Dataset Information

Differences in Immune Response During Competition and Preparation Phase in Elite Rowers.

ABSTRACT: Background: Metabolic stress is high during training and competition of Olympic rowers, but there is a lack of biomedical markers allowing to quantify training load on the molecular level. We aimed to identify such markers applying a complex approach involving inflammatory and immunologic variables. Methods: Eleven international elite male rowers (age 22.7 ± 2.4 yrs.; VO₂max 71 ± 5 ml·min^-1·kg^-1) of the German National Rowing team were monitored at competition phase (COMP) vs. preparation phase (PREP), representing high vs. low load. Perceived stress and recovery were assessed by a Recovery Stress Questionnaire for Athletes (RESTQ-76 Sport). Immune cell activation (dendritic cell (DC)/macrophage/monocytes/T-cells) was evaluated via fluorescent activated cell sorting. Cytokines, High-Mobility Group Protein B1 (HMGB1), cell-free DNA (cfDNA), creatine kinase (CK), uric acid (UA), and kynurenine (KYN) were measured in venous blood. Results: Rowers experienced more general stress and less recovery during COMP, but sports-related stress and recovery did not differ from PREP. During COMP, DC/macrophage/monocyte and T-regulatory cells (T_reg-cell) increased (p = 0.001 and 0.010). HMGB1 and cfDNA increased in most athletes during COMP (p = 0.001 and 0.048), while CK, UA, and KYN remained unaltered (p = 0.053, 0.304, and 0.211). Pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β (p = 0.002), TNF-α (p < 0.001), and the chemokine IL-8 (p = 0.001) were elevated during COMP, while anti-inflammatory Il-10 was lower (p = 0.002). Conclusion: COMP resulted in an increase in biomarkers reflecting tissue damage, with plausible evidence of immune cell activation that appeared to be compensated by anti-inflammatory mechanisms, such as T_reg-cell proliferation. We suggest an anti-inflammatory and immunological matrix approach to optimize training load quantification in elite athletes.

SUBMITTER: Bizjak DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8718927 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Polarized (POL) training intensity distribution (TID) emphasizes high-volume low-intensity exercise in zone (Z)1 (< first lactate threshold) with a greater proportion of high-intensity Z3 (>second lactate threshold) compared to Z2 (between first and second lactate threshold). In highly trained rowers there is a lack of prospective controlled evidence whether POL is superior to pyramidal (PYR; i.e., greater volume in Z1 vs. Z2 vs. Z3) TID. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of POL vs. PYR TID in rowers during an 11-wk preparation period. Fourteen national elite male rowers participated (age: 20 ± 2 years, maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max): 66 ± 5 mL/min/kg). The sample was split into PYR and POL by varying the percentage spent in Z2 and Z3 while Z1 was clamped to ~93% and matched for total and rowing volume. Actual TIDs were based on time within heart rate zones (Z1 and Z2) and duration of Z3-intervals. The main outcome variables were average power in 2,000 m ergometer-test (P2,000 m), power associated with 4 mmol/L [blood lactate] (P4[BLa]), and [Formula: see text]O2max. To quantify the level of polarization, we calculated a Polarization-Index as log (%Z1 × %Z3 / %Z2). PYR and POL did not significantly differ regarding rowing or total volume, but POL had a higher percentage of Z3 intensities (6 ± 3 vs. 2 ± 1%; p < 0.005) while Z2 was lower (1 ± 1 vs. 3 ± 2%; p < 0.05) and Z1 was similar (94 ± 3 vs. 93 ± 2%, p = 0.37). Consequently, Polarization-Index was significantly higher in POL (3.0 ± 0.7 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4 a.u.; p < 0.01). P2,000 m did not significantly change with PYR (1.5 ± 1.7%, p = 0.06) nor POL (1.5 ± 2.6%, p = 0.26). [Formula: see text]2max did not change (1.7 ± 5.6%, p = 0.52 or 0.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.67) and a small increase in P4[BLa] was observed in PYR only (1.9 ± 4.8%, p = 0.37 or -0.5 ± 4.1%, p = 0.77). Changes from pre to post were not significantly different between groups in any performance measure. POL did not prove to be superior to PYR, possibly due to the high and very similar percentage of Z1 in this study.

Project description:Competitive bodybuilders employ a combination of resistance training, cardiovascular exercise, calorie reduction, supplementation regimes and peaking strategies in order to lose fat mass and maintain fat free mass. Although recommendations exist for contest preparation, applied research is limited and data on the contest preparation regimes of bodybuilders are restricted to case studies or small cohorts. Moreover, the influence of different nutritional strategies on competitive outcome is unknown.Fifty-one competitors (35 male and 16 female) volunteered to take part in this project. The British Natural Bodybuilding Federation (BNBF) runs an annual national competition for high level bodybuilders; competitors must qualify by winning at a qualifying events or may be invited at the judge's discretion. Competitors are subject to stringent drug testing and have to undergo a polygraph test. Study of this cohort provides an opportunity to examine the dietary practices of high level natural bodybuilders. We report the results of a cross-sectional study of bodybuilders competing at the BNBF finals. Volunteers completed a 34-item questionnaire assessing diet at three time points. At each time point participants recorded food intake over a 24-h period in grams and/or portions. Competitors were categorised according to contest placing. A "placed" competitor finished in the top 5, and a "Non-placed" (DNP) competitor finished outside the top 5. Nutrient analysis was performed using Nutritics software. Repeated measures ANOVA and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were used to test if nutrient intake changed over time and if placing was associated with intake.Mean preparation time for a competitor was 22?±?9 weeks. Nutrient intake of bodybuilders reflected a high-protein, high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet. Total carbohydrate, protein and fat intakes decreased over time in both male and female cohorts (P <?0.05). Placed male competitors had a greater carbohydrate intake at the start of contest preparation (5.1 vs 3.7 g/kg BW) than DNP competitors (d =?1.02, 95% CI [0.22, 1.80]).Greater carbohydrate intake in the placed competitors could theoretically have contributed towards greater maintenance of muscle mass during competition preparation compared to DNP competitors. These findings require corroboration, but will likely be of interest to bodybuilders and coaches.

Project description:BackgroundTo prepare for competition, bodybuilders employ strategies based around: energy restriction, resistance training, cardiovascular exercise, isometric "posing", and supplementation. Cohorts of professional (PRO) natural bodybuilders offer insights into how these strategies are implemented by elite competitors, and are undocumented in the scientific literature.MethodsForty-seven competitors (33 male (8 PRO, 25 amateur (AMA), 14 female (5 PRO, 9 AMA) participated in the study. All PROs were eligible to compete with the Drug Free Athletes Coalition (DFAC), and all AMAs were recruited from the British Natural Bodybuilding Federation (BNBF). Competitors in these organisations are subject to a polygraph and are drug tested in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Agency. We report the results of a cross-sectional study of drug free bodybuilders competing at BNBF qualifying events, and the DFAC and World Natural Bodybuilding Federation finals. Participants completed a 34-item questionnaire assessing dietary intake at three time points (start, middle and end) of competition preparation. Participants recorded their food intake over a 24-h period in grams and/or portions. Dietary intakes of PRO and AMA competitors were then compared. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to test if nutrient intake changed over time, and for associations with division.ResultsMale PROs reported significantly (p?<?0.05) more bodybuilding experience than AMAs (PRO: 12.3 +/-?9.2, AMA: 2.4 +/-?1.4?yrs). Male PROs lost less body mass per week (PRO: 0.5 +/-?0.1, AMA: 0.7 +/-?0.2%, p?<?0.05), and reported more weeks dieting (PRO: 28.1 +/-?8.1, AMA: 21.0 +/-?9.4 wks, P?=?0.06). Significant differences (p?<?0.05) of carbohydrate and energy were also recorded, as well as a difference (p?=?0.03) in the estimated energy deficit (EED), between male PRO (2.0 +/-?5.5?kcal) and AMA (-?3.4 +/-?5.5?kcal) competitors.ConclusionsLonger diets and slower weight loss utilized by PROs likely contributed towards a lower EED compared to the AMAs. Slower weight loss may constitute an effective strategy for maintaining energy availability and muscle mass during an energy deficit. These findings require corroboration, but will interest bodybuilders and coaches.

Dataset Information

Differences in Immune Response During Competition and Preparation Phase in Elite Rowers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets