BACKGROUND:Individuals with the metabolic syndrome are 3 times more likely to die of heart disease than healthy counterparts. Exercise training reduces several of the symptoms of the syndrome, but the exercise intensity that yields the maximal beneficial adaptations is in dispute. We compared moderate and high exercise intensity with regard to variables associated with cardiovascular function and prognosis in patients with the metabolic syndrome. METHODS AND RESULTS:Thirty-two metabolic syndrome patients (age, 52.3+/-3.7 years; maximal oxygen uptake [o(2)max], 34 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) were randomized to equal volumes of either moderate continuous moderate exercise (CME; 70% of highest measured heart rate [Hfmax]) or aerobic interval training (AIT; 90% of Hfmax) 3 times a week for 16 weeks or to a control group. o(2)max increased more after AIT than CME (35% versus 16%; P<0.01) and was associated with removal of more risk factors that constitute the metabolic syndrome (number of factors: AIT, 5.9 before versus 4.0 after; P<0.01; CME, 5.7 before versus 5.0 after; group difference, P<0.05). AIT was superior to CME in enhancing endothelial function (9% versus 5%; P<0.001), insulin signaling in fat and skeletal muscle, skeletal muscle biogenesis, and excitation-contraction coupling and in reducing blood glucose and lipogenesis in adipose tissue. The 2 exercise programs were equally effective at lowering mean arterial blood pressure and reducing body weight (-2.3 and -3.6 kg in AIT and CME, respectively) and fat. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise intensity was an important factor for improving aerobic capacity and reversing the risk factors of the metabolic syndrome. These findings may have important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs and future studies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Individuals with the metabolic syndrome are 3 times more likely to die of heart disease than healthy counterparts. Exercise training reduces several of the symptoms of the syndrome, but the exercise intensity that yields the maximal beneficial adaptations is in dispute. We compared moderate and high exercise intensity with regard to variables associated with cardiovascular function and prognosis in patients with the metabolic syndrome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-two metabolic syndromepatients (age, 52.3+/-3.7 years; maximal oxygen uptake [o(2)max], 34 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) were randomized to equal volumes of either moderate continuous moderate exercise (CME; 70% of highest measured heart rate [Hfmax]) or aerobic interval training (AIT; 90% of Hfmax) 3 times a week for 16 weeks or to a control group. o(2)max increased more after AIT than CME (35% versus 16%; P<0.01) and was associated with removal of more risk factors that constitute the metabolic syndrome (number of factors: AIT, 5.9 before versus 4.0 after; P<0.01; CME, 5.7 before versus 5.0 after; group difference, P<0.05). AIT was superior to CME in enhancing endothelial function (9% versus 5%; P<0.001), insulin signaling in fat and skeletal muscle, skeletal muscle biogenesis, and excitation-contraction coupling and in reducing blood glucose and lipogenesis in adipose tissue. The 2 exercise programs were equally effective at lowering mean arterial blood pressure and reducing body weight (-2.3 and -3.6 kg in AIT and CME, respectively) and fat. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise intensity was an important factor for improving aerobic capacity and reversing the risk factors of the metabolic syndrome. These findings may have important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs and future studies.
Authors: Mary C Corretti; Todd J Anderson; Emelia J Benjamin; David Celermajer; Francois Charbonneau; Mark A Creager; John Deanfield; Helmut Drexler; Marie Gerhard-Herman; David Herrington; Patrick Vallance; Joseph Vita; Robert Vogel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-01-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hanna-Maaria Lakka; David E Laaksonen; Timo A Lakka; Leo K Niskanen; Esko Kumpusalo; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Jukka T Salonen Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonathan Myers; Manish Prakash; Victor Froelicher; Dat Do; Sara Partington; J Edwin Atwood Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Julian P J Halcox; William H Schenke; Gloria Zalos; Rita Mincemoyer; Abhiram Prasad; Myron A Waclawiw; Khaled R A Nour; Arshed A Quyyumi Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-08-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R Hambrecht; V Adams; S Erbs; A Linke; N Kränkel; Y Shu; Y Baither; S Gielen; H Thiele; J F Gummert; F W Mohr; G Schuler Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Brittany A Edgett; Jonathan E D Ross; Alex E Green; Norah J MacMillan; Kevin J Milne; Brendon J Gurd Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Dirk Vissers; An Verrijken; Ilse Mertens; Caroline Van Gils; Annemie Van de Sompel; Steven Truijen; Luc Van Gaal Journal: Obes Facts Date: 2010-04-07 Impact factor: 3.942
Authors: Dominique Hansen; Josef Niebauer; Veronique Cornelissen; Olga Barna; Daniel Neunhäuserer; Christoph Stettler; Cajsa Tonoli; Eugenio Greco; Robert Fagard; Karin Coninx; Luc Vanhees; Massimo F Piepoli; Roberto Pedretti; Gustavo Rovelo Ruiz; Ugo Corrà; Jean-Paul Schmid; Constantinos H Davos; Frank Edelmann; Ana Abreu; Bernhard Rauch; Marco Ambrosetti; Simona Sarzi Braga; Paul Beckers; Maurizio Bussotti; Pompilio Faggiano; Esteban Garcia-Porrero; Evangelia Kouidi; Michel Lamotte; Rona Reibis; Martijn A Spruit; Tim Takken; Carlo Vigorito; Heinz Völler; Patrick Doherty; Paul Dendale Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 11.136