A Study On The Intervention Effect Of High-intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-intensity Continuous Aerobic Training In T2DM

Research objectiveTo explore the intervention effects of high intensity interval training(HIIT)compared with moderate intensity continuous training(MICT)on blood glucose?blood lipid?body composition?cardiorespiratory fitness?self-efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus(T2DM).The aim is to enrich the exercise program for the clinical treatment of type 2 diabetes patients,and to provide scientific basis and practical guidance for the development of personalized exercise rehabilitation program for T2DM and other special populationResearch MethodsIn this study,32 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly divided into high intensity interval training(HIIT)group(N=16)and moderate intensity continuous aerobic training(MICT)group(N=16).The age?height?duration of HIIT group were 60.38�3.12(years)?12.93�9.19(cm)?2.93�9.19(years).The age?height?course of disease of the MICT group were 60.86�5.30(years)?161.10�4.01(cm)and 9.69�4.01(years).The HIIT group exercised for with 85%-90%VO₂peak intensity for 1 min,intermittent exercise with 30%-40%VO₂peak for1 min,repeat the cycle for 10 times,and the total exercise time is 20 min,3 times/week;The MICT group exercised with 60%-70%VO₂peak for 40 minutes,3 times/week.The two groups were intervened for 12 weeks,and then the indexes related to blood glucose?lipid?body composition?cardiorespiratory fitness and self-efficacy were compared.SPSS 20.0 statistical software was used for statistical analysis.Research results1.Baseline level comparison(1)There were no significant difference in age?height?course of disease and gender between HIIT group and MICT group(p>0.05).(2)Before intervention,there were no significant difference between the two groups in fasting plasma glucose(FPG)?2 hours-postprandial blood glucose(2h-PG)?blood lipid index?body composition index?cardiorespiratory fitness index and exercise self-efficacy index before intervention(p>0.05).2.Blood glucose and blood lipid indicators(1)After 12 weeks of intervention,Fasting blood glucose(FPG)?2h postprandial blood glucose(2H-PG)?glycosylated hemoglobin(Hb A1c)of HIIT group and MICT group showed remarkable decreased,and indicating a statistically significant diversity between the sets of data(p<0.05).The difference of total cholesterol(TC)?triglyceride(TG)and low density lipoprotein cholesterol(LDL-C)of HIIT group and MICT group were significantly decreased compared with before intervention,but there was no statistical significance between LDL-C after intervention in MICT group(p>0.05),and there were statistically significant discrepancy in other indexes(p<0.05).High density lipoprotein cholesterol(HDL-C)in HIIT group and MICT group showed higher obviously than before,which is statistically different(p<0.05).(2)After 12 weeks of intervention,HIIT group presented more better than MICT group in reducing FPG?TC?TG and LDL-C(p<0.05),and HIIT group have significantly better than MICT group in improving HDL-C(p<0.001),but the difference is not statistical significant between the two groups in improving 2h-p G and Hb A1c(p>0.05).3.Body composition(1)After the intervention,the weight?waist circumference(WC)and hip circumference(HC)of HIIT group were significantly lower than those before the intervention(p<0.05):The waist hip ratio(WHR)in HIIT group decreased after intervention,but the difference was not statistically significant(p>0.05).The body weig?BMI?WC?HC?WHR and BF%of MICT group decreased after intervention,but there was no significant difference between waist circumference and waist hip ratio after intervention and before intervention(p>0.05).(2)In terms of body composition,there was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT in reducing body weight?BMI?WC?HC?BF%and improving waist and hip after 12 weeks of intervention(p>0.05).4.cardiorespiratory fitness(1)After intervention,in HIIT group peak oxygen uptake(V O₂peak)?peak kilogram body weight oxygen uptake(VO₂peak/kg)?percentage of peak oxygen uptake in predicted value(peak VO₂%pred)?anaerobic threshold(AT)?peak load(L_peak)?anaerobic threshold load(L_AT)?peak heart rate(HRpeak)?heart rate reserve(HRR)and power slope corresponding to oxygen uptake(?VO2/?WR)?oxygen pulse(VO₂/HR)?peak metabolic equivalent(METpeak)?carbon dioxide ventilation equivalent slope(VE/VCO2-slope)?oxygen uptake efficiency slope(OUES)and maximum ventilation volume(MVV)were significantly improved compared with those before intervention.After intervention,breathing reserve(BR)decreased compared with those before intervention(p<0.05):here was no significant difference between peak respiratory exchange rate intervention(RERpeak)and pre intervention(p>0.05).MICT group V O₂peak?VO₂peak/kg?peak VO₂%pred?AT?Lpeak?L_AT?HRpeak?HRR??VO₂/?WR?O₂/HRpeak?VE/VCO₂-slop,OUSE and MVV were significantly higher than those before intervention(p<0.05):There was no significant difference in improving the indexes of RERpeak,METpeak and Br after intervention and before intervention(p>0.05)?(2)HIIT was better than MICT in improving V O₂peak?VO₂peak/kg?Lpeak?AT?METpeak?O₂/HRpeak?VE/VCO₂-slope and OUES(p<0.05);In improving peak VO₂%pred?L_AT?HRpeak?HRR??VO2/?W.There was no significant difference between?VO₂/?WR?O₂/HRpeak?OUES?BR?MVV HIIT group and MICT group(p>0.05).5.Self exercise efficiency(1)The marks of activity arousal scale,physical and mental trnquil scale,positive involvement scale and SEE in HIIT group and MICT group after intervention were overtop than those before intervention(p<0.05).Concerning the scores of physiological fatigue gauge were remarkable lower in HIIT group than before intervention,with statistical conspicuous(p<0.05).The figures of MICT group were much better than before,but the difference is not statistically significant(p>0.05).(2)About exercise self-efficacy after intervention,the scores of vitality stimulation scale?positive involvement scale and SEE scale in HIIT group were significantly improve than those in MICT group(p<0.001),and the scores of physiological fatigue scale in HIIT group were obviously lower than those in MICT group(p<0.001).However,there was no significant difference between HIIT group and MICT group(p>0.05).Conclusion1.After the 12 week intervention,both HIIT and MICT can reduce blood glucose and blood lipids.HIIT is better than MICT in reducing fasting blood glucose and blood lipids,but there is no significant difference between the two interventions in improving 2h-PG and Hb A1c.2.After the intervention of HIIT and MICT,the body composition indexes such as body weight,BMI and body fat ratio were improved,but there was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT in improving body composition.3.After the intervention,the cardiopulmonary endurance of HIIT group and MICT group was improved compared with that before the intervention.After the intervention,it was found that HIIT was better than MICT in improving the indexes of VO₂peak?VO₂peak/kg?Lpeak?AT?METpeak?O₂/HRpeak?VE/VCO2-slope?OUES,but there was no significant difference in other indexes of cardiopulmonary endurance.4.In the two exercise training methods,HIIT can improve the positive emotion of patients during exercise and improve the confidence of patients to overcome difficulties and continue to exercise,and MICT training can make subjects produce fatigue symptoms more than HIIT training...