Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Effects of caloric restriction with different doses of exercise on fat loss in people living with type 2 diabetes: a secondary analysis of the DOSE-EX randomized clinical trial [with consumer summary] |
Lyngbaek MPP, Legaard GE, Nielsen NS, Durrer C, Almdal TP, Lund MAV, Liebetrau B, Ewertsen C, Lauridsen C, Solomon TPJ, Karstoft K, Pedersen BK, Ried-Larsen M |
Journal of Sport and Health Science 2024 Oct 18:Epub ahead of print |
systematic review |
BACKGROUND: Fat loss mainly conveys the benefits of caloric restriction for people living with type 2 diabetes. The literature is equivocal regarding whether exercise facilitates fat loss during caloric restriction. This analysis aimed to assess the dose-response effects of exercise in combination with a caloric restriction on fat mass (FM) and FM percentage (FM %) in persons with diagnosed type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a 4-armed randomized trial, 82 persons living with type 2 diabetes were randomly allocated to the control group (CON) (n = 21), diet control (DCON) (25% caloric restriction; n = 20), diet control and exercise 3 times per wk (MED) (n = 20), or diet control and exercise 6 times per wk (HED) (n = 21) for 16 wk. The primary analysis was the change in FM% points. Secondary analyses included fat-free mass and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume (cm3). RESULTS: FM% decreased compared to CON by a mean difference of -3.5% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) -5.6% to -1.4%), -6.3% (95% CI -8.4% to -4.1%), and -8.0% (95% CI -10.2% to -5.8%) for DCON, MED, and HED, respectively. Compared to DCON, MED and HED decreased FM% by -2.8% (95% CI -4.9% to -0.7%) and -4.5% (95% CI -6.6% to -2.4%), respectively. The difference in FM% between HED and MED was -1.8% (95% CI -3.9% to 0.4%). DCON and MED decreased fat-free mass compared to CON, whereas HED preserved fat-free mass (-0.2% (95% CI -2.0% to 1.7%)). Compared to CON, VAT volume decreased by -666.0 cm3 (95% CI -912.8 cm3 to -385.1 cm3), -1264.0 (95% CI -1679.6 cm3 to -655.9 cm3), and -1786.4 cm3 (95% CI -2264.6 cm3 to -1321.2 cm3) more for DCON, MED, and HED, respectively. HED decreased VAT volume more than DCON (-1120.4 cm3 (95% CI -1746.6 cm3 to -639.4 cm3)) while the remaining comparisons did not reveal any differences. CONCLUSION: All interventions were superior in reducing FM% compared to standard care. Adding exercise to a caloric restriction was superior in reducing FM% compared to a caloric restriction alone.
|