Damon L Swift1,2, Neil M Johannsen3, Carl J Lavie4, Conrad P Earnest5, Steven N Blair6, Timothy S Church7. 1. Department of Kinesiology, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA. 2. Center for Health Disparities, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, Ochsner Clinical School-The University of Queensland School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 5. Department of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA. 6. Department of Exercise Science and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 7. Department of Preventive Medicine, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine response rates for clinically significant weight loss (CWL) following different aerobic exercise training amounts and whether enhanced cardiometabolic adaptations are observed with CWL compared to modest weight loss (MWL) or neither. METHODS:Participants (N = 330) performed 6 months of aerobic training at 4 kcal per kilogram per week (KKW), 8 KKW, or 12 KKW (50%, 100%, and 150% of recommended levels respectively). Weight loss was categorized as CWL (≥5%) or MWL (3.0% to 4.9%) or neither. RESULTS: The CWL response rate was greater in the 8 KKW group (20.2%, CI: 13.0% to 27.5%) compared to 4 KKW (10.3%, CI: 4.6% to 16.0%), but not compared to the 12 KKW group (14.6%, CI: 7.6% to 21.6%). Reductions in HOMA-IR were observed in participants with CWL (-0.60, CI: -0.98 to -0.22) and with MWL (-0.48, CI: -0.87 to -0.10), but not those who achieved neither (-0.06, CI -0.22 to 0.10). No changes between groups were observed for cholesterol, fitness, or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Low response rates for CWL were observed following training, even at levels above recommended levels. Achieving MWL with exercise may represent a reasonable initial weight loss target since the improvement in insulin resistance with MWL is similar to what is achieved with CWL.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine response rates for clinically significant weight loss (CWL) following different aerobic exercise training amounts and whether enhanced cardiometabolic adaptations are observed with CWL compared to modest weight loss (MWL) or neither. METHODS:Participants (N = 330) performed 6 months of aerobic training at 4 kcal per kilogram per week (KKW), 8 KKW, or 12 KKW (50%, 100%, and 150% of recommended levels respectively). Weight loss was categorized as CWL (≥5%) or MWL (3.0% to 4.9%) or neither. RESULTS: The CWL response rate was greater in the 8 KKW group (20.2%, CI: 13.0% to 27.5%) compared to 4 KKW (10.3%, CI: 4.6% to 16.0%), but not compared to the 12 KKW group (14.6%, CI: 7.6% to 21.6%). Reductions in HOMA-IR were observed in participants with CWL (-0.60, CI: -0.98 to -0.22) and with MWL (-0.48, CI: -0.87 to -0.10), but not those who achieved neither (-0.06, CI -0.22 to 0.10). No changes between groups were observed for cholesterol, fitness, or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Low response rates for CWL were observed following training, even at levels above recommended levels. Achieving MWL with exercise may represent a reasonable initial weight loss target since the improvement in insulin resistance with MWL is similar to what is achieved with CWL.
Authors: William E Kraus; Joseph A Houmard; Brian D Duscha; Kenneth J Knetzger; Michelle B Wharton; Jennifer S McCartney; Connie W Bales; Sarah Henes; Gregory P Samsa; James D Otvos; Krishnaji R Kulkarni; Cris A Slentz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph E Donnelly; James O Hill; Dennis J Jacobsen; Jeffrey Potteiger; Debra K Sullivan; Susan L Johnson; Kate Heelan; Mary Hise; Paul V Fennessey; Bakary Sonko; Teresa Sharp; John M Jakicic; Steven N Blair; Zung V Tran; Matthew Mayo; Cheryl Gibson; Richard A Washburn Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003-06-09
Authors: Gina M Morss; Alex N Jordan; James S Skinner; Andrea L Dunn; Timothy S Church; Conrad P Earnest; James B Kampert; Radim Jurca; Steven N Blair Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Mary O Whipple; Erica N Schorr; Kristine M C Talley; Ruth Lindquist; Ulf G Bronas; Diane Treat-Jacobson Journal: J Aging Phys Act Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Kelly E Johnson; Michelle K Alencar; Kathryn E Coakley; Damon L Swift; Nathan H Cole; Christine M Mermier; Len Kravitz; Fabiano T Amorim; Ann L Gibson Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Daniela L Stan; Susanne M Cutshall; Tammy F Adams; Karthik Ghosh; Matthew M Clark; Kaisa C Wieneke; Esayas B Kebede; Bonnie J Donelan Dunlap; Kathryn J Ruddy; Jennifer K Hazelton; Alissa M Butts; Sarah M Jenkins; Ivana T Croghan; Brent A Bauer Journal: Clin J Oncol Nurs Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 1.027
Authors: Gabby B Joseph; Charles E McCulloch; Michael C Nevitt; John Lynch; Nancy E Lane; Thomas M Link Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 5.178
Authors: Adam P Knowlden; Amanda H Wilkerson; Kandyce B Dunlap; Michael Stellefson; Odunayo A Elijah Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 10.867
Authors: James L Dorling; Christoph Höchsmann; S Nicole Fearnbach; John W Apolzan; Daniel S Hsia; Neil M Johannsen; Tim S Church; Corby K Martin Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2021-08-01