4.7 Article

Physical activity and telomere length in US men and women: An NHANES investigation

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 145-151

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.04.027

关键词

Cell aging; Exercise; Physical activity; Telomeres; NHANES; Oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The principal objective was to determine the extent to which physical activity (PA) accounts for differences in leukocyte telomere length (LTL) in a large random sample of U.S. adults. Another purpose was to assess the extent to which multiple demographic and lifestyle covariates affect the relationship between PA and LTL. A total of 5823 adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 1999-2002) were studied cross-sectionally. Employing the quantitative polymerase chain reaction method, LTL was compared to standard reference DNA. PAwas indexed using MET-minutes using self-reported frequency, intensity, and duration of participation in 62 physical activities. Covariateswere controlled statistically. Telomeres were 15.6 base pairs shorter for each year of chronological age (F - 723.2, P < 0.0001). PA was inversely related to LTL after adjusting for all the covariates (F= 8.3, P= 0.0004). Telomere base pair differences between adultswith High activity and those in the Sedentary, Low, and Moderate groups were 140, 137, and 111, respectively. Adultswith High activity were estimated to have a biologic aging advantage of 9 years (140 base pairs +/- 15.6) over Sedentary adults. The difference in cell aging between those with High and Low activity was also significant, 8.8 years, as was the difference between those with High and Moderate PA (7.1 years). Overall, PAwas significantly and meaningfully associated with telomere length in U.S. men and women. Evidently, adults who participate in high levels of PA tend to have longer telomeres, accounting for years of reduced cellular aging compared to their more sedentary counterparts. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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