Obesity facts · 2019
Effects of Weighted Hula-Hooping Compared to Walking on Abdominal Fat, Trunk Muscularity, and Metabolic Parameters in Overweight Subjects: A Randomized Controlled Study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lahelma Mari, Sädevirta Sanja, Lallukka-Brück Susanna, Sevastianova Ksenia, Mustelin Linda, Gylling Helena, Rockette-Wagner Bonny, Kriska Andrea M, Yki-Järvinen Hannele
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Weighted hula-hoops have gained popularity, but whether they indeed reshape the trunk or have beneficial metabolic effects in overweight subjects is unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To determine effects of hula-hooping and walking matched for energy expenditure on android fat %, trunk muscle mass, and metabolic parameters in a randomized cross-over study.
DESIGN: We recruited 55 overweight nondiabetic subjects, who were randomized to hula-hooping (HULA) for 6 weeks using a 1.5-kg weighted hula-hoop followed by walking (WALK) for another 6 weeks or vice versa. The increments in energy expenditure were similar by HULA and WALK. Body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) and metabolic parameters were measured at baseline and after HULA and WALK. The primary endpoint was the change in fat % in the android region.
RESULTS: A total of 53subjects (waist 92 ± 1 cm, body mass index 28 ± 1 kg/m2) completed the study. Body weight changed similarly (-0.6 ± 0.2 vs. -0.5 ± 0.2 kg, nonsignificant; HULA vs. WALK). During the intervention the subjects hula-hooped on average 12.8 ± 0.5 min/day and walked 9,986 ± 376 steps/day. The % fat in the android region decreased significantly by HULA but not by WALK (between-group change p < 0.001). Trunk muscle mass increased more by HULA than by WALK (p < 0.05). Waist circumference decreased more by HULA than by WALK (-3.1 ± 0.3 cm vs. -0.7 ± 0.4 cm, p < 0.001; HULA vs. WALK). WALK but not HULA significantly lowered systolic blood pressure and increased HDL cholesterol while HULA significantly decreased LDL cholesterol.
CONCLUSIONS: Hula-hooping with a weighted hula-hoop can be used to decrease abdominal fat % and increase trunk muscle mass in overweight subjects. Its LDL lowering effect resembles that described for resistance training.
OBJECTIVES: To determine effects of hula-hooping and walking matched for energy expenditure on android fat %, trunk muscle mass, and metabolic parameters in a randomized cross-over study.
DESIGN: We recruited 55 overweight nondiabetic subjects, who were randomized to hula-hooping (HULA) for 6 weeks using a 1.5-kg weighted hula-hoop followed by walking (WALK) for another 6 weeks or vice versa. The increments in energy expenditure were similar by HULA and WALK. Body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) and metabolic parameters were measured at baseline and after HULA and WALK. The primary endpoint was the change in fat % in the android region.
RESULTS: A total of 53subjects (waist 92 ± 1 cm, body mass index 28 ± 1 kg/m2) completed the study. Body weight changed similarly (-0.6 ± 0.2 vs. -0.5 ± 0.2 kg, nonsignificant; HULA vs. WALK). During the intervention the subjects hula-hooped on average 12.8 ± 0.5 min/day and walked 9,986 ± 376 steps/day. The % fat in the android region decreased significantly by HULA but not by WALK (between-group change p < 0.001). Trunk muscle mass increased more by HULA than by WALK (p < 0.05). Waist circumference decreased more by HULA than by WALK (-3.1 ± 0.3 cm vs. -0.7 ± 0.4 cm, p < 0.001; HULA vs. WALK). WALK but not HULA significantly lowered systolic blood pressure and increased HDL cholesterol while HULA significantly decreased LDL cholesterol.
CONCLUSIONS: Hula-hooping with a weighted hula-hoop can be used to decrease abdominal fat % and increase trunk muscle mass in overweight subjects. Its LDL lowering effect resembles that described for resistance training.