hiit press. pres. vesrionedited
TRANSCRIPT
THE EFFECT OF HIGH INTENSE INTERVAL TRAINING (HIIT)
ON A RANGE OF PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL MARKERS ASSOCIATED
WITH DIABETES MELLITUS TYPE 2
Rhys LuckwellFinal year Project BIOCHEMISTRY (Practical)
Introduction
DM2 Statistics:• 3.1+ million diabetes suffers in England in 2011, 90% of which are DM2 (Holman et al., 2011)
• 525 million suffers of DM2 worldwide by 2030 (Whiting et al.,2011)
• Cost of £21.8 bn in 2011 to NHS (Hex et al., 2012)
• Rising to £35.6 bn by 2035 (Hex et al., 2012)
Why
HIIT?
Aims and Objectives •Can HIIT induce physiological change?
• Can HIIT induce biochemical change?
• What effect did de-training have?
• Is our HIIT programme safe?
Method
Subjects: 13 test:10 control. Age (20-22 y/o) matched
Healthy individuals
HIIT Programme: 3-4 one minute cycle sprints. Each sprint followed by 2 minute rest period.
Measurements: A range of physiological and biochemical markers were taken at weeks 0, 6 and 12 of the study.
Highlights of Our Study
Week 0 Week 6 Week 1250
60
70
80
90
100
Mean waist and hip circumference of the test group at weeks 0,6 and 12
Cir
cum
fere
nce
(cm
)
Week 0 Week 650
60
70
80
90
100Mean waist and hip circumference of the control group at
week 0 and 6
Waist Circ. (cm)
Cir
cum
fere
nce
(c
m)
Waist weeks 0-6 p=0.743Hip weeks 0-6 p=0.627
Waist weeks 0-6 p=0.286Hip weeks 0-6 p= 0.138Waist weeks 6-12 p= 0.611Hip weeks 6-12 p= 0.146
Test Control700
720
740
760
780
800
820
Mean AUC of the test group at weeks 0,6 and 12 and the control group at weeks 0 and 6
Week 0Week 6Week 12A
UC
Weeks 0-6 p=0.708Weeks 0-6 p= 0.123Week 6-12 p =0.267
Test Control20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
VO2max (ml/kg/min) of the test group at weeks 0,6 and 12 and the control group at
weeks 0 and 6
Week 0
Week 6
Week 12
VO
2m
ax (
ml/kg/m
in)
Weeks 0-6 p=0.667 Weeks 0-6 p= 0.429Week 6-12 p = 0.429
Test Control0
50
100
150
200
250
Mean ICAM-1 levels of the test group at weeks 0,6 and 12 and of the control group at weeks 0 and
6
ICA
M-1
(n
g/m
L)
Weeks 0-6 p= 0.663 Weeks 0-6 p= 0.663 Weeks 6-12 p = 0.108
Test Control0
10
20
30
40
Mean HbA1c levels of the test group at weeks 0,6 and 12 and of the control group at weeks 0
and 6
Week 0
Week 6
Week 12
Hb
A1
c (
mm
ol/
L)
Weeks 0-6 p= 0.506 Weeks 0-6 p=0.772 Week 6-12 p =0.763
Limitations, Conclusion and Future Work
Limitations:
∙The ‘Freshman 15’ problem
∙Failure of CRP ELISA
∙Participation of HIIT sessions was unmonitored
Conclusion:∙Positive changes in hip circumference, AUC, Wmax and VO2max.
∙Varied response to the HIIT- Negative and positive responders
∙No tendencies in biochemical markers such HbA1c or ICAM-1
∙No injuries were reported during the study
Future Work:∙Unhealthy subjects
-Overweight-Diabetics-Sufferers of CV disease
∙ Longer Study i.e. Months to years not weeks
∙Effect of de-training period on control subjects
∙Tighter monitoring of participation of the HIIT programme
- Introduce into sport clubs
References
∙Holman, N., Forouhi, N.G., Goyder, E., Wild, S.H. (2011). The Association of Public Health Observatories (APHO) Diabetes Prevalence Model: estimates of total diabetes prevalence for England, 2010–2030. Diabetic Medicine 28:575-82.
∙Hex, N., Bartlett, C., Wright, D., Taylor, M. and Varley, D. (2012). Estimating the current and future costs of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabetic Medicine 29: 855-62.
∙Whiting, D.R., Guariguata, L., Weil, C. and Shaw, J. (2011).IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2011 and 2030. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practise 94:311–21.