Is isoenergetic high-intensity interval exercise superior to moderate-intensity continuous exercise for cardiometabolic risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus? A single-blinded randomized controlled study.

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) with equal energy expenditure on glycaemic and cardiometabolic risk factors in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) when compared to the control. Sixty-three people with T2DM were randomly assigned to HIIT, MICT, or non-exercising controls. Individuals were trained with HIIT at 90 and 30% of their VO2peak (1:2 min ratio) starting from 8 up to 16 intervals and MICT at 50% of VO2peak, on a cycle ergometer, 3 times/week for 12 weeks under supervision. The primary outcome measure was the change in HbA1c. Aerobic capacity, cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, body composition, glycaemic, and cardiometabolic risk factors were measured at the beginning and the end of the 12-week training period. There was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT or when compared to the control for HbA1c, glucose, insulin resistance, blood lipids, cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, body composition, and abdominal and visceral fat (padj > 0.05). HIIT and MICT increased VO2peak significantly compared to controls (p < 0.05) but not to each other (p > 0.05). Both HIIT and MICT improved VO2peak and HbA1c after 12 weeks of training compared to their baseline, furthermore, only MICT caused additional improvements in cardiovascular responses, anthropometric measures, and abdominal fat compared to baseline (p < 0.05). As a conclusion, isoenergetic HIIT or MICT did not improve HbA1c. The two protocols were equally efficient for improvement in aerobic capacity but had little effect on other cardiometabolic factors.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03682445.HighlightsHIIT and MICT with equal energy expenditure were equally efficient for aerobic capacity compared to controls.Isoenergetic HIIT or MICT were not superior for improving HbA1c.Isoenergetic HIIT and MICT were not superior to each other for anthropometric measures, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk factors.

Cognitive function and cardiorespiratory fitness affect gait speed in type-2 diabetic patients without neuropathy.

AIM: To identify physical, cognitive, and metabolic factors affecting gait speed in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without neuropathy. METHODS: This cross-sectional study enrolled 71 diabetic patients without neuropathy (mean age 55.87±7.74 years, 85.9% women). Neuropathy status was assessed with Douleur Neuropathique 4. We used a cut-off point for gait speed of 1 m/s to classify the participants into two groups: slow walkers (SW) and average and brisk walkers (ABW). The groups were compared in terms of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting glucose, systolic blood pressure, maximal aerobic capacity (VO2 max), percentage of muscle mass, percentage of lower extremity muscle mass, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, and years of education. RESULTS: Compared with the ABW group, the SW group had significantly lower VO2 max (14.49±2.95 vs 16.25±2.94 mL/kg/min) and MMSE score (25.01±3.21 vs 27.35±1.97), fewer years of education, and these patients were more frequently women (P<0.05). In the multivariate regression models, the combination of VO2 max, sex, and MMSE score explained only 23.5% of gait speed (P<0.001). MMSE score and VO2max independently determined gait speed after adjustment for age, BMI, HbA1c, fasting glucose, systolic blood pressure, percent of muscle mass, percent of lower extremity muscle mass, and years of education. CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients without neuropathy, physical impairment and disability could be prevented by an improvement in aerobic capacity and cognitive function.