↓ Skip to main content

High-Intensity Interval Training Is Equivalent to Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training for Short- and Medium-Term Outcomes of Glucose Control, Cardiometabolic Risk, and Microvascular Complication…

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in endocrinology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 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
High-Intensity Interval Training Is Equivalent to Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training for Short- and Medium-Term Outcomes of Glucose Control, Cardiometabolic Risk, and Microvascular Complication Markers in Men With Type 2 Diabetes
Published in
Frontiers in endocrinology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fendo.2018.00475
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shohn G. Wormgoor, Lance C. Dalleck, Caryn Zinn, Robert Borotkanics, Nigel K. Harris

Abstract

We sought to determine the efficacy of 12 weeks high-intensity interval training (HIIT), compared to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on glucose control, cardiometabolic risk and microvascular complication markers in men living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Both modalities were combined with resistance training (RT). Additionally, the study aimed to determine the medium-term durability of effects. After a 12-week, thrice weekly, training intervention incorporating either MICT+RT (n = 11) or HIIT+RT (n = 12), the study concluded with a 6-month follow-up analysis. The middle-aged study participants were obese, had moderate duration T2D and were taking multiple medications including insulin, statins and beta-blockers. Participants, randomized via the method of minimization, performed MICT (progressing to 26-min at 55% maximum estimated workload [eWLmax]) or HIIT (progressing to two variations in which twelve 1-min bouts at 95% eWLmax interspersed with 1-min recovery bouts, alternated with eight 30-s bouts at 120% eWLmax interspersed with 2:15 min recovery bouts) under supervision at an exercise physiology facility. To account for fixed and random effects within the study sample, mixed-effect models were used to determine the significance of change following the intervention and follow-up phases and to evaluate group*time interactions. Beyond improvements in aerobic capacity (P < 0.001) for both groups, both training modalities elicited similar group*time interactions (P > 0.05) while experiencing benefits for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; P = 0.01), subcutaneous adiposity (P < 0.001), and heart rate variability (P = 0.02) during the 12-week intervention. Adiposity (P < 0.001) and aerobic capacity (P < 0.001) were significantly maintained in both groups at the 6-month follow-up. In addition, during the intervention, participants in both MICT+RT and HIIT+RT experienced favorable reductions in their medication usage. The study reported the inter-individual variability of change within both groups, the exaggerated acute physiological responses (using exercise termination indicators) that occurred during the interventions as well as the incidence of precautionary respite afforded in such a study sample. To reduce hyperglycaemia, and prevent further deterioration of cardiometabolic risk and microvascular complication markers (in both the short- and medium-term), future strategies that integrate the adoption and maintenance of physical activity as a cornerstone in the treatment of T2M for men should (cognisant of appropriate supervision) include either structured MICT+RT, or HIIT+RT. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ACTRN12617000582358 http://www.anzctr.org.au/default.aspx.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 231 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 16%
Student > Master 27 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Researcher 10 4%
Student > Postgraduate 10 4%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 85 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 42 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 12%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 96 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 20 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,219,839
of 26,011,622 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in endocrinology
#930
of 13,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,762
of 347,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in endocrinology
#29
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,011,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 347,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.