4.3 Article

Effects of Tongue Exercise Frequency on Tongue Muscle Biology and Swallowing Physiology in a Rat Model

Journal

DYSPHAGIA
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 918-934

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-020-10105-2

Keywords

Deglutition; Deglutition disorders; Rat model; Tongue exercise

Funding

  1. NIH [1F31AG059351-01, R01DC018071, R01DC008149, R01DC014358, R37CA225608]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Age-related changes in muscle composition and function are often treated using exercise, including muscles of the tongue to treat swallowing impairments (dysphagia). Although tongue exercise is commonly prescribed, optimal tongue exercise doses have not been determined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effects of varying tongue exercise frequency on tongue force, genioglossus muscle fiber size, composition and metabolism, and swallowing in a rat model. We randomized 41 old and 40 young adult Fischer 344/Brown Norway rats into one of four tongue exercise groups: 5 days/week; 3 days/week; 1 day/week; or sham. Tongue force was higher following all exercise conditions (vs sham); the 5 day/week group had the greatest change in tongue force (p < 0.001). There were no exercise effects on genioglossus (GG) fiber size or MyHC composition (p > 0.05). Significant main effects for age showed a greater proportion of Type I fibers in (p < 0.0001) and increased fiber size of IIa fibers (p = 0.026) in old. There were no significant effects of citrate synthase activity or PGC-1 alpha expression. Significant differences were found in bolus speed and area (size), but findings were potentially influenced by variability. Our findings suggest that tongue force is influenced by exercise frequency; however, these changes were not reflected in characteristics of the GG muscle assayed in this study. Informed by findings of this study, future work in tongue dose optimization will be required to provide better scientific premise for clinical treatments in humans.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available