↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of high-intensity, low-volume interval training compared to continuous aerobic training on insulin resistance, skeletal muscle structure and function in adults with metabolic syndrome: study…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 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
Efficacy of high-intensity, low-volume interval training compared to continuous aerobic training on insulin resistance, skeletal muscle structure and function in adults with metabolic syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial (Intraining-MET)
Published in
Trials, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2541-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaime Gallo-Villegas, Juan Carlos Aristizabal, Mauricio Estrada, Luis H. Valbuena, Raul Narvaez-Sanchez, Jorge Osorio, Daniel C. Aguirre-Acevedo, Juan C. Calderón

Abstract

Evidence of the efficacy of high-intensity, low-volume interval training (HIIT-low volume) in treating insulin resistance (IR) in patients with metabolic disorders is contradictory. In addition, it is unknown whether this effect is mediated through muscle endocrine function, which in turn depends on muscle mass and fiber type composition. Our aims were to assess the efficacy of HIIT-low volume compared to continuous aerobic exercise (CAE) in treating IR in adults with metabolic syndrome (MS) and to establish whether musclin, apelin, muscle mass and muscle composition are mediators of the effect. This is a controlled, randomized, clinical trial using the minimization method, with blinding of those who will evaluate the outcomes and two parallel groups for the purpose of showing superiority. Sixty patients with MS and IR with ages between 40 and 60 years will be included. A clinical evaluation will be carried out, along with laboratory tests to evaluate IR (homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)), muscle endocrine function (serum levels of musclin and apelin), thigh muscle mass (by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and thigh muscle composition (by carnosine measurement with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS)), before and after 12 weeks of a treadmill exercise program three times a week. Participants assigned to the intervention (n = 30) will receive HIIT-low volume in 22-min sessions that will include six intervals at a load of 90% of maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max) for 1 min followed by 2 min at 50% of VO2max. The control group (n = 30) will receive CAE at an intensity of 60% of VO2max for 36 min. A theoretical model based on structural equations will be proposed to estimate the total, direct and indirect effects of training on IR and the proportion explained by the mediators. Compared with CAE, HIIT-low volume can be effective and efficient at improving physical capacity and decreasing cardiovascular risk factors, such as IR, in patients with metabolic disorders. Studies that evaluate mediating variables of the effect of HIIT-low volume on IR, such as endocrine function and skeletal muscle structure, are necessary to understand the role of skeletal muscle in the pathophysiology of MS and their regulation by exercise. NCT03087721 . High-intensity Interval, Low Volume Training in Metabolic Syndrome (Intraining-MET). Registered on 22 March 2017, retrospectively registered.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 197 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 18%
Student > Master 28 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Researcher 11 6%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 59 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 41 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 6%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 65 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 February 2018.
All research outputs
#5,809,727
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,041
of 5,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,285
of 330,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#82
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 330,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.