Cited by 59Physical Activity and HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Beyond general resistance training. Hypertrophy versus muscular endurance training as therapeutic interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Acosta‐Manzano, Pedro, Rodriguez‐Ayllon, María, Acosta, Francisco M., Niederseer, David, Niebauer, Josef·2020·Obesity Reviews

Abstract

Resistance training (RT) is a powerful first-line intervention for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Nonetheless, the effects of the most frequent RT (hypertrophy training [HT] and muscular endurance training [MERT]) employed for the management of T2DM, and which type of RT might exert superior effects, remain elusive. Thus, this review aims to assess the effects of HT and MERT on glycaemic control, physical fitness, body composition, lipid profile, blood pressure, C-reactive protein, and quality of life in patients with T2DM; to analyse which particular RT is more effective; to assess the effects of general RT; and to identify RT components, characteristics of patients, and medications that could mediate the effects of RT. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-RCT (RT≥ 4 weeks) in adults with T2DM were selected. Both HT and MERT improved HbA1c, insulin levels and sensitivity, muscle strength, body mass index, waist circumference, and fat mass. Additionally, HT improved glucose, cardiorespiratory fitness, fat percentage, lean body mass, lipid profile, systolic blood pressure, and C-reactive protein, and MERT improved weight. Overall, HT and MERT exert beneficial effects well comparable with aerobic training. Both types of RT can be used as potent therapeutic interventions for the management of T2DM depending on patients' limitations/preferences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/obr.13007

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Acosta‐Manzano, P., Rodriguez‐Ayllon, M., Acosta, F. M., Niederseer, D., & Niebauer, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Granada (ES)
  • Sport and Health University Research Institute (IMUDS) University of Granada Granada Spain
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
  • Paracelsus Medical University (AT)
Corresponding author
Acosta‐Manzano, Pedro
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-02-17
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
e13007-e13007
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
OpenAlex
W3005932906
Cited by
59
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Universidad de Granada (International mobility program for PhD candidates)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
resistance training, type 2 diabetes, hypertrophy training, muscular endurance training, glycemic control, HbA1c, insulin sensitivity, muscle strength, body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, lipid profile, blood pressure, C-reactive protein, quality of life
MeSH terms
Endurance Training, Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Hypertrophy, Treatment Outcome, Resistance Training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review