4.5 Article

Sleep, ghrelin, leptin and changes in body weight during a 1-year moderate-intensity physical activity intervention

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 466-475

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803438

关键词

physical activity; randomized trial; ghrelin; leptin; sleep; weight change

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [T32 CA090001, R25 CA94880] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships among exercise, sleep, ghrelin and leptin. Methods: We randomly assigned 173 post-menopausal sedentary overweight ( body mass index >= 24.0 kg/m(2) and > 33% body fat) women aged 50-75 years living in western Washington State to either a facility- and home-based moderate-intensity physical activity intervention or a stretching control group. Fasting plasma ghrelin, leptin, measured height, weight and self-reported sleep were assessed at baseline and 12 months. Results: There were no consistent cross-sectional patterns between self-reported sleep measures and ghrelin or leptin at baseline. The weight loss differences between exercisers and stretchers were greater for those who slept less at follow-up than at baseline compared to those whose sleep duration did not change (-3.2 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.8, -0.5). Improvements in sleep quality were associated with significantly greater differences between exercisers and stretchers for ghrelin increases ( improved vs same sleep quality: +115 pg/ml, 95% CI +25, +206) and leptin decreases ( improved vs worsened sleep quality: -5.7 ng/ml, 95% CI -9.5, -1.5). Conclusion: There was only limited evidence that changes in sleep duration or quality modified exercise-induced changes in weight, ghrelin or leptin. Moreover, the observed differences were not in the directions hypothesized. Future longitudinal studies including population-based samples using objective measures of sleep and long follow-up may help to clarify these relationships.

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

4.5
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