| Literature DB >> 26030423 |
Amy E Mendham1, Rob Duffield2, Aaron J Coutts2, Frank Marino1, Andriy Boyko3, David J Bishop4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The present study investigated whether rugby small-sided games (SSG) could be an effective alternative to continuous stationary cycling (CYC) training at reducing clinical risk factors associated with the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26030423 PMCID: PMC4452519 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127548
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Mean ± SD participant characteristics, anthropometry, body composition, aerobic capacity and strength pre and post 8 weeks of control (n = 11), continuous cycling (n = 11) or small-sided games (n = 10).
| Control | Cycling | Small-Sided Games | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post |
| Age | 49.2 ± 7.0 | - | 49.5 ± 6.6 | - | 46.8 ± 6.6 | - |
| Height | 1.78 ± 0.06 | - | 1.76 ± 0.04 | - | 1.76 ± 0.08 | - |
| Body Mass | 92.6 ± 11.2 | 92.8 ± 10.9 | 90.3 ± 12.3 | 89.8 ± 12.6 | 86.3 ± 13.6 | 86.1 ± 13.4 |
| BMI | 29.5 ± 3.2 | 29.4 ± 3.1 | 29.1 ± 3.8 | 28.9 ± 3.9 | 27.6 ± 2.9 | 27.6 ± 2.9 |
| Waist girth | 99.1 ± 8.7 | 98.5 ± 8.5 | 96.9 ± 8.6 | 95.6 ± 9.2 | 94.9 ± 6.6 | 92.1 ± 7.5 |
| WHR | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 0.95 ± 0.04 | 0.95 ± 0.06 | 0.95 ± 0.07 | 0.95 ± 0.06 | 0.94 ± 0.04 |
|
| ||||||
| TB-FM | 27.1 ± 9.4 | 27.9 ± 8.6 | 26.7 ± 8.6 | 25.9 ± 8.4 | 23.8 ± 6.0 | 23.1 ± 6.1 |
| TB-FM | 28.5 ± 7.1 | 29.5 ± 6.8 | 28.9 ± 6.3 | 28.1 ± 6.1 | 27.2 ± 2.9 | 26.2 ± 3.3 |
| TB-FFM | 62.6 ± 6.3 | 61.8 ± 6.8 | 60.3 ± 6.3 | 61.1 ± 6.3 | 59.3 ± 8.0 | 60.4 ± 7.8 |
| IA-FM | 2.6 ± 1.0 | 2.7 ± 0.9 | 2.7 ± 1.1 | 2.6 ± 1.1 | 2.4 ± 0.7 | 2.4 ± 0.7 |
|
| ||||||
| VO2
| 26.5 ± 5.4 | 25.7 ± 5.2 | 24.2 ± 4.1 | 28.1 ± 3.3 | 24.7 ± 3.6 | 28.9 ± 2.9 |
| VO2 (L.min-1) | 2.38 ± 0.33 | 2.30 ± 0.39 | 2.20 ± 0.60 | 2.54 ± 0.60 | 2.14 ± 0.46 | 2.49 ± 0.43 |
| Workload | 227 ± 33 | 230 ± 37 | 207 ± 34 | 255 ± 31 | 205 ± 42 | 243 ± 33 |
| Duration | 7.5 ± 1.2 | 7.6 ± 1.4 | 7.0 ± 1.3 | 8.6 ± 1.4 | 6.7 ± 1.5 | 8.3 ± 1.3 |
|
| ||||||
| Leg Press | 164 ± 49 | 164 ± 47 | 182 ± 39 | 190 ± 36 | 168 ± 29 | 193 ± 35 |
| Chest Press | 72 ± 20 | 71 ± 21 | 62 ± 11 | 62 ± 10 | 62 ± 10 | 64 ± 11 |
BMI, Body mass index; WHR, Waist to hip ratio; DXA, Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; TB-FM, Total body-fat mass; TB-FFM, Total body-fat free mass; IA-FM, Intra-abdominal fat mass; GXT, Graded exercise test; HRmax, Maximal heart rate; VO2, Oxygen consumption; 3RM, 3 repetitions maximum.
a = Significant within group change (p<0.05)
b = Significant change compared to control group (p<0.05)
c = Significant change compared to cycling group (p<0.05).
Fig 1Schematic overview of participant numbers during enrolment, allocation, follow-up and analysis.
Mean ± SD of session training load over 8-weeks within the continuous cycling and small-sided games conditions.
| Cycling | Small-sided games | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week | Exercise Duration (min) | Power output (W) | Resistance (Kp) | Cadence (RPM) | Mean Heart rate (%max) | RPE (AU) | Mean Distance (m) | Mean speed (m.min-1) | Peak Speed (km.h-1) | Field Size | Mean Heart rate (%max) | RPE (AU) |
|
| 40 | 100 ± 35 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | 71.9 ± 7.1 | 80.5 ± 3.0 | 11.9 ± 1.0 | 2563 ± 259 | 71.5 ± 8.0 | 20.0 ± 2.9 | 25m; 40m | 86.0 ± 5.2 | 12.9 ± 1.3 |
|
| 40 | 117 ± 38 | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 73.7 ± 8.5 | 83.9 ± 4.2 | 12.1 ± 1.3 | 2642 ± 361 | 73.4 ± 10.1 | 18.6 ± 2.6 | 25m; 40m | 85.8 ± 4.5 | 12.2 ± 1.6 |
|
| 45 | 121 ± 44 | 1.9 ± 0.3 | 76.0 ± 6.4 | 85.4 ± 4.7 | 12.3 ± 0.9 | 2856 ± 298 | 71.3 ± 7.5 | 20.0 ± 3.1 | 25m; 40m | 86.5 ± 5.3 | 12.0 ± 1.2 |
|
| 45 | 132 ± 41 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 73.7 ± 5.4 | 84.9 ± 5.2 | 12.6 ± 0.8 | 3014 ± 275 | 75.1 ± 6.8 | 21.2 ± 2.8 | 35m; 50m | 85.3 ± 4.1 | 12.1 ± 1.3 |
|
| 45 | 148 ± 33 | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 72.3 ± 6.7 | 85.6 ± 5.2 | 12.8 ± 0.8 | 3117 ± 320 | 77.8 ± 8.0 | 20.2 ± 3.5 | 35m; 50m | 83.3 ± 5.1 | 12.3 ± 1.0 |
|
| 50 | 146 ± 33 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 70.1 ± 5.6 | 86.0 ± 4.5 | 12.8 ± 0.9 | 3541 ± 369 | 78.8 ± 8.3 | 20.9 ± 3.1 | 35m; 50m | 85.8 ± 5.9 | 12.7 ± 1.0 |
|
| 50 | 161 ± 17 | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 69.3 ± 5.2 | 86.4 ± 5.8 | 12.8 ± 0.8 | 3673 ± 293 | 82.0 ± 5.9 | 20.3 ± 3.4 | 40m; 60m | 84.2 ± 4.5 | 12.2 ± 0.9 |
|
| 50 | 165 ± 19 | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 70.1 ± 6.2 | 84.2 ± 6.4 | 12.4 ± 0.7 | 3371 ± 203 | 80.1 ± 7.5 | 20.0 ± 3.2 | 40m; 60m | 84.7 ± 5.1 | 12.5 ± 1.1 |
|
| 136 ± 14 | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 72.1 ± 2.6 | 84.6 ± 2.1 | 12.5 ± 0.4 | 3090 ± 421 | 76.2 ± 5.2 | 20.1 ± 1.1 | 33m; 49m | 85.2 ± 1.5 | 12.4 ± 0.4 | |
No significant differences were evident between conditions for heart rate or RPE.
Fig 2Total protein content of PGC-1α (a), SIRT-1 (b), P53 (c), GLUT4 (d), AKT (e) and representative blots corrected to α-tubulin (f) before (pre) and after (post) 8-weeks of control (CON; n = 9), continuous cycling (CYC; n = 11) or small-sided games (SSG; n = 10) conditions.
Post values are expressed as fold change relative to pre values.
Mean ± SD fasting blood chemistry and glucose tolerance test pre and post 8 weeks of control (n = 11), continuous cycling (n = 11) or small-sided games (n = 10).
| Control | Cycling | Small-Sided Games | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post |
| Glucose (mmol L1) | 4.8 ± 0.9 | 4.8 ± 0.8 | 4.8 ± 0.7 | 4.7 ± 0.7 | 4.7 ± 0.6 | 4.4 ± 0.6 |
| Insulin (μlU mL1) | 8.8 ± 6.6 | 10.1 ± 8.3 | 8.5 ± 2.4 | 7.8 ± 7.2 | 7.5 ± 6.9 | 5.3 ± 3.8 |
| Glucose AUC (mmol.L1 (120 min)1) | 12.3 ± 1.5 | 13.1 ± 2.7 | 14.1 ± 3.7 | 11.9 ± 3.9 | 12.7 ± 3.1 | 10.4 ± 1.5 |
| Insulin AUC (μlU.mL1 (120 min)1) | 111.6 ± 74.1 | 140.7 ± 85.2 | 108.5 ± 78.4 | 104.6 ± 75.1 | 102.1 ± 75.0 | 71.8 ± 40.7 |
| Matsuda ISI (μlU mL1, mg mL1) | 9.4 ± 7.3 | 6.7 ± 4.2 | 8.5 ± 6.7 | 11.3 ± 9.6 | 8.7 ± 5.8 | 11.8 ± 5.7 |
| HOMA-IR (μlU mL1, mmol L1) | 2.0 ± 1.7 | 2.3 ± 2.2 | 1.9 ± 2.0 | 1.8 ± 1.8 | 1.7 ± 1.7 | 1.1 ± 0.8 |
| HbA1c (%A1c) | 5.5 ± 0.4 | 5.5 ± 0.4 | 5.7 ± 0.7 | 5.4 ± 0.4 | 5.7 ± 0.4 | 5.4 ± 0.3 |
| Total Cholesterol (mmol L1) | 5.1 ± 1.0 | 5.1 ± 0.7 | 5.3 ± 0.8 | 5.1 ± 0.8 | 5.4 ± 1.0 | 5.2 ± 0.9 |
| HDL (mmol L1) | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.3 |
| Triglycerides (mmol L1) | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 1.3 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.6 | 1.3 ± 0.6 | 1.4 ± 0.7 | 1.5 ± 0.7 |
| Hazard Ratio (Total: HDL) | 3.9 ± 1.0 | 4.2 ± 1.1 | 4.3 ± 1.1 | 4.2 ± 1.3 | 4.7 ± 1.4 | 4.5 ± 1.5 |
AUC, Area under the curve; Matsuda ISI, Estimate of insulin sensitivity; HOMA-IR, Glucose homeostasis—insulin resistance; HDL, High density lipoproteins.
a = Significant within group change (p<0.05)
b = Significant change compared to control group (p<0.05)
Fig 3Total protein content of Mitochondrial Complex I subunit (a), Complex II subunit (b), Complex III subunit core2 (c), Complex IV subunit II (d), ATP synthase subunit-α (e) and representative blots corrected to α-tubulin (f) before (pre) and after (post) 8-weeks of control (CON; n = 9), continuous cycling (CYC; n = 11) or small-sided games (SSG; n = 10) conditions.
Post values are expressed as fold change relative to pre values.