4.3 Article

Leisure-time physical activity does not fully explain the higher body mass index in irregular-shift workers

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-013-0850-4

关键词

Leptin; Ghrelin; Irregular-shift workers; Obesity; Exercise

资金

  1. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)
  2. CNPq (Brazil-National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development) [200388-2010-0, 142261/2008-4]
  3. CNPq [474199/2008-8]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To elucidate the influence of leisure-time physical activity on body mass index (BMI), appetite-related hormones, and sleep when working irregular shifts. A cross-sectional study was undertaken of 57 male truck drivers, 31 irregular-shift workers and 26 day-shift workers. Participants completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and were assessed for BMI. Subjects also provided a fasting blood sample for analysis of appetite-related hormones and wore an actigraphy device for seven consecutive days. Although leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) was generally low (< 150 min/week) in both groups, the irregular-shift workers were more physically active than day-shift workers (99 +/- A 166 vs. 23 +/- A 76 min/week, p < 0.01). In spite of this, mean BMI of irregular-shift workers was 2 kg/m(2) greater than day-shift workers (28.4 +/- A 3.8 vs. 26.4 +/- A 3.6 kg/m(2), p = 0.04). Mean leptin concentration was 61 % higher in irregular-shift workers (5,205 +/- A 4,181 vs. 3,179 +/- A 2,413 pg/ml, p = 0.04). Among obese individuals, irregular-shift workers had higher leptin concentration (p < 0.01) and shorter sleep duration (p = 0.01) than obese day-shift workers. Elevated BMI was associated with high leptin and low ghrelin levels in this population of irregular-shift workers. No influence of LTPA on appetite-related hormones or sleep duration was found. We conclude that moderate LTPA is insufficient to attenuate the higher BMI associated with this type of irregular-shift work in truck drivers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据