Valérie Julian1, Daniela Costa2,3, Grace O'Malley4, Lore Metz5, Alicia Fillon5, Maud Miguet5, Charlotte Cardenoux6, Frédéric Dutheil7, Yves Boirie8, Martine Duclos1, Daniel Courteix5, Bruno Pereira9, David Thivel5. 1. Department of Sport Medicine and Functional Explorations, University Teaching Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, Diet and Musculoskeletal Health Team, CRNH, INRA, University of Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 2. University of Coimbra, FCDEF, CIDAF, Coimbra, Portugal. 3. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/136193/2018), Lisbon, Portugal. 4. School of Physiotherapy, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, W82GO Child and Adolescent Weight Management Service, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Laboratory AME2P, University of Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 6. Pediatric Medical Center of Romagnat, Romagnat, France. 7. Department of Occupational Medicine, University Teaching Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, LAPSCO - Laboratory of Social and Cognitive Psychology, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 8. Department of Clinical Nutrition, University Teaching Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, Diet and Musculoskeletal Health Team, CRNH, INRA, University of Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 9. Department of Biostatistics, University Teaching Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since adolescents with obesity are prone to bone fragility during weight loss, the aim was to compare the impact of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on bone density, geometry, and strength. METHODS: Sixty-one adolescents were randomly assigned to 2 cycling trainings (HIIT and MICT) and a control (CTR, without training) group. Anthropometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with hip structural analysis and the trabecular bone score (TBS) were assessed before and after the 16-week intervention. RESULTS: Body mass index (BMI) and fat mass (FM) percentage decreased at T1 versus T0 in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p = 0.01 for MICT), though to a larger extent in HIIT (p < 0.05). Total body bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) increased in both training groups (p < 0.001), but to a greater extent in HIIT for BMC (p < 0.05). Lumbar spine BMD and BMC increased in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p < 0.01 for MICT), with a time × group interaction between HIIT and CTR (p < 0.05) only. TBS increased in both training groups (p < 0.01 for HIIT, p < 0.05 for MICT). Hip BMD and BMC increased in both HIIT (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01) and MICT (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05). At the narrow neck (NN), endocortical diameter, width (p < 0.01), cross-sectional moment of inertia, and section modulus (Z) (p < 0.05) increased only in the HIIT group, such as BMD and Z (p < 0.05) at the intertrochanteric region (IT) and average cortical thickness (p < 0.001) and width (p < 0.05) at the femoral shaft. At the NN and IT, the buckling ratio decreased only in the HIIT group (p < 0.05), predicting higher resistance to fracture. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to inducing greater BMI and FM percentage decreases in comparison to MICT, HIIT improves multisite bone density, geometry, and strength, which heighten the justification for HIIT as part of weight loss interventions in adolescents with obesity.
INTRODUCTION: Since adolescents with obesity are prone to bone fragility during weight loss, the aim was to compare the impact of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on bone density, geometry, and strength. METHODS: Sixty-one adolescents were randomly assigned to 2 cycling trainings (HIIT and MICT) and a control (CTR, without training) group. Anthropometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with hip structural analysis and the trabecular bone score (TBS) were assessed before and after the 16-week intervention. RESULTS: Body mass index (BMI) and fat mass (FM) percentage decreased at T1 versus T0 in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p = 0.01 for MICT), though to a larger extent in HIIT (p < 0.05). Total body bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) increased in both training groups (p < 0.001), but to a greater extent in HIIT for BMC (p < 0.05). Lumbar spine BMD and BMC increased in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p < 0.01 for MICT), with a time × group interaction between HIIT and CTR (p < 0.05) only. TBS increased in both training groups (p < 0.01 for HIIT, p < 0.05 for MICT). Hip BMD and BMC increased in both HIIT (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01) and MICT (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05). At the narrow neck (NN), endocortical diameter, width (p < 0.01), cross-sectional moment of inertia, and section modulus (Z) (p < 0.05) increased only in the HIIT group, such as BMD and Z (p < 0.05) at the intertrochanteric region (IT) and average cortical thickness (p < 0.001) and width (p < 0.05) at the femoral shaft. At the NN and IT, the buckling ratio decreased only in the HIIT group (p < 0.05), predicting higher resistance to fracture. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to inducing greater BMI and FM percentage decreases in comparison to MICT, HIIT improves multisite bone density, geometry, and strength, which heighten the justification for HIIT as part of weight loss interventions in adolescents with obesity.
Authors: David Thivel; Julie Masurier; Georges Baquet; Brian W Timmons; Bruno Pereira; Serge Berthoin; Martine Duclos; Julien Aucouturier Journal: J Sports Med Phys Fitness Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: Reina Armamento-Villareal; Corinn Sadler; Nicola Napoli; Krupa Shah; Suresh Chode; David R Sinacore; Clifford Qualls; Dennis T Villareal Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Jennifer C Kelley; Nicolas Stettler-Davis; Mary B Leonard; Douglas Hill; Brian H Wrotniak; Justine Shults; Virginia A Stallings; Robert Berkowitz; Melissa S Xanthopoulos; Elizabeth Prout-Parks; Sarah B Klieger; Babette S Zemel Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Kristen M Beavers; Walter T Ambrosius; W Jack Rejeski; Jonathan H Burdette; Michael P Walkup; Jessica L Sheedy; Beverly A Nesbit; Jill E Gaukstern; Barbara J Nicklas; Anthony P Marsh Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Rhona Martin-Smith; Ashley Cox; Duncan S Buchan; Julien S Baker; Fergal Grace; Nicholas Sculthorpe Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nicola J Crabtree; Asma Arabi; Laura K Bachrach; Mary Fewtrell; Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan; Heidi H Kecskemethy; Maciej Jaworski; Catherine M Gordon Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 2.617