| Literature DB >> 19509011 |
Kenneth M Madden1, Chris Lockhart, Darcye Cuff, Tiffany F Potter, Graydon S Meneilly.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The relationship between increased arterial stiffness and cardiovascular mortality is well established in type 2 diabetes. We examined whether aerobic exercise could reduce arterial stiffness in older adults with type 2 diabetes complicated by comorbid hypertension and hyperlipidemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 36 older adults (mean age 71.4 +/- 0.7 years) with diet-controlled or oral hypoglycemic-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia were recruited. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: an aerobic group (3 months vigorous aerobic exercise) and a nonaerobic group (no aerobic exercise). Exercise sessions were supervised by a certified exercise trainer three times per week, and a combination of cycle ergometers and treadmills was used. Arterial stiffness was measured using the Complior device. RESULTS When the two groups were compared, aerobic training resulted in a decrease in measures of both radial (-20.7 +/- 6.3 vs. +8.5 +/- 6.6%, P = 0.005) and femoral (-13.9 +/- 6.7 vs. +4.4 +/- 3.3%, P = 0.015) pulse-wave velocity despite the fact that aerobic fitness as assessed by Vo(2max) did not demonstrate an improvement with training (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that a relatively short aerobic exercise intervention in older adults can reduce multifactorial arterial stiffness (type 2 diabetes, aging, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19509011 PMCID: PMC2713633 DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Care ISSN: 0149-5992 Impact factor: 17.152
Subject characteristics
| All subjects | AT subjects | NA subjects |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 71.4 ± 0.7 | 71.7 ± 1.1 | 71.1 ± 0.9 | 0.417 |
| Weight (kg) | 80.3 ± 2.1 | 81.9 ± 2.2 | 79.3 ± 3.1 | 0.554 |
| Height (cm) | 167.6 ± 1.5 | 165.4 ± 2.1 | 169.0 ± 2.1 | 0.263 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 28.6 ± 0.64 | 30.1 ± 1.1 | 27.7 ± 1.0 | 0.064 |
| Waist-to-hip ratio | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.96 ± 0.02 | 0.94 ± 0.02 | 0.315 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 143 ± 3 | 150 ± 6 | 139 ± 4 | 0.149 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 85 ± 2 | 83 ± 2 | 86 ± 2 | 0.329 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 104 ± 2 | 105 ± 3 | 104 ± 3 | 0.723 |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 66.0 ± 2.2 | 66.8 ± 4.1 | 65.3 ± 2.3 | 0.744 |
| Fasting blood glucose (mEq) | 7.5 ± 0.3 | 7.9 ± 0.6 | 7.1 ± 0.3 | 0.22 |
| A1C (%) | 6.5 ± 0.1 | 6.7 ± 0.2 | 6.4 ± 0.1 | 0.432 |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/l) | 4.7 ± 0.2 | 5.0 ± 0.2 | 4.6 ± 0.3 | 0.290 |
| LDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | 2.6 ± 0.2 | 2.6 ± 0.8 | 2.5 ± 0.2 | 0.592 |
| HDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 0.619 |
| Radial PWV (m/s) | 10.08 ± 0.34 | 10.41 ± 0.58 | 9.65 ± 0.60 | 0.368 |
| Femoral PWV (m/s) | 11.97 ± 0.44 | 12.68 ± 0.76 | 11.17 ± 0.75 | 0.163 |
Data are means ± SEM. Demographic data for aerobically trained (AT), untrained (NA), and all subjects. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
Figure 1Aerobic training (AT, ■) resulted in a decrease in both radial PWV (rPWV) (P = 0.005) and femoral PWV (fPWV) (P = 0.015) that was not demonstrated in the nonaerobic (NA, □) group.
Figure 2The 3-month training program did not result in a significant increase in V2max (P = 0.026) in the aerobic group (AT, ■) or nonaerobic (NA, □)group.
Change in fitness measures after intervention
| Δ for AT subjects | Δ for NA subjects | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (kg) | +0.082 ± 0.732 | +0.140 ± 0.364 | 0.942 | 0.103 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | −0.23 ± 0.28 | +0.05 ± 0.17 | 0.396 | 0.137 |
| Waist-to-hip ratio | −0.002 ± 0.007 | 0.002 ± 0.011 | 0.786 | 0.854 |
| SBP (mmHg) | −10 ± 5 | −2 ± 3 | 0.171 | 0.567 |
| DBP (mmHg) | −5 ± 2 | −1 ± 2 | 0.091 | 0.396 |
| MAP (mmHg) | −7 ± 3 | −1 ± 3 | 0.078 | 0.906 |
| Heart rate (bpm) | −5.4 ± 2.7 | −0.4 ± 1.1 | 0.073 | 0.103 |
| Fasting blood glucose (mEq) | −0.8 ± 0.3 | −0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.098 | 0.698 |
Data are means ± SEM. Changes in measures of fitness for aerobically trained (AT) and untrained (NA) subjects are shown. None of these measures showed a significant training effect (time × group) because our study was only powered to find an effect for our three primary outcomes. There was also no significant interaction of gender (time × group × sex) with the effects of training.