4.6 Article

Chronic Influence of Inspiratory Muscle Training at Different Intensities on the Serum Metabolome

期刊

METABOLITES
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/metabo10020078

关键词

breathing exercises; muscle strength; muscle endurance; inspiratory muscle; metabolomics; metabolism

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil (CAPES, Postgraduate Program in Physiotherapy) [001]
  2. Sao Paulo Research Foundation-FAPESP [2016/222157]
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil (Bolsa Demanda Social) [88887.336068/2019-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the chronic effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on the human serum metabolome in healthy male recreational cyclists. Using a randomized, parallel group design, twenty-eight participants were randomized to three IMT groups: low intensity (LI, n = 7); moderate intensity (MI, n = 10); and high intensity (HI, n = 11). The IMT was performed for 11 weeks. Another group of participants under the same conditions, who did not perform the IMT but participated in all procedures, was included as controls (CG, n = 6). Blood samples were collected one week before and after 11 weeks of IMT and analyzed for metabolite shifts using 1H NMR. Statistical analysis included a 4 (group) x 2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA using the general linear model (GLM), and multivariate principal component analysis (PCA). Untargeted metabolomics analysis of serum samples identified 22 metabolites, including amino acids, lipids, and tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates. Metabolites shifts did not differ between groups, indicating that IMT at three intensity levels did not alter the serum metabolome relative to the control group. These results reveal novel insights into the metabolic effects of the IMT and are consistent with the results from other studies showing negligible chronic alterations in the serum metabolome in response to physical training.

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

4.6
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