| Literature DB >> 30510801 |
Luís Ângelo Macêdo Santiago1, Lídio Gonçalves Lima Neto2, Guilherme Borges Pereira3, Richard Diego Leite4, Cristiano Texeira Mostarda5, Janaina de Oliveira Brito Monzani5, Wandson Rodrigues Sousa6, Aruanã Joaquim Matheus Rodrigues Pinheiro2, Francisco Navarro5.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of resistance training on the immunologic response, body composition, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) gene expression obtained from blood leukocytes, and the cytokines interleukin-6, TNF-alpha, and C-reactive protein (CRP), in the elderly women (mean age 63 ± 2 y). A randomized controlled trial was performed using a bi-set training method for eight weeks in nineteen elderly women. Peripheral blood samples were collected by puncture in pretraining (Pre) and posttraining (Post) moments. In the resistance training group, there was a statistically significant decrease from 38.43 ± 9.48 pg/mL to 11.76 ± 5.19 pg/mL (p=0.01) in the serum levels of interleukin-6. Considering serum levels of TNF-alpha, there was a statistically significant difference, comparing the resistance training group at Pre (66.27 ± 10.31 pg/mL) and Post (37.85 ± 9.05 pg/mL) moments (p=0.01). In molecular analysis of TNF-alpha gene expression, there was a statistically significant decrease (p=0.007) between Pre (0.010 ± 0.01 ng/ml) and Post (0.0002 ± 0.0001 ng/ml) moments. Among CRP data, in the resistance training group, there was a statistically significant reduction, between Pre (2.04 ± 0.32 mg/L) and Post (0.90 ± 0.22 mg/L) moments (p=0.001). In the Control group, there was no statistical significance between these two moments. Therefore, the resistance training demonstrated changes in the TNF-alpha gene expression in elderly women, as well as decreased serum levels of interleukin-6, TNF-alpha, and CRP. Such conditions may be related to immune modulation and anti-inflammatory effects, since resistance training releases cytokines, especially interleukin-6, which acts as a TNF-alpha antagonist during exercise.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30510801 PMCID: PMC6230406 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1467025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Aging Res ISSN: 2090-2204
Figure 1Study design flowchart.
Characteristics of study participants.
| Variable | Control ( | RT ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 63.0 ± 1.0 | 63.0 ± 2.0 | 0.08 |
| Height (m) | 1.4 ± 0.0 | 1.5 ± 0.0 | 0.01 |
| Body mass (kg) | 58.5 ± 3.8 | 63.7 ± 2.4 | 0.04 |
| Fat percentage (%) | 39.1 ± 2.6 | 39.3 ± 1.4 | 0.60 |
| Lean mass percentage (%) | 60.8 ± 2.6 | 60.7 ± 1.4 | 0.60 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Student's T-test for independent samples: statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between RT and Control groups.
Anthropometric characteristics, body composition and lipid profile, in RT and Control groups at Pre and Post (8 weeks) moments.
| Variables | Control ( |
| RT ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |||
| Body mass (kg) | 58.5 ± 3.8 | 58.1 ± 3.8 | 0.9 | 63.7 ± 2.4 | 65.0 ± 2.5 | 0.1 |
| Fat mass (kg) | 22.8 ± 2.9 | 22.2 ± 3.0 | 0.2 | 25.0 ± 1.7 | 23.5 ± 1.7 | 0.02 |
| Lean mass (kg) | 35.6 ± 1.1 | 35.7 ± 1.0 | 0.8 | 38.6 ± 3.6 | 41.4 ± 4.1 | 0.02 |
| Fat percentage (%) | 39.1 ± 2.6 | 38.2 ± 2.7 | 0.9 | 39.3 ± 1.4 | 36.2 ± 1.5 | 0.01 |
| Lean mass percentage (%) | 60.8 ± 2.6 | 61.7 ± 2.7 | 0.5 | 60.7 ± 1.4 | 63.7 ± 1.5 | 0.01 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.8 ± 1.7 | 26.0 ± 1.7 | 0.1 | 27.7 ± 0.9 | 27.5 ± 1.0 | 0.7 |
| WHR (cm) | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.1 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Student's T-test: statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to Pre moment. BMI: body mass index; WHR: waist-to-hip ratio.
Evolution of training load in first, fourth, and 8th weeks of RT.
| Exercises | RT ( | Effect size (Δ) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st week | 4th week | 8th week | |||
| Seated leg press (kg) | 20.7 ± 3.8 | 33.6 ± 1.1 | 45.48 ± 1.4 | 6.3 | 0.0001 |
| Elbow flexion (low pulley) (kg) | 9.0 ± 1.8 | 13.8 ± 0.3 | 17.83 ± 0.4 | 4.8 | 0.0001 |
| Knee extension (kg) | 9.9 ± 0.5 | 18.4 ± 0.6 | 25.90 ± 0.8 | 28.0 | 0.0001 |
| Supine seated (kg) | 7.1 ± 0.3 | 13.8 ± 0.4 | 17.96 ± 0.7 | 29.2 | 0.0001 |
| Lying knee flexion (kg) | 7.9 ± 0.4 | 15.5 ± 2.0 | 17.09 ± 0.5 | 22.1 | 0.0001 |
| Pulley (back) (kg) | 13.2 ± 0.5 | 21.9 ± 0.4 | 27.03 ± 0.5 | 26.4 | 0.0001 |
| Plantar flexion (seated leg press) (kg) | 20.0 ± 0.7 | 33.38 ± 0.9 | 43.56 ± 1.2 | 30.9 | 0.0001 |
| Elbow extension (pulley) (kg) | 8.6 ± 0.6 | 16.42 ± 0.4 | 20.20 ± 0.4 | 19.0 | 0.0001 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's post hoc test: statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to the first week; †statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to the fourth week. Δ: effect size measures on the evolution of training load among the analyzed weeks. RT: resistance training.
Figure 2Dispersion measurements of interleukin-6 between Control (n=10) and RT (n=19) groups at Pre and Post moments. Two-way ANOVA test: statistically significant difference (p=0.01) between Pre and Post moments in the RT group; #statistically significant difference (p=0.0006) between Post moments in the RT vs Control groups; Østatistically significant interaction (p=0.05).
Figure 3Dispersion measurements of tumor necrosis factor-α between Control (n=10) and RT (n=19) groups at Pre and Post moments. Two-way ANOVA test: statistically significant difference (p=0.01) between Pre and Post moments in the RT group; #statistically significant difference (p=0.05) between Post moments in the RT vs Control groups; Østatistically significant interaction (p=0.05).
Figure 4Measurements of tumor necrosis factor-α gene expression between Control (n=4) and RT (n=5) groups at Pre and Post moments. Two-way ANOVA test: statistically significant difference (p=0.007) between Pre and Post moments in the RT group.
Figure 5Dispersion measurements of C-reactive protein between Control (n=10) and RT (n=19) groups at Pre and Post moments. Two-way ANOVA test: statistically significant difference (p=0.001) between Pre and Post moments in the RT group; #statistically significant difference (p=0.01) between Post moments in the RT vs Control groups; Østatistically significant interaction (p=0.01).