4.5 Article

Exercise improves biomarkers of health and stress in animals fed ad libitum

Journal

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 84, Issue 1, Pages 65-72

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.10.010

Keywords

oxidative stress; physical activity; hypokinesis

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [1 R15 AG 20526-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Voluntary and forced exercise decrease morbidity and mortality in laboratory animals. Caloric restriction has similar effects on health and unique benefits on life span. Nonetheless, in most experiments, animals do not have access to physical activity and are fed ad libitum (AL). We hypothesized that with regular access to either unlimited running wheel exercise (EX) or limited physical activity (PA), key biomarkers of health would be enhanced enough to counter some consequences of a sedentary AL lifestyle. This 16-month study compared body weight, tumor number and size, tissue lesions, oxidative stress, and reactive stress in (1) sedentary animals with no access to physical activity (SED); (2) animals with access to hour-long, twice weekly activity in a large box (PA); and (3) animals with access every other day to a running wheel (EX). At the end of the study, EX body weight was 8-9% lower than PA and SED. In addition, EX had no kidney lesions versus 50% in PA and SED, and had smaller tumor size (10 +/- 2 vs. 14 +/- 4 and 30 +/- 4 mm). Exhaustive exercise lowered glutathione/oxidized glutathione ratio in EX and PA. but in SED, the ratio was depressed even in resting animals. In all treatments, prolactin (PRL) levels were lower in resting animals than in acutely exercised animals. In conclusion, EX had the most favorable health biomarkers while SED had the least. PA did not confer gross health benefits different than the SED group, but was biochemically more similar to EX animals. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available