| Literature DB >> 29865194 |
Elisabetta Carraro1, Tiziana Schilirò2, Felicina Biorci3, Valeria Romanazzi4, Raffaella Degan5, Daniela Buonocore6, Manuela Verri7, Maurizia Dossena8, Sara Bonetta9, Giorgio Gilli10.
Abstract
Oxidative stress (OS) has been recognized to play a primary role in many acute and chronic diseases. Environmental and lifestyle factors, such as physical activity and dietary intake are involved in the oxidative balance, but their specific influence remains unclear. In order to contribute to a greater characterization of the oxidative status in relation to exercise training and to environmental and lifestyle factors, different biomarkers-pro-oxidant capacity (d-ROMs), anti-oxidant capacity (BAP), radical scavenging activity (DPPH) and DNA damage (8-OHdGuo)-were measured in biological samples of a group of healthy middle aged subjects. The evaluation of the investigated biomarkers highlighted a significant effect of exercise training on OS, measured as d-ROMs and 8OhdGuo, in subjects playing regular physical activity. An association of the OS status measured by DPPH and 8-OhdGuo with the condition of living in urban high traffic areas was also found. Otherwise dietary habits did not reveal any significant effect on OS levels by the investigated biomarkers. As a whole the results obtained in this investigation suggested that a correct lifestyle, with regular physical activity practice, contributes to control the OS status in middle age subjects.Entities:
Keywords: dietary habits; exercise training; lifestyle; oxidative stress; physical activity; public health
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29865194 PMCID: PMC6025138 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15061152
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study design: evaluation of biological markers of OS in a healthy middle age adult group in relation to exercise training, taking into account the influence of environmental and lifestyle factors.
ANOVA analysis of the impedance measures stratified by selected individual characteristics of the study population (ns = not significant).
|
| Mean ± SD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI | PA | TBW | FM | ||
|
| |||||
| ♂ | 32 | 24.2 ± 3.7 | 7.1 ± 0.7 | 26.1 ± 3.1 | 7.2 ± 3.9 |
| ♀ | 19 | 20.7 ± 2.8 | 6.2 ± 0.7 | 20.2 ± 1.7 | 6.5 ± 3.4 |
|
| <0.001 | ≤0.0001 | ≤0.0001 | ns | |
|
| |||||
| ≤39 | 16 | 22.5 ± 4.7 | 7.0 ± 0.7 | 23.6 ± 4.0 | 6.4 ± 4.4 |
| 40–44 | 19 | 23.0 ± 3.7 | 6.6 ± 0.8 | 24.4 ± 4.0 | 7.5 ± 3.5 |
| ≥45 | 16 | 23.0 ± 3.0 | 6.8 ± 0.9 | 23.8 ± 3.8 | 6.9 ± 3.4 |
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns | |
|
| |||||
| No | 41 | 22.9 ± 3.9 | 6.7 ± 0.8 | 23.9 ± 4.03 | 7.1 ± 3.8 |
| Yes | 10 | 22.8 ± 3.4 | 6.9 ± 0.6 | 24.0 ± 3.5 | 6.3 ± 3.7 |
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns | |
|
| |||||
| Untrained | 16 | 22.9 ± 3.7 | 6.8 ± 0.7 | 24.1 ± 3.6 | 6.7 ± 3.9 |
| Trained | 35 | 22.8 ± 3.9 | 6.7 ± 0.8 | 23.8 ± 4.1 | 7.0 ± 3.7 |
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns | |
Descriptive analysis of the OS parameters at rest condition of the whole group of participants (Trc time point) stratified by gender, environmental contributions and life styles (ns = not significant).
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| ♂ | 32 | 16.67 ± 3.99 | 32 | 2346.56 ± 631.05 | 31 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 32 | 82.25 ± 139.08 |
| ♀ | 19 | 19.94 ± 3.88 | 19 | 2374.37 ± 167.53 | 19 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 19 | 46.50 ± 54.93 |
|
| <0.01 | ns | ns | ns | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Untrained | 16 | 17.89 ± 4.11 | 16 | 2313.81 ± 163.65 | 15 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 16 | 39.01 ± 55.31 |
| Trained | 35 | 17.89 ± 4.33 | 35 | 2376.63 ± 604.26 | 35 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 35 | 82.61 ± 133.11 |
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Low | 25 | 17.15 ± 3.43 | 25 | 2413.44 ± 671.79 | 24 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 25 | 36.36 ± 40.55 |
| Heavy | 26 | 18.60 ± 4.83 | 26 | 2302.58 ± 273.62 | 26 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 26 | 100.26 ± 152.01 |
|
| ns | ns | <0.05 | <0.05 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| No | 41 | 17.59 ± 4.26 | 41 | 2390.49 ± 536.23 | 40 | 0.073 ± 0.01 | 41 | 76.18 ± 126.36 |
| Yes | 10 | 19.14 ± 4.04 | 10 | 2219.30 ± 353.11 | 10 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 10 | 39.23 ± 46.68 |
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns |
Bivariate correlations between body features and OS parameters. Spearman’s Rho coefficients and p values are reported only for significant correlations (ns = not significant).
| Spearman’s Coefficient; | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| d-ROMs | BAP | DPPH | 8OhdGuo | |
|
| ||||
| ♂ ( | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ♀ ( | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| All ( | 0.278; | ns | ns | ns |
|
| ||||
| ♂ ( | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ♀ ( | ns | ns | −0.631; | ns |
| All ( | ns | ns | −0.509; | ns |
|
| ||||
| ♂ ( | −0.529; | ns | ns | ns |
| ♀ ( | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| All ( | −0.557; | ns | ns | ns |
|
| ||||
| ♂ ( | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ♀ ( | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| All ( | −0.315; | ns | −0.323; | ns |
|
| ||||
| ♂ ( | Ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ♀ ( | Ns | ns | ns | ns |
| All ( | 0.306; | ns | ns | 0.308; |
Frequency percentage of specific food intake of all 51 subjects.
| % | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Never–1 time/week | 2–4 times/week | 5–7 times/week | |
|
| |||
| red wine | 27.5 | 0.0 | 72.5 |
| other alcoholic beverages | 27.5 | 0.0 | 72.5 |
|
| |||
| boiled | 58.8 | 25.5 | 15.7 |
| steam | 41.2 | 35.3 | 23.5 |
| fried | 17.6 | 80.4 | 2.0 |
| grilled | 54.9 | 23.5 | 21.6 |
|
| |||
| blueberries | 54.9 | 45.1 | 0.0 |
| cabbage | 15.7 | 74.5 | 9.8 |
| spinach | 19.6 | 66.7 | 13.7 |
| beet | 62.7 | 33.3 | 3.9 |
| blackberries | 45.1 | 54.9 | 0.0 |
| plum | 33.3 | 62.7 | 3.9 |
| cabbage | 35.3 | 54.9 | 9.8 |
| grapefruit | 45.1 | 45.1 | 9.8 |
| strawberries | 5.9 | 76.5 | 17.6 |
| orange | 9.8 | 58.8 | 31.4 |
| pepper | 9.8 | 78.4 | 11.8 |
| kiwi | 25.5 | 52.9 | 21.6 |
| beans | 9.8 | 64.7 | 25.5 |
| cauliflower | 7.8 | 74.5 | 17.6 |
|
| |||
| red meat | 7.8 | 86.3 | 5.9 |
| sausages | 3.9 | 96.1 | 0.0 |
| fish | 5.9 | 94.1 | 0.0 |
| eggs | 3.9 | 96.1 | 0.0 |
| fruits | 0.0 | 17.6 | 82.4 |
| vegetables | 3.9 | 25.5 | 70.6 |
| legumes | 0.0 | 96.1 | 3.9 |
| milk dairy | 11.8 | 0.0 | 88.2 |
| sugary beverages | 33.3 | 64.7 | 2.0 |
| dessert | 5.9 | 66.7 | 27.5 |
| junk food | 47.1 | 52.9 | 0.0 |
| coffee, tea | 5.9 | 3.9 | 90.2 |
| dark chocolate | 25.5 | 66.7 | 7.8 |
Figure 2Biomarkers of OS status in trained subjects at T0 and T1 time (* p = 0.030 Trained T0 vs. T1; # p = 0.049 Trained T0 vs. T1).