Premium
Exercise and glucose control in children with insulin resistance: prevalence of non‐responders
Author(s) -
Álvarez C.,
RamírezCampillo R.,
CanoMontoya J.,
RamírezVélez R.,
Harridge S. D. R.,
AlonsoMartínez A. M.,
Izquierdo M.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
pediatric obesity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.226
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 2047-6310
pISSN - 2047-6302
DOI - 10.1111/ijpo.12437
Subject(s) - medicine , insulin resistance , glucose homeostasis , insulin , homeostasis , blood pressure , physical therapy
Summary Background Exercise training improves cardiometabolic outcomes in ‘mean terms’, but little information is available in children about the impact of the frequency/week and the wide inter‐individual variability to exercise training reported in adults. Objectives We compared the effects of resistance training (RT) and high‐intensity interval training (HIT), and ‘high’ and ‘low’ frequency of training/week, for their effectiveness in decreasing insulin resistance (IR) levels in schoolchildren. A second aim was to decscribe and compare the prevalence of non‐responders (NRs) between the different frequencies of training protocol. Methods Fifty‐three schoolchildren with IR were randomly assigned into four groups: RT at high frequency (three times/week), HIT at high frequency, RT at a low frequency (two times/week) and HIT at low frequency. The intervention lasted 6 weeks. Blood samples and body composition, blood pressure and performance measurements were taken before and after the intervention. Results The prevalence of NRs was similar between the RTHF and HITHF (25.0% vs. 25.0%, P > 0.05) and RTLF and HITLF groups (20.0% vs. 46.6%, P = 0.174) for decreasing homeostasis model assessment of IR. However, significant differences in the prevalence of NRs were detected between RTHF and HITHF groups in fasting glucose (FGL) (18.7% vs. 58.3%, P < 0.031). Conclusions Both RT and HIT improves the glucose control parameters in schoolchildren over 6 weeks, but only HIT is independent of a high or low frequency of training/week. The prevalence of NRs is similar for decreasing homeostasis model assessment of IR comparing each exercise mode in high vs. low frequency/week. However, both high‐ and low‐frequency RT and HIT results in differences in the prevalence of NRs for FGL and other cardiometabolic and performance outcomes.