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.