| Literature DB >> 17211497 |
Naomi Brooks1, Jennifer E Layne, Patricia L Gordon, Ronenn Roubenoff, Miriam E Nelson, Carmen Castaneda-Sceppa.
Abstract
Hispanics are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality due to their high prevalence of diabetes and poor glycemic control. Strength training is the most effective lifestyle intervention to increase muscle mass but limited data is available in older adults with diabetes. We determined the influence of strength training on muscle quality (strength per unit of muscle mass), skeletal muscle fiber hypertrophy, and metabolic control including insulin resistance (Homeostasis Model Assessment -HOMA-IR), C-Reactive Protein (CRP), adiponectin and Free Fatty Acid (FFA) levels in Hispanic older adults. Sixty-two community-dwelling Hispanics (>55 y) with type 2 diabetes were randomized to 16 weeks of strength training plus standard care (ST group) or standard care alone (CON group). Skeletal muscle biopsies and biochemical measures were taken at baseline and 16 weeks. The ST group show improved muscle quality (mean+/-SE: 28+/-3) vs CON (-4+/-2, p<0.001) and increased type I (860+/-252 microm(2)) and type II fiber cross-sectional area (720+/-285 microm(2)) compared to CON (type I: -164+/-290 microm(2), p=0.04; and type II: -130+/-336 microm(2), p=0.04). This was accompanied by reduced insulin resistance [ST: median (interquartile range) -0.7(3.6) vs CON: 0.8(3.8), p=0.05]; FFA (ST: -84+/-30 micromol/L vs CON: 149+/-48 micromol/L, p=0.02); and CRP [ST: -1.3(2.9) mg/L vs CON: 0.4(2.3) mg/L, p=0.05]. Serum adiponectin increased with ST [1.0(1.8) microg/mL] compared to CON [-1.2(2.2) microg/mL, p<0.001]. Strength training improved muscle quality and whole-body insulin sensitivity. Decreased inflammation and increased adiponectin levels were related with improved metabolic control. Further studies are needed to understand the mechanisms associated with these findings. However, these data show that strength training is an exercise modality to consider as an adjunct of standard of care in high risk populations with type 2 diabetes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2006 PMID: 17211497 PMCID: PMC1752232 DOI: 10.7150/ijms.4.19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Sci ISSN: 1449-1907 Impact factor: 3.738
Baseline Subject Characteristics
| ST Group N=31 | CON Group N=31 | P valuea | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 66 ± 2 | 66 ± 1 | 0.76 |
| Sex (male/female) | 21/10 | 19/12 | 0.59 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 30.9 ± 1.1 | 31.2 ± 1.0 | 0.81 |
| Whole-Body Fat Mass (kg) | 35.0 ± 2.2 | 33.7 ± 2.4 | 0.70 |
| Waist Circumference (cm) | 99.7 ± 2.3 | 100.1 ± 2.6 | 0.63 |
| Fasting Glucose (mmol/L) | 8.79 ± 0.48 | 9.85 ± 0.69 | 0.21 |
| Fasting Insulin (pmol/L) | 116 (124) | 115 (131) | 0.58 |
| HOMA-IR | 7.1 (5.7) | 6.7 (9.0) | 0.96 |
| Glycosylated Hb A1C (%) | 8.7 ± 0.3 | 8.4 ± 0.3 | 0.58 |
| Diabetes Duration (y) | 8 ± 1 | 11 ± 1 | 0.22 |
| Insulin Therapy (n) | 15 | 5 | 0.02 |
Data are mean ± SE except for not normally distributed variables (insulin and HOMA-IR) which show median (interquartile range).
a Baseline comparisons between groups were assessed by independent sample t-test comparisons for continuous and log transformed variables or Chi-square for categorical variables.
Muscle Quality and Muscle Fiber Size
| ST Group | CON Group | P valuea | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N=31 | Change | N=31 | Change | ||
| Upper Body Muscle Strength (kg) | |||||
| Baseline | 66 ± 4 | 62 ± 4 | |||
| Final | 90 ± 6 | 24 ± 2 | 58 ± 4 | - 4 ± 2 | <0.001 |
| Lower Body Muscle Strength (kg) | |||||
| Baseline | 338 ± 27 | 300 ± 28 | |||
| Final | 568 ± 34 | 173 ± 19 | 285 ± 27 | - 19 ± 7 | <0.001 |
| Whole-Body Lean Tissue Mass (kg) | |||||
| Baseline | 44.3 ± 1.7 | 44.9 ± 1.9 | |||
| Final | 45.5 ± 1.9 | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 44.8 ± 1.7 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.04 |
| Leg Lean Tissue Mass (kg) | |||||
| Baseline | 12.9 ± 0.6 | 12.7 ± 0.6 | |||
| Final | 13.1 ± 0.6 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 12.8 ± 0.5 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.28 |
| Muscle Quality | |||||
| Baseline | 61 ± 5 | 51 ± 4 | |||
| Final | 100 ± 6 | 28 ± 3 | 48 ± 4 | - 4 ± 2 | <0.001 |
| Type I muscle fiber area (µm2) | |||||
| Baseline | 4068 ± 256 | 4546 ± 270 | |||
| Final | 4928 ± 372 | 860 ± 252 | 4381 ± 304 | - 164 ± 290 | 0.04 |
| Type II muscle fiber area (µm2) | |||||
| Baseline | 3885 ± 278 | 4330 ± 346 | |||
| Final | 4605 ± 283 | 720 ± 285 | 4201 ± 336 | - 130 ± 336 | 0.04 |
Data are the mean ± SE of baseline and final values and of the change on each variable in each group.
Muscle Quality data calculated for all participants. Baseline and final muscle biopsies were obtained in a subset of the study population (n = 24 ST; n = 18 CON).
a Time-by-group interactions were assessed by repeated measures ANCOVA of baseline and final values for each variable adjusted for insulin therapy, change in physical activity and change in diabetes medications.
Metabolic Parameters
| ST Group | CON Group | P valuea | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N=31 | Change | N=31 | Change | ||
| Glycosylated Hemoglobin Concentrations (%) | |||||
| Baseline | 8.7 ± 1.8 | 7.8 ± 1.6 | |||
| Final | 7.6 ± 1.5 | - 1.0 ± 0.2 | 8.3 ± 1.3 | 0.4 ± 0.3 | <0.001 |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | |||||
| Baseline | 8.8 ± 0.5 | 9.9 ± 0.7 | |||
| Final | 7.9 ± 0.4 | - 0.9 ± 0.5 | 9.5 ± 0.6 | - 0.3 ± 0.8 | 0.92 |
| Insulin (pmol/L) | |||||
| Baseline | 116 (124) | 115 (131) | |||
| Final | 105 ( 70) | - 16 (69) | 133 (126) | 6 (86) | 0.27 |
| HOMA-IR | |||||
| Baseline | 7.1 (5.7) | 6.7 (9.0) | |||
| Final | 5.3 (5.5) | - 0.7 (3.6) | 6.4 (6.8) | 0.8 (3.8) | 0.05 |
| FFA (µmol/L) | |||||
| Baseline | 656.4 ± 41.9 | 468.5 ± 38.3 | |||
| Final | 572.4 ± 45.3 | - 83.6 ± 30.3 | 612.2 ± 53 | 148.9 ± 47.7 | 0.02 |
| CRP (mg/L) | |||||
| Baseline | 3.5 (9.1) | 3.5 (8.4) | |||
| Final | 2.8 (2.8) | - 1.3 (2.9) | 4.1 (8.1) | 0.4 (2.3) | 0.05 |
| Adiponectin (µg/mL) | |||||
| Baseline | 5.1 (5.3) | 8.3 (4.5) | |||
| Final | 6.6 (5.4) | 1.0 (1.8) | 6.7 (4.6) | - 1.2 (2.2) | <0.001 |
Data are the mean ± SE or median (interquartile range) for variables not normally distributed (insulin, HOMA-IR, CRP and adiponectin) of baseline and final values and of the change on each variable in each group.
a Time-by-group interactions were assessed by repeated measures ANCOVA of baseline and final values for each variable, adjusted for insulin therapy, change in physical activity and change in diabetes medications.
Figure 1Univariate linear association between the absolute change in type I muscle fiber cross-sectional area and the change in HOMA-IR for each subject in the ST group (A: r= - 0.50, p=0.01) and the CON group (B: r= - 0.10, p=0.42) are shown.