4.4 Article

Exercise-trained young men have higher calcium absorption rates and plasma calcitriol levels compared with age-matched sedentary controls

期刊

CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL
卷 67, 期 3, 页码 215-219

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s002230001132

关键词

athletes; testosterone; calcium absorption; strontium test; calcium intake

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of physical activity on human calcium (Ca) metabolism is still not completely understood. Thus, we investigated fractional Ca absorption using a stable strontium test (Fc(240)), calciotropic hormones, and renal Ca excretion in 31 young men with a high activity level (GH) and in 26 age-matched sedentary control subjects (GL). Weekly hours spent on physical activity, obtained with a questionnaire were 15.0 +/- 6.6 (GH) and 1.0 +/- 1.4 (GL), respectively, Serum testosterone levels were significantly lower in GH compared with GL (P < 0.005). Dietary Ca intake (4-day food record) was twice as high in GH compared with GL men (P < 0.001). GH had significantly higher serum calcitriol levels and Fc(240) values than GL (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively). In a stepwise multiple regression analysis including serum levels of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, calcitriol, testosterone, and dietary Ca intake, only calcitriol was significantly correlated with Fc(240) (P 0.017). Twenty-four hour renal Ca excretion was only slightly higher in GH compared with GL (P < 0.05). However, additional Ca losses might have occurred through the extensive sweating of GH, as indicated by a difference of 1.7 liter between fluid intake and renal fluid excretion (P < 0.001). In summary, we observed a higher fractional Ca absorption rate in physically active young men compared with sedentary controls which is probably mediated by calcitriol. The low testosterone serum levels of the athletes were obviously not a limiting factor in Ca absorption efficiency. An additional Ca retention might, however, only be obtained if absorbed Ca exceeded total obligatory Ca losses.

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