A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Effects of caloric restriction with different doses of exercise on fat loss in people living with type 2 diabetes: A secondary analysis of the DOSE-EX randomized clinical trial. | LitMetric

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 wk (MED) (n = 20), or diet control and exercise 6 times per wk (HED) (n = 21) for 16 wk. The primary analysis was the change in FM% points. Secondary analyses included fat-free mass and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume (cm).

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 (95%CI: -912.8 cm to -385.1 cm), -1264.0 (95%CI: -1679.6 cm to -655.9 cm), and -1786.4 cm (95%CI: -2264.6 cm to -1321.2 cm) more for DCON, MED, and HED, respectively. HED decreased VAT volume more than DCON (-1120.4 cm (95%CI: -1746.6 cm to -639.4 cm)) 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2024.100999DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

caloric restriction
28
dcon med
16
fat loss
12
living type
12
type diabetes
12
diet control
12
fat-free mass
12
vat volume
12
compared con
12
med decreased
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!