Exercise Intensity and Recovery Biomarkers of Injury, Inflammation, and Oxidative Stress, 2016, Bessa et al

forestglip

forestglip

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Staff member
poetinsf said:
This old study on recovery from exercise might prove to be more relevant for ME/CFS and PEM.
Click to expand...

Thanks, here is that study:

Exercise Intensity and Recovery
Biomarkers of Injury, Inflammation, and Oxidative Stress

Bessa, Artur L.; Oliveira, Vanessa N.; Agostini, Guilherme; Oliveira, Renato J.S.; Oliveira, Ana C.S.; White, Gillian E.; Wells, Greg D.; Teixeira, David N.S.; Espindola, Foued S.

Published: February 2016

[Line breaks added]

Abstract
Biomarkers of inflammation, muscle damage, and oxidative stress after high-intensity exercise have been described previously; however, further understanding of their role in the postexercise recovery period is necessary. Because these markers have been implicated in cell signaling, they may be specifically related to the training adaptations induced by high-intensity exercise. Thus, a clear model showing their responses to exercise may be useful in characterizing the relative recovery status of an athlete.

The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to investigate the time course of markers of muscle damage and inflammation in the blood from 3 to 72 hours after combined training exercises and (b) to investigate indicators of oxidative stress and damage associated with increased reactive oxygen species production during high-intensity exercise in elite athletes.

Nineteen male athletes performed a combination of high-intensity aerobic and anaerobic training exercises. Samples were acquired immediately before and at 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after exercise.

The appearance and clearance of creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase in the blood occurred faster than previous studies have reported. The neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio summarizes the mobilization of 2 leukocyte subpopulations in a single marker and may be used to predict the end of the postexercise recovery period.

Further analysis of the immune response using serum cytokines indicated that high-intensity exercise performed by highly trained athletes only generated inflammation that was localized to the skeletal muscle.

Biomarkers are not a replacement for performance tests, but when used in conjunction, they may offer a better indication of metabolic recovery status. Therefore, the use of biomarkers can improve a coach's ability to assess the recovery period after an exercise session and to establish the intensity of subsequent training sessions.

Link (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research) [Open Access]
 
Eleanor said:
We do need to be a bit careful about how much the conclusions from studies on young male athletes in sports science departments can be applied to the population in general.
Click to expand...
That's true, they are not a representative sample. We certainly can't and shouldn't draw any conclusion from these studies regarding ME/CFS. One could speculate however, if a similar process is taking place for minimal exercises like ADL and see if there is any applicable clue. At least that was @forestglip's intention, I think.
 
poetinsf said:
That's true, they are not a representative sample. We certainly can't and shouldn't draw any conclusion from these studies regarding ME/CFS. One could speculate however, if a similar process is taking place for minimal exercises like ADL and see if there is any applicable clue. At least that was @forestglip's intention, I think.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a lot of exercise research will be in athletes. My thought is a physiological response to exercise in athletes might apply to all people in general, and might be part of the PEM process. Just potential leads.
 
Absolutely, I'm quite sure there will be useful info and it's a good idea to collect it! Just a note of caution about what we think of as 'normal'. (having originally posted my earlier comment in the thread about 'normal effects of exertion'.)
 
I doubt this paper actually says anything new and it looks to me as if they have none of the detail and sophistication of the studies in the 1980s. So much stuff these days simply isn't meaningful I am afraid. Muscle damage with exercise is crucially dependent on its relation to an ongoing training state or other baseline. It depends on the type of muscle contraction and applied force. I doubt the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research is something a serious scientist would submit a paper to, to be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom