4.7 Article

Effect of oral CoQ10 supplementation along with precooling strategy on cellular response to oxidative stress in elite swimmers

期刊

FOOD & FUNCTION
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 4384-4393

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8fo00960k

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High intensity and prolonged swimming trainings in a hot and humid environment lead to stimulated and increased production of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS). In this study, we examined the effects of 14-day coenzyme Q(10) (CoQ(10)) supplementation and precooling strategy on the serum levels of NADPH-oxidase (NOX), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), lactic acid (LA), creatine kinase (CK), 8-isoprostane (8-iso PGF(2 alpha)), 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), protein carbonyls (PC), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) in adolescent elite swimmers. Thirty-six healthy boys (mean +/- SD: age = 17 +/- 1 years) were randomly assigned into 4 groups: supplementation, precooling, supplementation with precooling, and control. Blood sampling was carried out pre- and post- (two stages) administration of CoQ10 along with precooling with heavy trainings. ANCOVA and repeated measurement tests with the Bonferroni post-hoc test were used for statistical analysis of data (alpha = 0.05). No significant difference was found among the groups for serum levels of H2O2, NADPH-oxidase, CK, LA, 8-OHdG, 8-iso PGF(2 alpha), PC, AST, ALT, and GGT at pre-sampling (P > 0.05). The precooling group showed significant increase in index levels compared to the supplementation and supplementation with precooling groups in post sampling (stages 1 and 2), respectively (P < 0.05). Oral administration of CoQ(10) inhibited adverse changes in oxidative stress and muscle and liver damage indices in the competition phase of swimming. No desired effect of the precooling strategy was found on the serum levels of NADPH-oxidase, CK, LA, 8-iso PGF(2 alpha), 8-OHdG, H2O2, AST, PC, ALT, and GGT.

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

4.7
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