Effects of HulaHoops versus walking on abdominal fat, core musculature.
Metabolic syndrome/insulin resistance refers to a set of abnormalities that are either causes or consequences of insulin resistance and that coexist particularly in overweight, sedentary subjects. Discover the benefits of hula hooping with Le Box Du Fitness!
WHO recommends physical activity for adults aged 18 to 64 years.
At least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity per week.
In addition, muscle-strengthening activities involving major muscle groups should be performed two or more days per week. Walking is probably the most common form of physical activity, and it is often suitable for overweight individuals.
However, not everyone is motivated or able to walk and other factors such as weather may limit walking. Therefore, it is necessary to research and test alternative physical activities for these individuals.
Hulahoops is an ancient type of dance that has recently made a comeback as an aerobic workout. Hulahoops are practiced in fitness classes around the world and are used in fitness video games, such as the Nintendo Wii.
See also: WHAT FORCE MAKES A HULA HOOP MOVE?
Energy expenditure (EE) of hula hooping is estimated to range from 3 to 7 kcal/min (moderate intensity activity) depending on the hula hoop, hoop style, and individual metabolic factors.
The larger and heavier the hoop, the slower it spins and the easier it is to use.
The new fitness must-have: Hulahoops
Hulahoops activate the muscles of the core, such as the lower abs, psoas major, and back extensors, as well as those of the lower limbs (hip abductors and, to a lesser extent, knee and ankle muscles).
Data regarding the effects of hulahoops on body composition are limited to one uncontrolled study, in which hula-hooping decreased waist circumference.
However, in this study, metabolic parameters or fat and muscle mass were not determined. It is unclear whether hulahoops alter metabolic parameters and, if so, whether these changes resemble those associated with resistance or aerobic training.
A study compared the effects of hulahoops to walking in overweight subjects.
Hulahoops decrease abdominal fat and increase core muscle mass more than walking.
The primary endpoint was % change in android fat measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Next, we examined whether hulahoops and walking have different effects on metabolic characteristics such as glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipids.
To this end, we followed 55 volunteers to follow either hula-hooping or walking for two 6-week periods, in a crossover fashion. The key parameters of the first intervention period, during which subjects were randomly assigned to hula-hooping or walking.
5 Amazing Benefits of Hulahoops for Weight Loss
Study subjects were recruited through intranet advertisements. The following inclusion criteria were applied: age between 18 and 70 years, central adiposity as measured by waist circumference (>80 cm in women and >94 cm in men), ability to hula hoop for at least 1 minute, and ability to hula hoop at home or at work.
Exclusion criteria included: clinical or biochemical evidence of diseases other than obesity as judged by history, physical examination, and standard laboratory tests, excessive alcohol consumption, i.e., more than 20 g/day, use of medications known to affect glucose or lipid metabolism, and pregnancy or lactation.
The primary objective was to assess the % change in fat in the android region (vide infra) as measured by DEXA during 6 weeks of hulahoops compared to 6 weeks of walking.
Secondary objectives included comparison of hula-hoop- induced versus walking-induced changes in waist circumference, relative and absolute trunk muscle mass measured by DEXA, and metabolic parameters including fasting plasma glucose, fasting serum insulin, fasting serum lipids, and liver enzymes.
1. The study had a crossover design in which half of the subjects did hulahoops first.
For 6 weeks then walked for 6 weeks, while the other half first walked for 6 weeks and then hula-hooped for 6 weeks.
Key parameters were also analyzed using a parallel design, i.e. comparing groups randomized to hulahoops (HULA first) or walking (WALK first) during the first 6 weeks.
The Benefits of Weighted Hula Hoops
To match group EEs, we measured the effects of weighted hulahoops and walking on heart rate (HR) in 10 volunteers (age 38 ± 2 years, body mass index 25 ± 1 kg/m2) and then estimated mean EEs.
Resting HR averaged 64 ± 1 bpm. HR over 10 minutes averaged 95 ± 2 bpm during hula-hooping and 97 ± 3 bpm during walking. EEs for hula-hooping and walking were then calculated using an equation predicting EEs based on HR, weight, age, and sex.
The EE averaged 3.8 ± 0.2 kcal/min during hulahoops and 4.0 ± 0.3 kcal/min during walking. We therefore recommended that the WALK group walk an additional 10 minutes per day and the HULA group hula-hoop for 11 minutes per day in order to achieve similar EEs (approximately 41 kcal/day) from both activities.
A total of 55 subjects were recruited and randomly assigned to two groups. Half of the subjects began with 6 weeks of hula hooping (HULA) followed by 6 weeks of walking (WALK), while the other half began with walking for 6 weeks and then switched to hula hooping for another 6 weeks. A total of 53 subjects completed the study.
The primary endpoint was % change in android fat measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) before and after the interventions measured at visits 3 (week 0), 6 (week 6), and 9 (week 12).
The metabolic study (visits 2, 5, and 8) included blood sampling for measurement of metabolic syndrome/insulin resistance features (lipids, liver enzymes, glucose, HbA1c, and insulin) in addition to recording of blood pressure, body weight, height, and waist and hip circumferences.
How to Choose the Perfect Hulahoops Workout Program
Interested and potentially eligible subjects for the study were invited to a screening visit after a 12-hour fast. Subjects attended the visits individually.
At the screening visit, written informed consent was obtained and a history and physical examination, including measurement of waist and hip circumferences, body weight and height, and recording of an electrocardiogram, were performed.
Blood samples (complete blood count and concentrations of creatinine, sodium, potassium, alanine aminotransferase, glucose, and thyroid-stimulating hormone) were collected.
A pregnancy test was performed in women of childbearing potential. The ability to hula hoop for at least one minute without dropping it was tested. Eligible subjects were randomized to start with either the HULA or the WALK.
Read also: WHY IS HULA HOOP A GOOD EXERCISE?
Of a total of 61 subjects who were screened, 55 were eligible for the study; 6 subjects were ineligible because of abnormal laboratory test results at examination (n = 6), and 2 subjects dropped out of the study (traumatic fracture unrelated to the study in one case, and noncompliance in the other). A total of 53 subjects completed the study.
Subjects eligible for the study based on the screening visit were invited to a baseline visit, during which recording of blood pressure, body weight, height, and waist and hip circumferences was repeated.
Blood samples were collected after an overnight fast to measure complete blood count and concentrations of ALT, HDL and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and insulin (visit 2).
Baseline body composition was measured by DEXA a few days after the baseline study visit.
HULA. After Visit 3, subjects began 6 weeks of hula-hooping or walking. The exercise protocol consisted of 6 minutes of hulahoops per day for the first week with an additional 2 minutes per day each week for the HULA group.
All subjects were offered a 1-hour teaching session in the week before the start of the HULA intervention (Fig. 2). During this session, subjects were taught the hula-hoop (HS) technique. Each subject was given a hulahoops weighing 1.5 kg.
A study subject hula-hooping with a 1.5 kg hula-hoop
Study subjects were given a pedometer that was worn to monitor activity during HULA and WALK periods.
In addition, subjects kept a diary to record the number of minutes of hula-hooping each day. Study subjects were instructed to continue their normal diet and maintain their other exercise habits as before the study.
Measurements during the first physical intervention (visit 4). Subjects attended a clinic visit in the middle of the exercise intervention (end of the third week).
At this visit, body weight, waist and hip circumferences, and blood pressure were measured, and compliance with the exercise protocol was checked based on the exercise diary that study subjects were required to keep.
Measurements after the first exercise intervention (visits 5 and 6) After 6 weeks of HULA or WALK, subjects were invited to visits 5 and 6, which were identical to visits 2 and 3 described above.
Overlap of exercise intervention.
After visits 5 and 6, study subjects were transitioned to hula-hooping for those who initially walked and vice versa. A hula-hooping training session was conducted for those who began HULA after WALKING.
Measurements during the second physical intervention: A clinical visit in the middle of the physical intervention period was performed as described for visit 4.
Measurements after the second exercise intervention. Final visits were conducted after 6 weeks of the second exercise intervention. The protocols for these visits were identical to those for visits 5 and 6.
Body composition measurements with hulahoops
DEXA and other body composition measures Body composition variables were measured and calculated automatically by DEXA and its integral commercial software.
The android region includes an area from the top of the iliac crest to 20% of the distance between the iliac crest and the bottom of the subject's head. The gynoid region extends from the top of the greater trochanter to a distance equal to twice the height of the android region.
The trunk region includes the neck, chest, abdominal and pelvic areas. Its upper limit is the chin and its lower limit the point of intersection between the middle of the femoral necks without touching the edge of the pelvis.
Fat % values in a given region were calculated as follows: Fat % = fat mass/(fat mass + lean mass + bone mass) × 100. Lean % mass values were calculated as follows: Lean % = lean mass/(fat mass + lean mass + bone mass) × 100.
Also discover: WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF A WEIGHTED HULA HOOP?
Body weight, height, and waist and hip circumferences were measured as previously described.
Analytical procedures of hulahoops work
Fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, insulin, LDL and HDL cholesterol, triglyceride concentrations, and ALT were measured as previously described.
To estimate whether liver fat content changed during the interventions, we calculated % liver fat using an equation developed in our laboratory by quantifying liver fat by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) in 470 subjects.
We observed a significant decrease in LDL cholesterol
During the HULA period but not during the WALK period, we determined whether this change was associated with markers of cholesterol absorption or synthesis.
For this, the concentrations of squalene and non-cholesterol sterols were measured from non-saponifiable serum material by capillary gas-liquid chromatography using a 50 m long Ultra 1 capillary column.
Statistical methods for hulahoops
The normality of the distribution of all data was tested using the D'Agostino-Pearson normality test. Normally distributed data are presented as means ± standard error of the mean (SEM) and non-normally distributed data are presented as median (followed by 25th and 75th percentiles).
Baseline characteristics were compared using the unpaired test for normally distributed data and the Mann-Whitney test for non-normally distributed data.
Effects of intervention between intervention groups
They were analyzed using the pooled complex samples general linear model with change (pre- vs. post-intervention values) as the dependent variable, intervention group (HULA vs. WALK) as a fixed factor, and baseline values and period (intervention order) as covariates.
Table 4; for all online supplementary materials. Key variables were also analyzed using a parallel design comparing groups randomized to hula-hooping or walking during the first 6-week period.
For this, changes (group × time interaction) were compared using a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA with intervention group (HULA vs. WALK) as the group variable and time (before vs. after) as the paired factor.
Feel free to also read: HULA HOOP | IMAGINE WHAT IT DOES TO YOUR BODY
Physio results post hulahoops routine
Basic characteristics of hulahoops
The physical and biochemical characteristics of all subjects before the HULA and WALK periods were comparable. The subjects were mainly female.
For data analysis using a parallel design, online supplementary table 1 shows the characteristics of subjects randomized first to hula-hooping or walking during the first 6 weeks. C
The groups were also comparable with respect to physical and biochemical characteristics before receiving any intervention.
How to make hula hooping an effective workout?
During the WALK period, subjects reported steps taken on 94 ± 2% of all days, and during the HULA period on 92 ± 2% of all days. Subjects practiced hula-hooping on average 12.8 ± 0.5 min/day.
During the WALK period, subjects walked an average of 9,986 ± 376 steps/day and during the HULA period 8,974 ± 359 steps/day (online supplementary table 2).
Body weight, body fat %, and other body composition measures
Body weight changes were comparable between exercise modalities (-0.6 ± 0.2 vs. -0.5 ± 0.2 kg, NS; change during HULA vs. WALK; Fig. 3A).
The primary endpoint, android fat percentage, decreased significantly (p < 0.001 with period and preintervention value as covariates) during HULA (-2.0 ± 0.3%, p < 0.0001) but not during WALK (0.1 ± 0.4%; Fig. 3B).
Absolute trunk muscle mass increased significantly more (p < 0.03 with period and preintervention value as covariates) during HULA than during WALK (Fig. 3C).
Waist circumference decreased significantly more (p < 0.001 with period and preintervention value as covariates) by HULA (-3.1 ± 0.3 cm) than by WALK (-0.7 ± 0.4 cm; Fig. 3D).
Effect of exercise modalities on body weight (A), % android fat (B), trunk muscle mass (C), and waist circumference (D). Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001; *** p < 0.0001; NS, not significant.
Premenopausal and postmenopausal women have differences in fat distribution.
Reductions in abdominal fat percentage (-2.2 ± 0.4 vs. -1.7 ± 0.5%, NS; pre- and postmenopausal) and waist circumference (-3.0 ± 0.4 vs. -3.1 ± 0.5 cm, NS; pre- and postmenopausal) were similar in pre- and postmenopausal women during HULA, but the study was underpowered to examine the effect of hulahoops by menopausal status.
When analyzing data from the HULA-first and WALK-first groups, waist circumference decreased significantly more (p = 0.02 for changes in 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA) in the HULA-first group (-3.1 ± 0.4 cm) than in the WALK-first group (-1.0 [-2.6 to 0.5] cm).
Changes in other body composition parameters were comparable.
Metabolic parameters
Crossover design. LDL cholesterol decreased significantly more (p = 0.007 for intervention with preintervention LDL and period as covariates) during HULA (-0.1 [-0.40 to +0.2] mmol/L) than during WALK (+0.1 [-0.2 to 0.4] mmol/L, NS).
The effect of period was not significant, but LDL cholesterol decreased more in subjects with high LDL cholesterol before the intervention (p = 0.007; online supplementary table 4).
HDL cholesterol remained unchanged during HULA (0.0 ± 0.0 mmol/l) but increased (p < 0.05) significantly during WALK (+0.1 ± 0.0 mmol/l). The effect of period was not significant, but HDL increased more in subjects with low HDL cholesterol at baseline (p < 0.0001 for preintervention HDL as a covariate).
There were no statistically significant differences in serum triglyceride changes between groups.
Systolic blood pressure remained unchanged during HULA (-1 ± 1 mm Hg, NS; before vs. after HULA) but decreased significantly during WALK (-4 ± 1 mm Hg, p < 0.02; before vs. after WALK). Diastolic blood pressure did not change in either group.
There were no significant differences in changes between groups in glucose, HbA1c, insulin, or ALT concentrations.
For p values of covariates, see online supplemental table 4. Because there was a significant difference between groups in the change in LDL cholesterol concentrations, circulating markers of cholesterol synthesis and absorption were measured by GC-MS.
Synthesis or uptake markers did not change significantly during HULA or WALK (online supplementary table 3).
Parallel design. LDL decreased significantly more (p = 0.002) in the HULA group than in the WALK group. There were no significant differences in other metabolic parameters (Appendix Table 1).
Conclusion on the benefits of hulahoops for overweight people
There are no controlled studies examining the effects of hula-hooping with weighted hulahoops on body composition or metabolic parameters.
We found in a group of overweight subjects that 6 weeks of hulahoops lasting an average of 13 min per day significantly decreased waist circumference and body fat in the android region and increased trunk musculature compared to a period of walking.
These results are not due to changes in body weight because hulahoops and walking induced trivial and similar weight loss. Walking, but not hulahoops, increased HDL cholesterol and decreased systolic blood pressure, while hula-hooping decreased LDL cholesterol.
Hulahoops decreased waist circumference by an amount that has been associated with changes in other components of the MetS in studies using weight loss and aerobic training as therapeutic interventions.
In the meta-analysis by Yamaoka and Tango, a decrease in waist circumference (-2.7 cm), i.e., an amount similar to that achieved in our study (-3 cm), was associated with significant improvements in metabolic parameters, including decreases in systolic (-6.4 mm Hg) and diastolic (-3.3 mm Hg) blood pressure, serum triglycerides (-0.14 mmol/L), and fasting glucose (-0.63 mmol/L).
However, correlation does not prove causation [15, 16], and it is indeed controversial whether the association between abdominal obesity and insulin resistance is "causal or correlative" [15] or "a major culprit or simply an innocent bystander" [16].
Current data show that hulahoops locally remodel waistline without altering other components of the MetS.
This effect is reminiscent of that of abdominal liposuction on whole-body insulin sensitivity, blood pressure, or lipids. In this latest study, removal of 44% of subcutaneous fat tissue in 15 women had no effect on whole-body insulin sensitivity.
Regarding changes in cardiovascular risk markers, WALK increased HDL cholesterol and decreased systolic blood pressure. These changes are consistent with the known beneficial effects of aerobic training on blood pressure and lipids [18, 19].
Our patients were already active as they met the overall health recommendations for walking time at baseline. By design, the additional walking time was small (10 min/day) and may underestimate the true benefits of walking.
Nevertheless, systemic changes with potential long-term cardiovascular benefits have been observed.
This reinforces the idea that even moderately active people can gain health benefits with a small increase in activity such as walking [20].
Given that walking and HULA induced similar increases in EE, as determined by changes in HR, these activities might not be expected to differentially affect cardiovascular risk factors.
However, data comparing two different types of exercise with equal increases in HR are scarce.
There are indeed several examples where maximal aerobic capacity (VO2 max) and cardiovascular risk factors did not evolve in parallel during physical training.
For example, in 8 of 11 studies examining the effects of aerobic exercise such as walking or cycling on cardiovascular risk markers, beneficial changes in serum triglycerides or HDL cholesterol were observed in the absence of an improvement in VO2 max or a change in body weight [21].
HULA, but not WALK, significantly decreased LDL cholesterol but did not change HDL cholesterol or triglycerides. The decrease in LDL cholesterol and increase in trunk muscle mass resemble the effects observed with resistance training.
According to meta-analyses by Kelley et al (2004, 2006, 2009), resistance training and aerobic training have slightly different effects on lipid profile, as resistance training decreases LDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol without significant effects on HDL cholesterol, while aerobic training mainly increases HDL cholesterol and, to a lesser extent, decreases LDL.
The difference in LDL cholesterol concentration between the groups in the present study could be due to changes in cholesterol absorption or synthesis, or perhaps to changes in adipose tissue, which is one of the largest reservoirs of body cholesterol in humans.
A dietary explanation is unlikely since the order of the two exercise periods was random.
As we perceived the distinct effects on lipid profile as intriguing, we further investigated markers of cholesterol synthesis (desmosterol, lathosterol, cholestenol, and squalene) and absorption (cholestanol, campesterol, sitosterol, and avenasterol) (online supplementary table 3). No significant changes were observed between groups.
The mechanism underlying the decrease in LDL cholesterol therefore remains unclear. It is possible that changes in adipose tissue cholesterol stores resulting from body remodeling may influence circulating LDL cholesterol, but this remains speculative.
On the other hand, it remains unclear why resistance training decreases LDL-cholesterol. The greater decrease in % abdominal fat by hula-hooping compared to walking might also differentially affect adipokine concentrations, which can regulate low-grade inflammation and cardiovascular risk [27, 28].
Crossover trials offer advantages in terms of power since each subject is studied multiple times. On the other hand, it can be difficult to disentangle treatment effects from time effects and carryover effects [29].
These problems did not arise in the present study since comparison of the main treatment effects on waist circumference and LDL cholesterol using a parallel design gave similar results to those of the analysis of differences from cross-sectional data.
The subjects' physical activity was high, exceeding the WHO's overall recommendation for daily physical activity.
It remains to be determined whether hula hooping would have even greater beneficial effects in less active people with more severe characteristics.
Men were less willing to volunteer for the study, and it was not really possible to draw conclusions about the effects of hula hooping on men. Furthermore, the results may not be applicable to severely obese subjects.
Hulahoops can reshape the body by increasing abdominal muscle mass and decreasing waist circumference.
Which may be a useful extrinsic motivation to exercise for overweight people.
Interestingly, hulahoops reduced LDL cholesterol.
A change typically induced by resistance training rather than aerobic training.
In contrast, even a small increase in walking in already active overweight people had positive effects on lipids and blood pressure.
Taken together, these data suggest that hula hooping may complement the beneficial effects of aerobic activities, such as walking, and could therefore be included among the activities recommended for overweight people.
We have spent a lot of time to offer you the most complete article about the benefits of hulahoops compared to walking on overweight people, we hope you enjoyed learning about it. Do not hesitate to subscribe to the private club, you will also receive our complete book as a gift on the best way to structure your fitness training, you will receive an email in advance when an article appears on our site leboxdufitness.com
Also feel free to check out our store which offers the best fitness, bodybuilding and fitness equipment.
Did you like this article and it helped you understand the benefits of hula hooping compared to walking for overweight people? Let me know in the comments if you were already aware of these concepts and what is your experience on the subject.
If you want to find other Fitness and Well-being articles, take a look at the fitness shop review and best seller sections of the blog, you will find plenty of workouts and exercises to do at home.
And if you want to know more about sports nutrition (food supplement) to gain muscle or lose fat, do not hesitate to consult the fitness clothing collection .
You can download my complete fitness guide “ The essentials for a body in top shape ” for free and subscribe to our Facebook page and our Instagram account .
Thank you for reading, I am personally responding to the comment.
Looking forward to corresponding with you!
