Validation of a simple index (SIisOGTT) of insulin sensitivity in a population of sedentary men

Combined aerobic and resistance training: are there additional benefits for older hypertensive adults?

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of a combination of aerobic and resistance training to those of isolated aerobic training on blood pressure, body composition, and insulin sensitivity in hypertensive older adults.

METHOD:

Forty-four patients were randomly assigned to the aerobic group, resistance and aerobic group, and control group. Before and after 10 weeks, the following data were obtained: 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure data, abdominal circumference, waist circumference, body mass index, lean mass, fat mass, and insulin sensitivity. The study was conducted with 3 training sessions per week.

RESULTS:

Comparison revealed significant reductions in the body mass index, abdominal and waist circumferences, and ambulatory blood pressure (24-hour, wakefulness and sleep systolic/diastolic blood pressures) in both the aerobic group and the resistance and aerobic (combined) group. The fat mass only changed in the combined group. There was no difference in the insulin sensitivity in any group.

CONCLUSIONS:

The combined treatment and aerobic treatment alone were equally effective in reducing the blood pressure, body mass index, and abdominal and waist circumferences, although the addition of the resistance component also helped reduce the fat mass.

Fitness, adiposopathy, and adiposity are independent predictors of insulin sensitivity in middle-aged men without diabetes

Adiposopathy, or sick fat, refers to adipose tissue dysfunction that can lead to several complications such as dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and hyperglycemia. The relative contribution of adiposopathy in predicting insulin resistance remains unclear. We investigated the relationship between adiposopathy, as assessed as a low plasma adiponectin/leptin ratio, with anthropometry, body composition (hydrostatic weighing), insulin sensitivity (hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp), inflammation, and fitness level (ergocycle VO2max, mL/kgFFM/min) in 53 men (aged 34-53 years) from four groups: sedentary controls without obesity (body mass index [BMI] <25 kg/m(2)), sedentary with obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)), sedentary with obesity and glucose intolerance, and endurance trained active without obesity. The adiponectin/leptin ratio was the highest in trained men (4.75 ± 0.82) and the lowest in glucose intolerant subjects with obesity (0.27 ± 0.06; ANOVA p < 0.0001) indicating increased adiposopathy in those with obesity. The ratio was negatively associated with adiposity (e.g., waist circumference, r = -0.59, p < 0.01) and positively associated with VO2max (r = 0.67, p < 0.01) and insulin sensitivity (M/I, r = 0.73, p < 0.01). Multiple regression analysis revealed fitness as the strongest independent predictor of insulin sensitivity (partial R (2) = 0.61). While adiposopathy was also an independent and significant contributor (partial R (2) = 0.10), waist circumference added little power to the model (partial R (2) = 0.024). All three variables remained significant independent predictors when trained subjects were excluded from the model. Plasma lipids were not retained in the model. We conclude that low fitness, adiposopathy, as well as adiposity (and in particular abdominal obesity) are independent contributors to insulin resistance in men without diabetes.

Irisin is more strongly predicted by muscle oxidative potential than adiposity in non-diabetic men

Numerous controversies surround the peptide hormone irisin. Although implicated as a myokine promoting the browning of adipose tissue in rodents, its roles in humans remain unclear. Contradictory results have also been found with respect to the relationships between adiposity or metabolic health and plasma irisin levels in humans. We investigated the relationship between irisin levels and body composition (hydrostatic weighing), insulin sensitivity (hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp), fitness level (ergocycle VO2max) and skeletal muscle metabolic profile in 53 men (aged 34-53 years) from four groups: sedentary non-obese controls (body mass index [BMI] <25 kg/m(2)), sedentary obese (BMI >30 kg/m(2)), sedentary obese glucose-intolerant, and non-obese highly trained endurance active. Baseline plasma irisin levels were significantly different between groups, being lowest in trained men (140.6 ± 38.2 ng/mL) and highest in metabolically deteriorated glucose-intolerant subjects (204.0 ± 50.5 ng/mL; ANOVA p = 0.01). Including all subjects, irisin levels were positively associated with adiposity (e.g. fat mass, r = 0.430, p < 0.01) and negatively associated with fitness (r = -0.369, p < 0.01), insulin sensitivity (M/I, r = -0.355, p < 0.01) and muscle citrate synthase (CS) activity (r = -0.482, p < 0.01). Most correlations lost statistical significance when excluding active individuals, except for insulin resistance (r = -0.413, p < 0.01) and CS (r = -0.462, p < 0.01). Multiple regression analyses reveal CS as the strongest independent predictor of irisin levels (r(2) range 0.214 to 0.237). We conclude that muscle oxidative potential is an important factor linked to circulating irisin levels.

Sex-related differences in the effects of the mediterranean diet on glucose and insulin homeostasis

Objective. To document sex differences in the impact of the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) on glucose/insulin homeostasis and to verify whether these sex-related effects were associated with changes in nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA). Methods. All foods were provided to 38 men and 32 premenopausal women (24–53 y) during 4 weeks. Variables were measured during a 180 min OGTT before and after the MedDiet. Results. A sex-by-time interaction for plasma insulin iAUC was found (men: −17.8%, P = 0.02; women: +9.4%, P = 0.63; P for sex-by-time interaction = 0.005). A sex-by-time interaction was also observed for insulin sensitivity (Cederholm index, P = 0.03), for which only men experienced improvements (men: +8.1%, P = 0.047; women: −5.9%, P = 0.94). No sex difference was observed for glucose and C-peptide responses. Trends toward a decrease in NEFA AUC (P = 0.06) and an increase in NEFA suppression rate (P = 0.06) were noted, with no sex difference. Changes in NEFA were not associated with change in insulin sensitivity. Conclusions. Results suggest that the more favorable changes in glucose/insulin homeostasis observed in men compared to women in response to the MedDiet are not explained by sex differences in NEFA response. This clinical trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov NCT01293344.

Simvastatin effects on skeletal muscle: relation to decreased mitochondrial function and glucose intolerance

OBJECTIVES

Glucose tolerance and skeletal muscle coenzyme Q(10) (Q(10)) content, mitochondrial density, and mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) capacity were measured in simvastatin-treated patients (n = 10) and in well-matched control subjects (n = 9).

BACKGROUND

A prevalent side effect of statin therapy is muscle pain, and yet the basic mechanism behind it remains unknown. We hypothesize that a statin-induced reduction in muscle Q(10) may attenuate mitochondrial OXPHOS capacity, which may be an underlying mechanism.

METHODS

Plasma glucose and insulin concentrations were measured during an oral glucose tolerance test. Mitochondrial OXPHOS capacity was measured in permeabilized muscle fibers by high-resolution respirometry in a cross-sectional design. Mitochondrial content (estimated by citrate synthase [CS] activity, cardiolipin content, and voltage-dependent anion channel [VDAC] content) as well as Q(10) content was determined.

RESULTS

Simvastatin-treated patients had an impaired glucose tolerance and displayed a decreased insulin sensitivity index. Regarding mitochondrial studies, Q(10) content was reduced (p = 0.05), whereas mitochondrial content was similar between the groups. OXPHOS capacity was comparable between groups when complex I- and complex II-linked substrates were used alone, but when complex I + II-linked substrates were used (eliciting convergent electron input into the Q intersection [maximal ex vivo OXPHOS capacity]), a decreased (p < 0.01) capacity was observed in the patients compared with the control subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

These simvastatin-treated patients were glucose intolerant. A decreased Q(10) content was accompanied by a decreased maximal OXPHOS capacity in the simvastatin-treated patients. It is plausible that this finding partly explains the muscle pain and exercise intolerance that many patients experience with their statin treatment.

Selection of the appropriate method for the assessment of insulin resistance

Insulin resistance is one of the major aggravating factors for metabolic syndrome. There are many methods available for estimation of insulin resistance which range from complex techniques down to simple indices. For all methods of assessing insulin resistance it is essential that their validity and reliability is established before using them as investigations. The reference techniques of hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamp and its alternative the frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test are the most reliable methods available for estimating insulin resistance. However, many simple methods, from which indices can be derived, have been assessed and validated e.g. homeostasis model assessment (HOMA), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI). Given the increasing number of simple indices of IR it may be difficult for clinicians and researchers to select the most appropriate index for their studies. This review therefore provides guidelines and advices which must be considered before proceeding with a study.

How can we measure insulin sensitivity/resistance?

Insulin resistance represents a major public health problem, as it plays a major role in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus; it is also associated with increased cardiovascular risk and atherogenic dyslipidaemia, and is a central component of the cluster of metabolic abnormalities that comprise the metabolic syndrome. Thus, the development of tools to quantify insulin sensitivity/resistance has been the main objective of a number of studies. Insulin resistance can be estimated with the use of several biological measurements that evaluate different aspects of this complex situation. To that end, it requires various resources, ranging from just a single fasting blood sample for simple indices, such as the HOMA or QUICKI, to a research setting in which to perform the gold-standard hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp test. The choice of method for evaluating insulin resistance depends on the nature of the information required (classification of individual subjects, group comparisons, precise measurement of either global, muscle or liver insulin sensitivity/resistance) and on the available resources. The aim of this review is to analyze the most frequently used assay methods in an attempt to evaluate when and why these methods may be useful.