Effects of Weighted Hula-Hooping Compared to Walking on Abdominal Fat, Trunk Muscularity, and Metabolic Parameters in Overweight Subjects: A Randomized Controlled Study.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to compare the effects of walking and hula-hooping, matched for energy expenditure, on android fat percentage, trunk muscle mass, and metabolic parameters in overweight subjects.
Results Summary
Walking did not significantly reduce android fat percentage but lowered systolic blood pressure and increased HDL cholesterol. It was less effective than hula-hooping in reducing waist circumference and increasing trunk muscle mass.
Population
Overweight nondiabetic subjects (waist 92 ± 1 cm, BMI 28 ± 1 kg/m²).
Effective Dosage
9,986 ± 376 steps/day.
Duration
6 weeks.
Interactions
None mentioned.
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
hula-hooping (HULA) with a 1.5-kg weighted hula-hoop | decrease | % fat in the android region | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | decreased significantly | #1 |
walking (WALK) | no change | % fat in the android region | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | not by WALK | #2 |
hula-hooping (HULA) with a 1.5-kg weighted hula-hoop | increase | trunk muscle mass | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | increased more | #3 |
walking (WALK) | increase | trunk muscle mass | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | increased | #4 |
hula-hooping (HULA) with a 1.5-kg weighted hula-hoop | decrease | waist circumference | overweight nondiabetic subjects | -3.1 ± 0.3 cm | decreased more | #5 |
walking (WALK) | decrease | waist circumference | overweight nondiabetic subjects | -0.7 ± 0.4 cm | decreased | #6 |
walking (WALK) | decrease | systolic blood pressure | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | significantly lowered | #7 |
hula-hooping (HULA) with a 1.5-kg weighted hula-hoop | no change | systolic blood pressure | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | not HULA | #8 |
walking (WALK) | increase | HDL cholesterol | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | increased | #9 |
hula-hooping (HULA) with a 1.5-kg weighted hula-hoop | no change | HDL cholesterol | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | not HULA | #10 |
hula-hooping (HULA) with a 1.5-kg weighted hula-hoop | decrease | LDL cholesterol | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | significantly decreased | #11 |
walking (WALK) | no change | LDL cholesterol | overweight nondiabetic subjects | - | not by WALK | #12 |
hula-hooping (HULA) with a 1.5-kg weighted hula-hoop | decrease | body weight | overweight nondiabetic subjects | -0.6 ± 0.2 kg | changed similarly | #13 |
walking (WALK) | decrease | body weight | overweight nondiabetic subjects | -0.5 ± 0.2 kg | changed similarly | #14 |
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.