4.7 Article

The beneficial effects of exercise in rodents are preserved after detraining: a phenomenon unrelated to GLUT4 expression

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR DIABETOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2840-9-67

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although exercise training has well-known cardiorespiratory and metabolic benefits, low compliance with exercise training programs is a fact, and the harmful effects of physical detraining regarding these adaptations usually go unnoticed. We investigated the effects of exercise detraining on blood pressure, insulin sensitivity, and GLUT4 expression in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) and normotensive Wistar Kyoto rats (WKY). Methods: Studied animals were randomized into sedentary, trained (treadmill running/5 days a week, 60 min/day for 10 weeks), 1 week of detraining, and 2 weeks of detraining. Blood pressure (tail-cuff system), insulin sensitivity (kITT), and GLUT4 (Western blot) in heart, gastrocnemius and white fat tissue were measured. Results: Exercise training reduced blood pressure (19%), improved insulin sensitivity (24%), and increased GLUT4 in the heart (+34%); gastrocnemius (+36%) and fat (+22%) in SHR. In WKY no change in either blood pressure or insulin sensitivity were observed, but there was an increase in GLUT4 in the heart (+25%), gastrocnemius (+45%) and fat (+36%) induced by training. Both periods of detraining did not induce any change in neither blood pressure nor insulin sensitivity in SHR and WKY. One-week detraining reduced GLUT4 in SHR (heart: -28%; fat: -23%) and WKY (heart: -19%; fat: -22%); GLUT4 in the gastrocnemius was reduced after a 2-week detraining (SHR: -35%; WKY: -25%). There was a positive correlation between GLUT4 (gastrocnemius) and the maximal velocity in the exercise test (r = 0.60, p = 0.004). Conclusions: The study findings show that in detraining, despite reversion of the enhanced GLUT4 expression, cardiorespiratory and metabolic beneficial effects of exercise are preserved.

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