| Literature DB >> 31819565 |
Megan S Joseph1, Monica A Tincopa2, Patrick Walden1, Elizabeth Jackson1, Marisa L Conte3, Melvyn Rubenfire1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The metabolic syndrome (MetS) is highly prevalent and associated with higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular events. Exercise programs have been shown to improve components of MetS, but the optimal design of a structured exercise program for treatment of the MetS remains unclear.Entities:
Keywords: exercise programs; metabolic syndrome; obesity
Year: 2019 PMID: 31819565 PMCID: PMC6873964 DOI: 10.2147/DMSO.S211776
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes ISSN: 1178-7007 Impact factor: 3.168
Figure 1Literature search results and appraisal process.
Characteristics Of Studies
| Study | Population | Program Length | Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|
| 137 adults with MetS | 12 months | 3 intervention groups: | |
| 153 adults with MetS | 16 weeks | “Shape up for Life” program consisting of: | |
| 52 adults with MetS | 6 months | 90 min sessions. 60 sessions total (3 per week for 3 months, 2 per week for 3 months). | |
| 464 adults with MetSyn | 6 months | Low intensity lifestyle modification (LILM) program: | |
| 32 adults with MetS | 16 weeks | Exercised 3 times/week. Randomized to: | |
| 43 adults with MetS | 12 weeks | Exercised 3 times/week: | |
| 21 adults with MetS | 12 weeks | 6 weeks of aerobic training program (3 times/week) followed by 6 weeks of detraining | |
| 163 adults with MetS | 16 weeks | Supervised aerobic interval training 3 times/week for 43 mins/session |
Abbreviations: MetS, metabolic syndrome; WC, waist circumference; TG, triglycerides; sBP, systolic blood pressure; dBP, diastolic blood pressure; MAP, mean arterial pressure; FBG, fasting blood glucose; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein; NR, not reported.
Impact Of Structured Exercise Programs On Components Of Metabolic Syndrome
| Mean Difference (SD)b | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study Title | Group | Weight (kg) | WC (cm) | TG (mg/dL) | HDL-C (mg/dL) | sBP (mmHg) | dBP (mmHg) | FBG (mg/dL) |
| Anderssen 2007 | INT | Diet alone: −5.2 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Exercise alone: −1.3 | ||||||||
| Diet + exercise: −6.5 | ||||||||
| CON | 0.8 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
| Pettman 2009 | INT | −2.6a | −4.2a | −5.2 | 0.5a | −2.5a | −1.0a | −4.3 |
| CON | 0.43 | −1.04 | −2.5 | 1.8 | 3.3 | 2.4 | −0.9 | |
| Oh 2010 | INT | −4.3a | −9.4a | 4.6 | 4.6 | −6.1 | −5.0 | −7.2 |
| CON | −0.9 | −0.6 | 2.9 | 2.8 | −3.4 | −6.9 | 9.6 | |
| Liu 2015 | INT | −3.0 (3.5)a | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| CON | −0.61 (2.8) | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
| Tjonna | INT | CME group: −3.6a | CME group: −6.1a | CME group: 3.6 | CME group: 1.8 | CME group: −10a | CME group: −6 | CME group: 7.2 |
| AIT group: −2.3a | AIT group: −5.0a | AIT group: 1.8 | AIT group: 3.6a | AIT group: −9a | AIT grou1218p: −6a | AIT group: −5.4 | ||
| CON | −0.2 | −2.3 | 2.9 | −0.7 | −5 | 1 | 12.6a | |
| Stensvold 2010 | INT | NR | AIT: −1.3a | AIT: −9.0 | AIT: 1.1 | AIT: −5.8 | AIT: −4.0 | AIT: −1.8 |
| ST: −0.7a | ST: −5.4 | ST: 2.0 | ST: −3.5 | ST: 0.8 | ST: −7.2 | |||
| COM: −1.4a | COM: 1.8 | COM: 1.4 | COM: −2.8 | COM: −1.8 | COM: 0 | |||
| CON | NR | 1.7a | 0 | −0.4 | 0.6 | −0.6 | −1.8 | |
| Damirchi 2014 | INT | NR | After training: −2.75 (0.8)a | After training: −46.75 (8.6)a | After training: 10 (2.1)a | MAP: −3.54 (1.33)a | NR | After training: −11.62 (3.3)a |
| CON | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
| Mora-Rodriguez 2018 | INT | −1.2 (0.2)a | −2.6 (0.3)a | −4.0 | −0.1 | −10.0a | −6.0a | −1.0 |
| CON | 0.5 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 1.0 | −2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | |
Notes: aSignificant difference; bStandard deviation reported when available.
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; INT, intervention; CON, control; WC, waist circumference; TG, triglycerides, HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; sBP, systolic blood pressure; dBP, diastolic blood pressure; FBG, fasting blood glucose; CME, continuous moderate exercise; AIT, aerobic interval training; ST, strength training; COM, combination; MAP, mean arterial pressure.
Impact Of Structured Exercise Programs On Prevalence Of Metabolic Syndrome
| Study Title | Reduction In Prevalence Of MetS | |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Control | |
| Combination Exercise And Nutrition Compared To Usual Care | ||
| Anderssen 2007 | Diet alone: −35%a | −12% |
| Exercise alone: −24% | ||
| Diet + exercise: −67%a | ||
| Pettman 2009 | NR | NR |
| Oh 2010 | −61% | −30% |
| Liu 2015 | −43%a | −34% |
| Tjonna 2008 | CME: −38% | 0% |
| AIT: −45%a | ||
| Stensvold 2010 | NR | NR |
| Damirchi 2014 | NR | NR |
| Mora-Rodriguez 2018 | NR | NR |
Note: aSignificant difference.
Abbreviations: MetS, metabolic syndrome; NR, not reported; CME, continuous moderate exercise; AIT, aerobic interval training.