Interindividual Variability in Fat Mass Response to a 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial With Different Exercise Intensities in Type 2 Diabetes: Implications on Glycemic Control and Vascular Function

• Published in: Frontiers in physiology 2021-09, Vol.12, p.698971-698971
• Main Authors: Magalhães, João P., Hetherington-Rauth, Megan, Júdice, Pedro B., Correia, Inês R., Rosa, Gil B., Henriques-Neto, Duarte, Melo, Xavier, Silva, Analiza M., Sardinha, Luís B.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: arterial stiffness; Carotid artery intima-media thickness; exercise intervention; high-intensity interval training; moderate continuous training; peak wave velocity; Physiology
• ISSN: 1664-042X; 1664-042X
• DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.698971

Purpose : Little is known about the interindividual variability in fat mass (FM) loss in response to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate continuous training (MCT) in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Moreover, the impact on health-related outcomes in those who fail to reduce FM is still unclear. The aims of this investigation were (1) to assess if the individuals with T2DM who FM differed across MCT, HIIT, and control groups over a 1-year intervention and (2) to assess the changes on glycemic control and vascular function in the exercising patients who failed to lose FM. Methods : Adults with T2DM were randomized into a 1-year intervention involving a control group ( n =22), MCT with resistance training (RT; n =21), and HIIT with RT ( n =19). FM was assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and a change in total body FM above the typical error was used to categorize FM responders. Glycemic control and vascular stiffness and structure were assessed. A chi-square test and generalized estimating equations were used to model the outcomes. Results : Both MCT ( n =10) and HIIT ( n =10) had a similar proportion of individuals who were categorized as high responders for FM, with the percent change in FM on average −5.0±9.6% for the MCT and −6.0±12.1% for the HIIT, which differed from the control group (0.2±7.6%) after a 1-year intervention ( p