Effects of sprint interval training on ectopic lipids and tissue-specific insulin sensitivity in men with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Purpose: This study examined the feasibility of sprint interval exercise training (SIT) for men with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and its effects on intrahepatic triglyceride (IHTG), insulin sensitivity (hepatic and peripheral), visceral (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (ScAT). Methods: Nine men with NAFLD (age 41 ± 8 years; BMI 31.7 ± 3.1 kg m−2; IHTG 15.6 ± 8.3%) were assessed at: (1) baseline (2) after a control phase of no intervention (pre-training) and (3) after 6 weeks of SIT (4–6 maximal 30 s cycling intervals, three times per week). IHTG, VAT and ScAT were measured using magnetic resonance spectroscopy or imaging and insulin sensitivity was assessed via dual-step hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp with [6,6-D2] glucose tracer. Results: Participants adhered to SIT, completing ≥ 96.7% of prescribed intervals. SIT increased peak oxygen uptake [ V O2peak: + 13.6% (95% CI 8.8–18.2%)] and elicited a relative reduction in IHTG [− 12.4% (− 31.6 to 6.7%)] and VAT [− 16.9% (− 24.4 to − 9.4%); n = 8], with no change in body weight or ScAT. Peripheral insulin sensitivity increased throughout the study (n = 8; significant main effect of phase) but changes from pre- to post-training were highly variable (range − 18.5 to + 58.7%) and not significant (P = 0.09), despite a moderate effect size (g* = 0.63). Hepatic insulin sensitivity was not influenced by SIT. Conclusions: SIT is feasible for men with NAFLD in a controlled laboratory setting and is able to reduce IHTG and VAT in the absence of weight loss

Comparison of two different approaches toward model transferability in NIR spectroscopy

Item does not contain fulltex

Intravenous versus oral rehydration in athletes

Fluid is typically administered via intravenous (IV) infusion to athletes who develop clinical symptoms of heat illness, based on the perception that dehydration is a primary factor contributing to the condition. However, other athletes also voluntarily rehydrate with IV fluid as opposed to, or in conjunction with, oral rehydration. The voluntary use of IV fluids to accelerate rehydration in dehydrated, though otherwise healthy athletes, has recently been banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. However, the technique remains appealing to many athletes. Given that it now violates the Anti-Doping Code, it is important to determine whether potential benefits of using this technique outweigh the risks involved. Several studies have shown that rehydration is more rapid with IV fluid. However, the benefits are generally transient and only small differences to markers of hydration status are seen when comparing IV and oral rehydration. Furthermore, several studies have shown improvements in cardiovascular function and thermoregulation with IV fluid, while others have indicated that oral fluid is superior. Subsequent exercise performance has not been improved to a greater extent with one technique over the other. The paucity of definitive findings is probably related to the small number of studies investigating these variables and the vast differences in the designs of studies that have been conducted. The major limitation of IV rehydration is that it bypasses oropharyngeal stimulation, which has an influence on factors such as thirst sensation, antidiuretic hormone (arginine vasopressin) release, cutaneous vasodilation and mean arterial pressure. Further research is necessary to determine the relative benefits of oral and IV rehydration for athletes