| Literature DB >> 31543827 |
Marta Camacho-Cardenosa1, Alba Camacho-Cardenosa1, Martin Burtscher2, Javier Brazo-Sayavera3,4, Pablo Tomas-Carus5,6, Guillermo Olcina1, Rafael Timón1.
Abstract
Prevention and treatment of osteoporosis are an issue of great concern in public health so that the increase/maintenance of whole-body bone mineral density (BMD) is clinically relevant and could reduce the financial burden. Whole-body vibration (WBV) has been recently proposed as a potential alternative to bone stimulation, which combined with therapies, could provide a new treatment for osteoporosis prevention. In this sense, moderate cyclic hypoxia protocols may help to restrain osteoclastic activity and/or stimulate osteoblastic activity, enhance the effects of whole-body vibration alone. So, the present study investigated the effects of cyclic hypoxic exposure combined with WBV training on BMD of the elderly. Healthy elderly persons (n = 30) were randomly assigned to a (1) Hypoxia-Whole Body Vibration group (HWBV; n = 10), (2) Normoxic-Whole Body Vibration group (NWBV; n = 10) or (3) Control group (CON; n = 10). During 18 weeks, HWBV performed WBV treatment under normobaric hypoxic conditions (16.1% FiO2). A vibration session included 4 bouts of 30 s (12.6 Hz-4 mm) with 1 min rest between bouts. NWBV performed the same vibration treatment as HWBV but under normoxic conditions. Whole-body and proximal femur BMD (g⋅cm-2) were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Two-way ANOVA indicated a borderline significant (p = 0.07) time x group interaction for total BMD; post hoc analysis revealed a slight but significant (p = 0.021) increase of BMD after treatment in the HWBV group. In conclusion, 18-week WBV training with hypoxic stimuli has shown positive effects for the participants of the current study. As changes did not differ significantly between groups, future large-scale studies will be necessary to confirm these findings.Entities:
Keywords: bone metabolism; bone mineral density; normobaric hypoxia; osteoporosis; whole-body vibration
Year: 2019 PMID: 31543827 PMCID: PMC6728928 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
FIGURE 1Flow of participants through each stage of the trial. HWBV, hypoxia whole body vibration group. NWBV, normoxia whole body vibration group; CON, control group; F, female; M, male.
Baseline characteristics of the sample.
| Age (years) | 73.50(70.11−76.89) | 69.00(65.21−72.79) | 73.40(69.81−−76.99) | 0.091 |
| BMI (kg⋅m–2) | 28.86(25.85−31.86) | 29.38(25.77−32.99) | 28.86(26.35−31.36) | 0.951 |
| Fat mass (%) | 37.02(30.83−43.22) | 34.11(27.37−40.86) | 38.26(33.49−43.03) | 0.529 |
| Lean mass (%) | 62.98(56.78−69.17) | 62.95(52.29−73.61) | 61.74(56.97−66.50) | 0.957 |
| Past BPAQ (score) | 8.03(3.69−12.38) | 10.17(4.23−16.11) | 6.92(1.28−12.56) | 0.619 |
| Total BMD (gr.cm–2) | 1.061(0.977−1.145) | 1.112(1.018−1.21) | 1.034(0.968−1.100) | 0.321 |
| Sex: | 0.155 | |||
| - Malea | 3(30.00%) | 5(50.00%) | 2(20.00%) | |
| - Femalea | 7(70.00%) | 5(50.00%) | 8(80.00%) |
FIGURE 2Physiological challenges of oxygen saturation (A) and heart rate (B) controlled in the second minute of warm-up (warm up), before whole body vibration protocol (pre-training), between second and third set of whole body vibration protocol (mid-training) and after whole body vibration protocol (post-training). Significantly differences from HWBV: ∗∗p < 0.01. Values are means and 95% Confidence Intervals. NWBV, normoxia whole body vibration group; HWBV, hypoxia whole body vibration group.”
Bone Mineral Density measurement outcomes (g⋅cm–2) at baseline and after 18 weeks of normoxia-whole body vibration exercise (N = 10), combined hypoxia-whole body vibration exercise (N = 10) and in control group (N = 10).
| NWBV | 1.112 (1.018–1.206) | –1.17 | 1.099 (1.005–1.193) | 0.08 | 52.0 | 4.66 | 0.421 | 0.424 | 0.072 |
| HWBV | 1.061 (0.977–1.145) | + 3.58 | 1.099 (1.021–1.177) | 0.35 | 6.75 | ||||
| CON | 1.034 (0.968–1.100) | + 0.68 | 1.041 (0.973–1.109) | 0.11 | 2.38 | ||||
| NWBV | −0.967 (−2.379–0.446) | + 20.68 | −1.167 (−3.175–0.841) | 0.29 | 64.1 | 39.19 | 0.449 | 0.696 | 1.000 |
| HWBV | −1.257 (−1.653–0.862) | –48.85 | −0.643 (−1.099–0.187) | 1.35 | 77.19 | ||||
| CON | −0.950 (−1.861–0.039) | –10.53 | −0.850 (−1.804–0.104) | 0.09 | 32.59 | ||||
| NWBV | 0.889 (0.792–0.986) | + 1.57 | 0.903 (0.809–0.997) | 0.07 | 14.2 | 3.46 | 0.913 | 0.560 | 0.543 |
| HWBV | 0.837 (0.716–0.958) | + 1.19 | 0.847 (0.726–0.968) | 0.06 | 1.76 | ||||
| CON | 0.830 (0.728–0.932) | 0.96 | 0.838 (0.744–0.932) | 0.07 | 6.91 | ||||
| NWBV | −0.744 (−1.383–0.106) | –13.44 | −0.644 (−1.232–0.058) | 0.13 | 10.4 | 26.63 | 0.877 | 0.658 | 0.684 |
| HWBV | −1.070 (−1.840–0.300) | –3.74 | −1.030 (−1.804–0.256) | 0.04 | 15.60 | ||||
| CON | −1.040 (−1.801–0.279) | –6.73 | −0.970 (−1.697–0.243) | 0.07 | 45.29 | ||||
| NWBV | 0.697 (0.600–0.793) | + 1.00 | 0.704 (0.610–0.799) | 0.00 | 65.5 | 4.67 | 0.126 | 0.527 | 1.000 |
| HWBV | 0.660 (0.556–0.764) | + 0.61 | 0.664 (0.560–0.768) | 0.00 | 1.92 | ||||
| CON | 0.651 (0.570–0.732) | –2.00 | 0.638 (0.560–0.716) | 0.09 | 5.85 | ||||
| NWBV | 1.048 (0.937–1.159) | + 2.48 | 1.074 (0.964–1.185) | 0.14 | 57.0 | 3.76 | 0.798 | 0.369 | 0.670 |
| HWBV | 0.977 (0.846–1.108) | + 1.43 | 0.991 (0.857–1.125) | 0.05 | 2.33 | ||||
| CON | 0.960 (0.845–1.075) | + 1.56 | 0.975 (0.872–1.078) | 0.07 | 8.92 | ||||
FIGURE 3Heterogeneity of whole-body BMD (A), femoral T-score (B), trochanter BMD (C) and intertrochanteric region BMD (D) values changes absolute, following whole body vibration alone (NWBV) and combined with normobaric hypoxia (HWBV). Dark dash line: minimal detectable change (MDC) to HWBV group; light dash line: minimal detectable change to NWBV group; ∗: intra-individual difference equal or greater than MDC (i.e., 0.07 g⋅cm– 2 of whole body BMD); Δ: absolute change (post- minus pre-training absolute change).