BACKGROUND: Resistance and aerobic exercises are both recommended as effective treatments for people with type 2 diabetes. However, the optimum type of exercise for the disease remains to be determined to inform clinical decision-making and facilitate personalized exercise prescription. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to investigate whether resistance exercise is comparable to aerobic exercise in terms of effectiveness and safety in people with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and SPORTdiscus were systematically searched up to March 2013. The reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews were also checked. STUDY SELECTION: We used the following criteria to select studies for inclusion in the review: (i) the study was a randomized controlled trial; (ii) the participants were people with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years or more; (iii) the trial compared resistance exercise with aerobic exercise for a duration of at least 8 weeks, with pre-determined frequency, intensity, and duration; and (iv) the trial provided relevant data on at least one of the following: glycaemic control, blood lipids, anthropometric measures, blood pressure, fitness, health status, and adverse events. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The assessment of study quality was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. For effectiveness measures, differences (resistance group minus aerobic group) in the changes from baseline with the two exercises were combined, using a random-effects model wherever possible. For adverse events, the relative risks (resistance group vs. aerobic group) were combined. RESULTS: Twelve trials (n = 626) were included. Following the exercise interventions, there was a greater reduction of glycosylated hemoglobin with aerobic exercise than with resistance exercise (difference 0.18% (1.97 mmol/mol), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01, 0.36). This difference became non-significant with sensitivity analysis (p = 0.14). The differences in changes from baseline were also statistically significant for body mass index (difference 0.22, 95% CI 0.06, 0.39), peak oxygen consumption (difference -1.84 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -3.07, -0.62), and maximum heart rate (difference 3.44 beats per minute, 95% CI 2.49, 4.39). Relative risks for adverse events (all) and serious adverse events were 1.17 (95% CI 0.77, 1.79) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.18, 4.39), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Most included trials were short term (8 weeks to 6 months), and seven had important methodological limitations. Additionally, the meta-analyses for some of the secondary outcomes had a small number of participants or substantial statistical heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences in some diabetic control and physical fitness measures between resistance exercise and aerobic exercise groups reached statistical significance, there is no evidence that they are of clinical importance. There is also no evidence that resistance exercise differs from aerobic exercise in impact on cardiovascular risk markers or safety. Using one or the other type of exercise for type 2 diabetes may be less important than doing some form of physical activity. Future long-term studies focusing on patient-relevant outcomes are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Resistance and aerobic exercises are both recommended as effective treatments for people with type 2 diabetes. However, the optimum type of exercise for the disease remains to be determined to inform clinical decision-making and facilitate personalized exercise prescription. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to investigate whether resistance exercise is comparable to aerobic exercise in terms of effectiveness and safety in people with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and SPORTdiscus were systematically searched up to March 2013. The reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews were also checked. STUDY SELECTION: We used the following criteria to select studies for inclusion in the review: (i) the study was a randomized controlled trial; (ii) the participants were people with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years or more; (iii) the trial compared resistance exercise with aerobic exercise for a duration of at least 8 weeks, with pre-determined frequency, intensity, and duration; and (iv) the trial provided relevant data on at least one of the following: glycaemic control, blood lipids, anthropometric measures, blood pressure, fitness, health status, and adverse events. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The assessment of study quality was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. For effectiveness measures, differences (resistance group minus aerobic group) in the changes from baseline with the two exercises were combined, using a random-effects model wherever possible. For adverse events, the relative risks (resistance group vs. aerobic group) were combined. RESULTS: Twelve trials (n = 626) were included. Following the exercise interventions, there was a greater reduction of glycosylated hemoglobin with aerobic exercise than with resistance exercise (difference 0.18% (1.97 mmol/mol), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01, 0.36). This difference became non-significant with sensitivity analysis (p = 0.14). The differences in changes from baseline were also statistically significant for body mass index (difference 0.22, 95% CI 0.06, 0.39), peak oxygen consumption (difference -1.84 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -3.07, -0.62), and maximum heart rate (difference 3.44 beats per minute, 95% CI 2.49, 4.39). Relative risks for adverse events (all) and serious adverse events were 1.17 (95% CI 0.77, 1.79) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.18, 4.39), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Most included trials were short term (8 weeks to 6 months), and seven had important methodological limitations. Additionally, the meta-analyses for some of the secondary outcomes had a small number of participants or substantial statistical heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences in some diabetic control and physical fitness measures between resistance exercise and aerobic exercise groups reached statistical significance, there is no evidence that they are of clinical importance. There is also no evidence that resistance exercise differs from aerobic exercise in impact on cardiovascular risk markers or safety. Using one or the other type of exercise for type 2 diabetes may be less important than doing some form of physical activity. Future long-term studies focusing on patient-relevant outcomes are warranted.
Authors: Edmund Cauza; Ursula Hanusch-Enserer; Barbara Strasser; Bernhard Ludvik; Sylvia Metz-Schimmerl; Giovanni Pacini; Oswald Wagner; Petra Georg; Rudolf Prager; Karam Kostner; Attila Dunky; Paul Haber Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Vanessa Neves de Oliveira; Artur Bessa; Maria Luiza Mendonça Pereira Jorge; Renato José da Silva Oliveira; Marco Túlio de Mello; Guilherme Gularte De Agostini; Paulo Tannus Jorge; Foued Salmen Espindola Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Ronald J Sigal; Glen P Kenny; Normand G Boulé; George A Wells; Denis Prud'homme; Michelle Fortier; Robert D Reid; Heather Tulloch; Douglas Coyle; Penny Phillips; Alison Jennings; James Jaffey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-09-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: R D Reid; H E Tulloch; R J Sigal; G P Kenny; M Fortier; L McDonnell; G A Wells; N G Boulé; P Phillips; D Coyle Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2009-12-13 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Wigand Poppendieck; Melissa Wegmann; Alexander Ferrauti; Michael Kellmann; Mark Pfeiffer; Tim Meyer Journal: Sports Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Eric J Shiroma; Nancy R Cook; Joann E Manson; M V Moorthy; Julie E Buring; Eric B Rimm; I-Min Lee Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Swaytha V Yalamanchi; Kerry J Stewart; Nan Ji; Sherita H Golden; Adrian Dobs; Diane M Becker; Dhananjay Vaidya; Brian G Kral; Rita R Kalyani Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: David S Rowlands; Rachel A Page; William R Sukala; Mamta Giri; Svetlana D Ghimbovschi; Irum Hayat; Birinder S Cheema; Isabelle Lys; Murray Leikis; Phillip W Sheard; St John Wakefield; Bernhard Breier; Yetrib Hathout; Kristy Brown; Ramya Marathi; Funda E Orkunoglu-Suer; Joseph M Devaney; Benjamin Leiken; Gina Many; Jeremy Krebs; Will G Hopkins; Eric P Hoffman Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez; Qing Peng; Mark Peterson; Kate Duchowny; Bin Nan; Sioban Harlow Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Melanie J Davies; David A D'Alessio; Judith Fradkin; Walter N Kernan; Chantal Mathieu; Geltrude Mingrone; Peter Rossing; Apostolos Tsapas; Deborah J Wexler; John B Buse Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 10.122