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...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 week(MED)(n=20),or diet control and exercise 6 times per week(HED)(n=21)for 16 weeks.The primary analysis was the change in FM%points.Secondary analyses included fat-free mass and visceral adipose tissue(VAT)volume(cm^(3)).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 cm^(3)(95%CI:-912.8 cm^(3) to-385.1 cm^(3)),-1264.0 cm^(3)(95%CI:-1679.6 cm^(3) to-655.9 cm^(3)),and-1786.4 cm^(3)(95%CI:-2264.6 cm^(3) to-1321.2 cm^(3))more for DCON,MED,and HED,respectively.HED decreased VAT volume more than DCON(-1120.4 cm^(3);95%CI:-1746.6 cm^(3) to-639.4 cm^(3))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.展开更多
基金supported by grants from Tryg Fonden(Grant No.123497 and Grant No.124708)Svend Andersen Fonden(this foundation does not use grant numbers,but the filename for the grant was 81-A.15)+2 种基金supported by TrygFonden(Grant No.101390,Grant No.20045,and Grant No.125132)supported by a research grant from the Danish Diabetes Academy(now called Danish Diabetes and Endocrine Academy),which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation(Grant No.NNF17SA0031406)supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research(MFE-176582)。
文摘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 week(MED)(n=20),or diet control and exercise 6 times per week(HED)(n=21)for 16 weeks.The primary analysis was the change in FM%points.Secondary analyses included fat-free mass and visceral adipose tissue(VAT)volume(cm^(3)).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 cm^(3)(95%CI:-912.8 cm^(3) to-385.1 cm^(3)),-1264.0 cm^(3)(95%CI:-1679.6 cm^(3) to-655.9 cm^(3)),and-1786.4 cm^(3)(95%CI:-2264.6 cm^(3) to-1321.2 cm^(3))more for DCON,MED,and HED,respectively.HED decreased VAT volume more than DCON(-1120.4 cm^(3);95%CI:-1746.6 cm^(3) to-639.4 cm^(3))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.
