4.7 Article

Global Metabolic Stress of Isoeffort Continuous and High Intensity Interval Aerobic Exercise: A Comparative 1H NMR Metabonomic Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 4452-4463

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00545

关键词

metabolomics; exercise; aerobic; interval exercise; metabolites; metabolism; carbohydrates; lipids; amino acids; NMR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The overall metabolic/energetic stress that occurs during an acute bout of exercise is proposed to be the main driving force for long-term training adaptations. Continuous and high-intensity interval exercise protocols (HIIE) are currently prescribed to acquire the muscular and metabolic benefits of aerobic training. We applied H-1 NMR-based metabonomics to compare the overall metabolic perturbation and activation of individual bioenergetic pathways of three popular aerobic exercises matched for effort/strain. Nine men performed continuous, long-interval (3 min), and short-interval (30 s) bouts of exercise under isoeffort conditions. Blood was collected before and after exercise. The multivariate PCA and OPLS-DA models showed a distinct separation of pre- and postexercise samples in three protocols. The two models did not discriminate the postexercise overall metabolic profiles of the three exercise types. Analysis focused on muscle bioenergetic pathways revealed an extensive upregulation of carbohydrate-lipid metabolism and the TCA cycle in all three protocols; there were only a few differences among protocols in the postexercise abundance of molecules when long-interval bouts were performed. In conclusion, continuous and HIIE exercise protocols, when performed with similar effort/strain, induce comparable global metabolic response/stress despite their marked differences in work-bout intensities. This study highlights the importance of NMR metabonomics in comprehensive monitoring of metabolic consequences of exercise training in the,blood of athletes and exercising individuals.

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