↓ Skip to main content

Resting Metabolic Rate Does Not Change in Response to Different Types of Training in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in endocrinology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Resting Metabolic Rate Does Not Change in Response to Different Types of Training in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes
Published in
Frontiers in endocrinology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fendo.2017.00132
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristian Karstoft, Cecilie Fau Brinkløv, Ida Kær Thorsen, Jens Steen Nielsen, Mathias Ried-Larsen

Abstract

Ambiguous results have been reported regarding the effects of training on resting metabolic rate (RMR), and the importance of training type and intensity is unclear. Moreover, studies in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are sparse. In this study, we evaluated the effects of interval and continuous training on RMR in subjects with T2D. Furthermore, we explored the determinants for training-induced alterations in RMR. Data from two studies, both including T2D subjects, were encompassed in this manuscript. Study 1 was a randomized, crossover study where subjects (n = 14) completed three, 2-week interventions [control, continuous walking training (CWT), interval-walking training (IWT)] separated by washout periods. Training included 10 supervised treadmill sessions, 60 min/session. CWT was performed at moderate walking speed [aiming for 73% of walking peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak)], while IWT was performed as alternating 3-min repetitions at slow (54% VO2peak) and fast (89% VO2peak) walking speed. Study 2 was a single-arm training intervention study where subjects (n = 23) were prescribed 12 weeks of free-living IWT (at least 3 sessions/week, 30 min/session). Before and after interventions, RMR, physical fitness, body composition, and glycemic control parameters were assessed. No overall intervention-induced changes in RMR were seen across the studies, but considerable inter-individual differences in RMR changes were seen in Study 2. At baseline, total body mass (TBM), fat-free mass (FFM), and fat mass were all associated with RMR. Changes in RMR were associated with changes in TBM and fat mass, and subjects who decreased body mass and fat mass also decreased their RMR. No associations were seen between changes in physical fitness, glycemic control, or FFM and changes in RMR. Neither short-term continuous or interval-type training, nor longer term interval training affects RMR in subjects with T2D when no overall changes in body composition are seen. If training occurs concomitant with a reduction in fat mass, however, RMR is decreased. NCT02320526 and NCT02089477.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 22%
Sports and Recreations 13 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 28 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2019.
All research outputs
#16,584,977
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in endocrinology
#4,298
of 13,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,890
of 331,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in endocrinology
#39
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,018 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.