| Literature DB >> 31396298 |
Carole Groussard1, Florie Maillard2,3, Emilie Vazeille3,4, Nicolas Barnich3, Pascal Sirvent2, Yolanda F Otero2, Lydie Combaret5, Elise Madeuf6, Antoine Sourdrille2, Geoffroy Delcros2, Monique Etienne2, Allison Teixeira2, Pierre Sauvanet3,4, Vincent Pialoux6,7, Nathalie Boisseau2,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Exercise is an effective strategy to reduce obesity-induced oxidative stress. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two training modalities (moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT)) on the pro/antioxidant status of different tissues in obese Zucker rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31396298 PMCID: PMC6664693 DOI: 10.1155/2019/1965364
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Figure 1Experimental design. CONT: control (no exercise); MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; W: week.
Body composition pre (0 week), middle (5 weeks) and post (10 weeks) training.
| CONT | MICT | HIIT | ANOVA | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W0 | W5 | W10 | W0 | W5 | W10 | W0 | W5 | W10 | G, T, GxT | |
| Body mass (g) | 376 ± 28 | 494 ± 41 | 505 ± 49 | 369 ± 35 | 491 ± 31 | 526 ± 37 | 380 ± 22 | 476 ± 33 | 493 ± 37 | G: 0.315 |
|
| ||||||||||
| FM (%) | 35 ± 2 | 41 ± 1 | 40 ± 2 | 35 ± 2 | 39 ± 2† | 38 ± 2 | 35 ± 3 | 38 ± 2§ | 37 ± 1∗£# | G: 0.001 (HIIT vs. CONT)∗ |
|
| ||||||||||
| FM (g) | 129 ± 19 | 205 ± 20 | 201 ± 27 | 129 ± 17 | 186 ± 15† | 203 ± 21 | 131 ± 22 | 180 ± 11§ | 180 ± 13∗£# | G: 0.043 (HIIT vs. CONT)∗ |
|
| ||||||||||
| FFM (g) | 209 ± 18 | 252 ± 18 | 262 ± 22 | 213 ± 18 | 268 ± 18 | 281 ± 18 | 213 ± 15 | 260 ± 22 | 273 ± 24 | G: 0.157 |
Data are presented as the mean ± SD. CONT: control (no exercise); MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; g: gram; FM (%): percentage of fat mass; FFM: fat-free mass; W0: week 0; W5: week 5; W10: week 10. ∗HIIT vs. CONT: group effect (p < 0.05); †MICT vs. CONT: group×time interaction at W5 (p < 0.05); §HIIT vs. CONT: group×time interaction at W5 (p < 0.05); £HIIT vs. CONT: group×time interaction at W10 (p < 0.05); #HIIT vs. MICT: group×time interaction at W10 (p < 0.05). These data are included in another article dedicated to the effects of HIIT and MICT on gut-adipose tissue cross-talk in obese Zucker rats [34].
Figure 2Effects of 10 weeks of exercise on (a) AOPP level (μmol·g−1), (b) SOD (μmol·min−1g−1), and (c) GPx activities (μmol·min−1g−1) in gastrocnemius samples from the three groups. Data are the mean ± SD. ∗p < 0.05, compared with CONT; #p < 0.05, compared with MICT. CONT: control (no exercise); MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; AOPP: advanced oxidation protein products; SOD: superoxide dismutase; GPx: glutathione peroxidase.
Gastrocnemius muscle pro/antioxidant status after 10 weeks of exercise training.
| CONT | MICT | HIIT | Group effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAT ( | 2.4 ± 0.5 | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 2.2 ± 0.4 |
|
| FRAP ( | 20 ± 8 | 24 ± 10 | 18 ± 5 |
|
| NADPHox ( | 0.48 ± 0.08 | 0.49 ± 0.08 | 0.49 ± 0.13 |
|
| XO ( | 0.29 ± 0.06 | 0.29 ± 0.06 | 0.31 ± 0.07 |
|
Data are presented as the mean ± SD. CONT: control (no exercise); MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; CAT: catalase; FRAP: ferric-reducing antioxidant power; NADPHox: nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase; XO: xanthine oxidase activity.
Adipose tissue pro/antioxidant status after 10 weeks of exercise training.
| CONT | MICT | HIIT | Group effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| CAT ( | 14 ± 5 | 14 ± 4 | 11 ± 3 |
|
| FRAP ( | 102 ± 28 | 109 ± 39 | 115 ± 32 |
|
| SOD ( | 38 ± 15 | 29 ± 23 | 35 ± 24 |
|
| GPx ( | 19 ± 6 | 16 ± 8 | 15 ± 6 |
|
| NADPHox ( | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.1 |
|
| XO ( | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 1.0 ± 0.5 |
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| AOPP ( | 133 ± 52 | 183 ± 66 | 173 ± 46 |
|
| SOD ( | 69 ± 29 | 108 ± 40 | 95 ± 45 |
|
| NADPHox ( | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 3.7 ± 1.6 | 2.8 ± 1.0 |
|
| XO ( | 1.8 ± 1.1 | 2.8 ± 1.5 | 2.2 ± 1.4 |
|
Data are presented as the mean ± SD. CONT: control (no exercise); MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; CAT: catalase activity; FRAP: ferric-reducing antioxidant power; SOD: superoxide dismutase; GPx, glutathione peroxidase; NADPHox: nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase; XO: xanthine oxidase activity; AOPP: advanced oxidation protein product.
Figure 3Effects of 10 weeks of exercise on the AOPP level (μmol·g−1) in subcutaneous adipose tissue samples from the three groups. Data are the mean ± SD. ∗p < 0.05, compared with the CONT group. CONT: control (no exercise); MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; AOPP: advanced oxidation protein products.
Figure 4Effects of 10 weeks of exercise on (a) CAT (μmol·min−1g−1) and (b) GPx (μmol·min−1g−1) activities, and (c) FRAP (μmol·g−1) in the epididymal adipose tissue. Data are mean ± SD. ∗p < 0.05, compared with the CONT group. CONT: control (no exercise); MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; CAT: catalase; GPx, glutathione peroxidase; FRAP: ferric-reducing antioxidant power.
Figure 5Effects of 10 weeks of exercise on (a) MPO content (pg·mL−1) and (b) oxLDL (ng·mL−1) level in plasma. Data are the mean ± SD. ∗p < 0.05, compared with CONT. ##p < 0.01, compared with MICT. CONT: control (no exercise); MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; MPO: myeloperoxidase; oxLDL: oxidized low-density lipoprotein.