4.4 Article

Swimming training increases cardiac vagal activity and induces cardiac hypertrophy in rats

期刊

出版社

ASSOC BRAS DIVULG CIENTIFICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-879X2004001200018

关键词

swimming-training exercise; cardiac autonomic balance; hemodynamics hypertrophic effect; parasympathetic system; resting bradycardia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of swimming training (ST) on vagal and sympathetic cardiac effects was investigated in sedentary (S, N = 12) and trained (T, N = 12) male Wistar rats (200-220 g). ST consisted of 60-min swimming sessions 5 days/week for 8 weeks, with a 5% body weight load attached to the tail. The effect of the autonomic nervous system in generating training-induced resting bradycardia (RB) was examined indirectly after cardiac muscarinic and adrenergic receptor blockade. Cardiac hypertrophy was evaluated by cardiac weight and myocyte morphometry. Plasma catecholarnine concentrations and citrate synthase activity in soleus muscle were also determined in both groups. Resting heart rate was significantly reduced in T rats (355 16 vs 330 20 bpm). RB was associated with a significantly increased cardiac vagal effect in T rats (103 25 vs 158:L 40 bpm), since the sympathetic cardiac effect and intrinsic heart rate were similar for the two groups. Likewise, no significant difference was observed for plasma catecholamine concentrations between S and T rats. In T rats, left ventricle weight (13%) and myocyte dimension (21%) were significantly increased, suggesting cardiac hypertrophy. Skeletal muscle citrate synthase activity was significantly increased by 52% in T rats, indicating endurance conditioning. These data suggest that RB induced by ST is mainly mediated parasympathetically and differs from other training modes, like running, that seems to mainly decrease intrinsic heart rate in rats. The increased cardiac vagal activity associated with ST is of clinical relevance, since both are related to increased life expectancy and prevention of cardiac events.

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

4.4
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