Table 3.
Changes in metabolic function and body composition with resistance training interventions.
| Source | Comparisons | Markers of Metabolic Function (Model Adjustments) |
Anthropometry and Body Composition (Model Adjustments) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ackel-D’ Elia 2014(2) |
AT vs LPA | BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: − 0.05 vs − 0.09uU/ml; I: − 1.53 vs − 1.43uU/ml; HOMA-IR: − 0.32 vs − 0.33 |
WT: −5.1 vs −0.5kg*; BMI: −1.9 vs −0.2* TBF: − 1.2 vs − 1.0%; − 5.14 vs − 0.5 kgd* LBM: −2.6 vs +0.5kgd* |
| RT+AT vs LPA |
BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: − 0.01 vs − 0.09uU/ml; I: − 3.63 vs − 1.43uU/ml; HOMA-IR: − 0.78 vs − 0.33 |
WT: −8.1 vs −0.6kg*; BMI: −3.3 vs −0.2* TBF: −6.8 vs −1.0%*; −9.8 vs −1kgd* LBM: +1.7 vs +0.5kgd |
|
| RT+AT vs AT |
BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: − 0.01 vs − 0.05uU/ml; I: − 3.63 vs − 1.53uU/ml; HOMA-IR: − 0.78 vs − 0.32 |
WT: −8.1 vs −5.1kg*; BMI: −3.3 vs −1.9* TBF: −6.8 vs −1.2%*; −9.8 vs −3kgd* LBM: +1.7 vs −2.6kgd* |
|
|
(No adjustments/covariates listed, comparisons by ANOVA) |
(ANOVA; No adjustments listed) |
||
| Benson 2008(6) | RT vs CON | BP: NR WC: −0.8 vs +0.5cm* logTG: +0.16 vs +0.05 HDL: +0.1 vs −0.1mmol/l GLU:+2.8 vs +2.5mmol/l; logHOMA-IR: +0.1vs +0.24 (Age, gender, and maturation evaluated as covariates; no effects) |
WT: NR; BMI: −0.01 vs +0.4* TBF: −0.3 vs +1.2%*; NR kgc LBM: +1.4 vs +1.0 (FFM)c (Age, gender, and maturation evaluated as covariates; no effects) |
| Damaso 2014(8) | RT+AT vs AT | BP, WC:NR TG:−19.0 vs −27.2mg/dl HDL:+2.4 vs +1.0mg/dl GLU: −0.1 vs −0.0uU/ml; I:−5.5 vs −4.1 uU/ml; HOMA-IR: −1.2 vs −0.9 (No adjustments/covariates listed, comparisons by ANOVA) |
WT:−12.3 vs −8.8kg; BMI: −4.7 vs −3.2 TBF: −9.4 vs −5.3%*; −14.2 vs −8.1kgd* LBM: +1.3 vs +0.1kg (No adjustments/covariates listed, comparisons by ANOVA) |
| Davis 2009(9) | RT+D vs CON | BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −2.4 vs −5.0 mg/dl; GLU IAUC: −6.3 vs +23.2nmol/min/l*; I: −3.9 vs −1.0 uU/ml; HOMA-IR: −1.0 vs −0.3 IS: 0.0 vs +0.1 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 |
WT: −0.3 vs +0.6kg; BMI: 0.0 vs +0.2 TBF: %NR; −1.3 vs −0.1kga LBM: +1.1 vs +1.1kga |
| RT+D vs D | BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −2.4 vs −0.8mg/dl; OGTT GLU IAUC: −6.3 vs −19.3nmol/min/l*; I: −3.9 vs −1.8 uU/ml; HOMA-IR: −1.0 vs −0.6 IS: 0.0 vs +0.2 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 |
WT: −0.3 vs +0.1kg; BMI: 0.0 vs −0.1 TBF: %NR; −1.3 vs −0.1kga LBM: +1.1 vs 0.0kga |
|
|
(ANCOVA; covariates included: age, sex, DXA fat and lean tissue mass.) |
(ANCOVA; covariates included: age and sex for all; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) fat was adjusted for lean, and lean for fat.) |
||
| Davis 2009(10) | RT+D vs CON | BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU:−3.6 vs −3.9mg/dl; OGTT GLU IAUC: −269.1 vs −241.8 nmol/min/l; IS: −0.4 vs −0.03 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 |
WT: +2.4 vs −0.3; BMI: +1.1 vs −0.05* TBF: %NR; +0.6 vs +0.4kga LBM: +1.4 vs +0.2kga |
| RT+AT+D vs CON |
BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −4.3 vs −3.9mg/dl; OGTT GLU IAUC: −277.1 vs −241.8nmol/min/l; IS: +0.1 vs −0.03 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 |
WT: −0.8 vs −0.3kg; BMI: −0.5 vs −0.5 TBF: %NR; −1.4 vs +0.4kga LBM: +0.8 vs +0.2a |
|
| RT+D vs RT+AT+D | BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −3.6 vs – 4.3mg/dl; OGTT GLU IAUC: −269.1 vs −277.1 nmol/min/l; IS: −0.4 vs +0.1 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 |
WT: +2.4 vs. −0.8kg*; BMI: +1.1 vs −0.5* TBF: %NR; +0.6 vs −1.4kga* LBM: +1.4 vs +0.8kga |
|
| RT+AT+D vs D | BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU −4.3 vs +2.5mg/dl*; OGTT GLU IAUC: −277.1 vs −290.5nmol/min/l; IS: +0.1 vs +0.3 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 |
WT: +0.3 vs −0.8kg; BMI: +0.3 vs −0.5 TBF: %NR ;−0.1 vs −1.4 kga LBM: +0.1 vs +0.8kga |
|
|
[ANCOVA covariates included Tanner, baseline-dependent variable, and baseline DXA fat and lean mass (only included if significant in the model).] |
[ANCOVA covariates: Tanner, baseline-dependent variable (DEXA fat adjusted for lean, and lean for fat), change in total sugar intake (weight model only), and change in bench press (BMI model only)] |
||
| de Piano 2012(11) | AT+RT vs AT w/o NAFLD |
BP, WC: NR TG:−6.3 vs −31.1mg/dl HDL:+0.9 vs +0.1mg/dl GLU: −3.8 vs −2.1mg/dl; I: −6.0 vs −0.12mU/l*; HOMA-IR: −1.4 vs −0.07* |
WT:−12.0 vs −9.4kg, BMI: −4.7 vs −3.4 TBF: 11.1 vs −7.2%*; −14.1 vs −6.7kgd* LBM: +2.9 vs −2.8kgd* |
| AT+RT vs AT w/NAFLD |
BP, WC: NR TG:−8.3 vs −14.8 mg/dl HDL:−0.2 vs +2.9mg/dl GLU: −5.14 vs +1.15mg/dl*; HOMA-IR: −2.07 vs −1.63 |
WT: −14.5 vs −10.9kg; BMI: −5.4 vs −3.7 TBF: −8.9 vs −6.4%; −15.4 vs −10.2kgd LBM:+1.3 vs −0.6kgd |
|
| [(No adjustments/covariates listed, comparisons by one-way analysis of variance or the Mann–Whitney test(nonparametric variables); | (No adjustments/covariates listed) | ||
| Hasson 2012(16) | RT +D vs CON | African American: BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −2.7 vs −2.7mg/dl; I: −2.3 vs 2.2 μU/ml; IS: 0.0 vs −0.4 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 Latino:BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −2.5 vs −5.3mg/dl; I: −4.0 vs −1.0μU/ml; IS: −0.2 vs −0.4 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 Combined percent change: IS:−6.9% vs −32.3%; DI:−13.7% vs −14.2% |
WT; BMI; TBF, LBMa: NS—data not shown |
| RT +D vs D | African American: BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −2.7 vs −2.8mg/dl; I: −2.3 vs −1.3μU/ml; IS: 0.0 vs +0.1 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 Latino: BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −2.5 vs −0.9 mg/dl; I: −4.0 vs −2.6μU/ml; IS: −0.2 vs +0.3 ×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1 Combined percent change: IS:−6.9% vs +16.5%*; DI:−13.7% vs +15.5%* |
WT; BMI; TBF, LBMa: NS—data not shown |
|
| D vs CON | African American: BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −2.8 vs −2.7mg/dl; I:−1.3 vs +2.2μU/ml; IS: +0.1 vs −0.4×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1* Latino:BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: −0.9 vs −5.3mg/dl; I: −2.6 vs −1.0μU/ml; IS: +0.3 vs −0.4×10−4 min−1x uU−1x mL−1* Combined percent change: IS: +16.5% vs −32.3%*; DI: +15.5% vs −14.2%* |
WT; BMI; TBF, LBMa: NS—data not shown |
|
|
(ANCOVA controlling for pretest values and Tanner stage, sex, total fat mass, and total lean mass. Bonferroni post hoc analysis) |
(No adjustments noted) | ||
| Kelly 2015(18) | RT vs CON | SBP:−3.8 vs −5.1mmHg/DBP: +1.0 vs +0.8 mmHg WC: +5.2 vs −4.4cm TG; HDL: NR GLU: +4.4 vs +2.3 mg/dl; IS: +0.56 vs +0.4 × 10–4/min/uU/mL (No covariates listed for these outcomes) |
WT:+5.9 vs −7.1kg; BMI: +1.3 vs −3.6 TBF: +1.7 vs +0.7%; +2.9 vs −3.8kga LBM: +1.7 vs −2.1kga (For fat mass, lean mass was included as a covariate, and vice versa.) |
| Lee 2012(21) | RT vs CON | BP: NR WC: −3.2 vs +1.1cm* TG, HDL: NR GLU: +0.1 vs −0.3 mg/dl IS:+0.8 vs −0.1 mg/kg/min per mU/mL* |
WT: −0.6 vs +2.6kg*; BMI: −0.6 vs +0.3* TBF: −2.5 vs +0.2%*;−2.5 vs +1.2kga* LBM: +1.4 vs +0.5kga* |
| AT vs CON | BP: NR WC: −2.0 vs +1.1cm* TG, HDL: NR GLU:−0.4 vs −0.3mg/dl; IS:+0.4 vs −0.1 mg/kg/min per mU/mL |
WT: −0.04 vs +2.6kg*; BMI:−0.3 vs +0.3 TBF: −2.6 vs +0.2%*; −3.0 vs +1.2kga* LBM: +1.0 vs +0.5a |
|
|
(No adjustments/covariates listed; ANOVA; least squared means difference post hoc tests were used to determine differences between the control and intervention groups) |
(No adjustments/covariates listed; ANOVA; least squared means difference post hoc tests were used to determine differences between the control and intervention groups) |
||
| Lee 2013(22) | RT vs CON | BP: NR WC:−1.82 vs −0.25cm TG, HDL: NR GLU: +0.61 vs +1.35mg/dl; IS: +0.03 vs −0.46mg/kg/min per mU/mL |
WT: −0.31 vs +0.13kg; BMI: −0.28 vs −0.03 TBF: −1.6 vs 0.1%*; −2.23 vs +0.70kgb LBM: +0.61 vs +0.21kgb |
| AT vs CON | BP: NR WC:−2.48 vs −0.25cm TG, HDL: NR GLU:−2.11 vs +1.35mg/dl; IS: +0.92 vs −0.46mg/kg/min/uU/ml* |
WT: −1.31 vs +0.13kg; BMI: −0.46 vs −0.03 TBF: −1.7 vs 0.1%*; −2.38 vs +0.70kgb LBM: +0.13 vs +0.21b |
|
|
(ANCOVA; adjustment for baseline values for each outcome variable). |
(ANCOVA; adjustment for baseline values for each outcome variable). | ||
| Shaibi 2006(33) | RT vs CON | BP, WC, TG, HDL: NR GLU: +2.5 vs +1.1mg/dl; IS by FSIVGTT:+0.9 vs +0.1* (Change scores for IS adjusted for change in TBF and LBM mass) |
WT:+1.9 vs +2.1kg; BMI: +0.4 vs +0.4 TBF:−2.5 vs −0.6%; −1.3 vs −0.2kga LBM: +3.7 vs +2.0kga* (No adjustments) |
| Sigal 2014(35) | RT vs CON | SBP: −4 vs −4mmHg / DBP: −2 vs −1mmHg WC: −2.2 vs. −0.2cm* TG: −1.7 vs +6.6mg/dl HDL: +0.9 vs +0.6mg/dl GLU: +0.0 vs −1.9mg/dl; I: −0.8 vs −0.2 μIU/mL |
WT: +0.3 vs +1.3kg ; BMI:−0.5 vs +0.0 TBF: −1.6 vs −0.3%*; −1.3 vs +0.4kgb LBM: +1.4 vs +1.1kgb |
| AT vs CON |
SBP: −5 vs −4mmHg / DBP: −3 vs −1mmHg WC: −3.0 vs. −0.2cm* TG: +2.5 vs +6.6mg/dl HDL: −0.2 vs +0.6mg/dl GLU: +0.3 vs −1.9mg/dl; I: +1.9 vs −0.2μIU/mL |
WT: −0.1 vs +1.3kg ; BMI: −0.6 vs 0.0 TBF: −1.1 vs −0.3%; −1.2 vs +0.4kgb LBM: +0.7 vs +1.1kgb |
|
| RT+AT vs AT |
SBP: −1 vs −5mmHg*/ DBP: −2 vs −3mmHg WC: −4.1 vs −3.0cm TG: −2.2 vs +2.5mg/dl HDL:+1.3 vs +0.2mg/dl GLU: −1.0 vs +0.3mg/dl; I: +0.9 vs +1.9μIU/mL |
WT: −0.8 vs −0.1kg ; BMI:−0.9 vs −0.6 TBF: −1.4 vs −1.1%; −1.7 vs −1.2kgb LBM: +0.8 vs +0.7kgb |
|
| RT+AT vs RT | SBP: −1 vs −4mmHg/ DBP:−2 vs −2mmHg WC: −4.1 vs −2.2cm TG: −2.2 vs −1.7mg/dl HDL: +1.3 vs +0.9 mg/dl GLU: −1.0 vs +0.0mg/dl; I: +0.9 vs −0.8μIU/mL |
WT: −0.8 vs +0.3; BMI: −0.9 vs −0.5 TBF: −1.4 vs −1.6 %; −1.7 vs −1.3kgb LBM: +0.8 vs +1.4kgb |
|
|
(Linear mixed-effects modeling for repeated measures and effects for time, group, and time x group, with age and sex as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.) |
(Linear mixed-effects modeling for repeated measures and effects for time, group, and time x group with age and sex as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.) |
||
| Suh 2011(37) | RT+D vs AT+D |
BP: NR WC: −0.05 vs −0.76cm TG, HDL: NR GLU AUC: −970.97 vs −2330.73μIU/mL; ISI: +0.01 vs +0.04 |
WT: +1.63 vs −0.61kg; BMI: +0.49 vs −0.45* TBF:+0.92 vs −0.28%; NR kgc LBM: +0.50 vs −0.20kgc |
| RT+D vs D |
BP: NR WC: −0.05 vs +1.62cm TG, HDL: NR GLU AUC: −970.97 vs −2481.83μIU/mL; ISI: +0.01 vs +0.01 |
WT: +1.63 vs +1.82kg; BMI: +0.49 vs +0.45 TBF: :+0.92 vs +0.88%; NR kgc LBM: +0.50 vs +0.65kgc |
|
| AT+D vs D | BP: NR WC: −0.76cm vs +1.62cm TG, HDL: NR GLU AUC: −2330.73 vs −2481.83μIU/mL; ISI: +0.04 vs +0.01 |
WT: −0.61 vs +1.82kg; BMI: −0.45 vs +0.45 TBF: −0.28 vs +0.88%; NR kgc LBM: −0.20 vs +0.65kgc |
|
|
(ANCOVA; adjusted for baseline age, sex, and BMI. Tukey post-hoc analysis.) |
(ANCOVA; adjusted for baseline age, sex, and BMI. Tukey post-hoc analysis.) |
*
p≤0.05;
a.
DXA,
b.
MRI,
c.
BIA,
d.
BODPOD™,
e.
skin folds;
f.
hydrostatic weighing;
g.
unclear if BODPOD™ or DXA, both were used and are capable of estimating lean and fat tissue, but BODPOD was indicated for weight and DXA for BMD, without specifying which was used for total body fat and lean.
All measures were fasting unless otherwise indicated. AT, aerobic training; RT, resistance training; D, diet; CON, control group, SBP, Systolic Blood Pressure; DBP, Diastolic Blood Pressure; WC, Waist Circumference; TG, Triglycerides; HDL, High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol; GLU, glucose; HbA1c, Hemoglobin A1c, HOMA-IR, Homeostatic Model Assessment Insulin Resistance; LDL, Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; ISI, Insulin Sensitvity Index; IS, insulin sensitivity; DI, disposition index; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test; AUC, area under the curve; FSIVGTT, frequently sampled i.v. glucose tolerance test; I, insulin; IS, insulin sensitivity by hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp; WT, weight; BMI, body mass index (kg/m2); TBF, total body fat; LBM, lean body mass; NS, non-significant; NR, not reported