4.5 Article

Effects of different exercise modes on mineralization, structure, and biomechanical properties of growing bone

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 95, 期 1, 页码 300-307

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01076.2002

关键词

weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing exercise; rat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Weight bearing during exercise plays an important role in improving the mechanical properties of bone. The effect on bone of non-weight-bearing exercise such as swimming remains controversial. To investigate the effects of exercise mode on growing bone, 29 male Wistar rats ( 7 wk old) were randomly assigned to a running exercise group ( Run, n = 9), a swimming exercise group ( Swim, n = 10), or a nonexercise control group (Con, n = 10). During an 8-wk training session ( 20 - 60 min/day, 5 days/wk), the Run rats were trained at progressively increasing running speeds ( 12 - 22 m/min), and weights attached to the tail of the Swim rats were progressively increased from 0 to 2% of their body weight. The bone mineral density of the proximal tibiae of the Run rats was significantly higher than in the Swim ( P < 0.05). Femoral wet weights of the two exercise groups were significantly higher than in the control group ( P < 0.05). Interestingly, the percent difference between the tissue wet weight and dry weight ( water content ratio), which is related to bone mechanical properties, was significantly higher in the tibiae of the Swim rats and the femora of both exercise groups compared with controls ( P < 0.05). Extrinsic as well as intrinsic biomechanical material properties were measured in a threepoint bending test. Bone mechanical properties of the tibiae and femora of rats in the Swim and Run groups were significantly greater than those in the control group ( P < 0.05). In summary, different modes of exercise may benefit bone mechanical properties in different ways. The specific effects of swimming exercise ( non-weight-bearing exercise) on bone require further study.

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