Cited by 176Physical Activity and HealthCardiovascular and exercise physiologyDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Resistance Exercise Intensity is Correlated with Attenuation of HbA1c and Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Liu, Yubo, Ye, Weibing, Chen, Qian, Zhang, Yong, Kuo, Chia-Hua, Korivi, Mallikarjuna·2019·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract

We investigated the influence of resistance exercise (RE) with different intensities on HbA1c, insulin and blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Diabetes trials that compared RE group with a control were included in meta-analysis. Exercise intensities were categorized into low-to-moderate-intensity and high-intensity subgroups. Intensity effect on glycemic control was determined by meta-regression analysis, and risk-of-bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration tool. 24 trials met the inclusion criteria, comprised of 962 patients of exercise (n = 491) and control (n = 471). Meta-regression analysis showed decreased HbA1c (p = 0.006) and insulin (p = 0.015) after RE was correlated with intensity. Subgroup analysis revealed decreased HbA1c was greater with high intensity (−0.61; 95% CI −0.90, −0.33) than low-to-moderate intensity (−0.23; 95% CI −0.41, −0.05). Insulin levels were significantly decreased only with high intensity (−4.60; 95% CI −7.53, −1.67), not with low-to-moderate intensity (0.07; 95% CI −3.28, 3.42). Notably, values between the subgroups were statistically significant for both HbA1c (p = 0.03) and insulin (p = 0.04), indicative of profound benefits of high-intensity RE. Pooled outcomes of 15 trials showed only a decreased trend in blood glucose with RE (p = 0.09), and this tendency was not associated with intensity. Our meta-analysis provides additional evidence that high-intensity RE has greater beneficial effects than low-to-moderate-intensity in attenuation of HbA1c and insulin in T2D patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ijerph16010140

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • No previous meta-analysis has found the optimal type or dose of physical activity to control HbA1c in type 2 diabetes.

    “none found the optimal type or dose of physical activity to verify the validity and reliability of these recommendations”

    From Optimal Dose and Type of Physical Activity to Improve Glycemic Control in People Diagnosed With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Introduction says no previous meta-analysis had compared resistance-exercise intensities for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. That supports a narrower point than the claim: the paper does not say that no meta-analysis had found the optimal type or dose of physical activity generally, or address verification of the recommendations’ validity and reliability. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • High-intensity resistance training improves A1c by 0.61%, while low-to-moderate intensity resistance training improves A1c by only 0.23%.

    “a recent metanalysis showed improvement in A1c by 0.61% with high intensity resistance training and by only 0.23% with low-moderate intensity resistance training.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]Ratamess N.A. ACSM’s Foundations of Strength Training and Conditioning Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Philadelphia, PA, USA 2011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Y., Ye, W., Chen, Q., Zhang, Y., Kuo, C.-H., & Korivi, M.
Affiliations
  • Zhejiang Normal University (CN)
  • Zhejiang Sports Science Institute, Hangzhou 310004, China
  • University of Taipei (TW)
Corresponding author
  • Ye, Weibing
  • Korivi, Mallikarjuna
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-01-07
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
140
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2906816616
Cited by
176
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
resistance training, exercise intensity, type 2 diabetes, HbA1c, glycemic control, insulin, blood glucose, high-intensity exercise
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Insulin, Exercise, 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