3.8 Article

Aerobic Physical Exercise Improved the Cognitive Function of Elderly Males but Did Not Modify Their Blood Homocysteine Levels

Journal

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000369160

Keywords

Homocysteine; Cognitive function; Physical exercise; Elderly subjects; Aerobic training; Metabolic profile

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Physical exercise influences homocysteine (Hcy) concentrations, cognitive function and the metabolic profile. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of regular physical exercise on Hcy levels, the metabolic profile and cognitive function in healthy elderly males before and after an endurance exercise program. Methods: Forty-five healthy and sedentary volunteers were randomized into 2 groups: (1) a control group asked not to change their normal everyday activities and not to start any regular physical exercise program and (2) an experimental group trained at a heart rate intensity corresponding to ventilatory threshold 1 (VT-1) for 60 min/day 3 times weekly on alternate days for 6 months using a cycle ergometer. All volunteers underwent cognitive evaluations, blood sample analyses and ergospirometric assessments. Results: A significant improvement in cognitive function was observed in the experimental group compared with the control group (p < 0.05). No significant changes in Hcy levels were observed in the experimental group (p > 0.05), but there was a significant increase in peak oxygen consumption and workload at VT-1 as well as a significant improvement in cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL, glucose, alkaline phosphatase, urea, T-3, T-4 and prostate-specific antigen compared with the control group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The data suggest that a physical exercise program does not reduce Hcy levels in healthy elderly males, although it improves the cardiovascular and metabolic profile as well as cognitive function. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available