体评分(RPE, 1-10 Borg量表)较低(p)。结论:这些结果并不完全支持假设,但表明ECC在改善RPE较低的身体成分、肌肉力量和身体功能方面与CON一样有效。未来的研究应该调查当增加运动频率和匹配两种运动方案的强度时,ECC和CON之间是否有更大的差异。试验注册ACTRN12621001026819(追溯注册于2021年8月5日)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书