Premium
Positive Role of Dynamic Resistance Training in the Management of Renal Oxidative Stress in Female Hypertensive Rats
Author(s) -
Araujo Amanda Aparecida,
Silva Dias Danielle,
Allioni Gabriela Abrahão,
Bernardes Nathalia,
Irigoyen Maria Cláudia,
De Angelis Kátia
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.536.17
Subject(s) - medicine , oxidative stress , blood pressure , aerobic exercise , kidney disease , hemodynamics , kidney , cardiology , heart rate , pathophysiology , endocrinology
Hypertension (HA) is associated with important renal dysfunctions, being one of the main causes of chronic kidney disease. It is well known that oxidative stress plays a fundamental role in the pathophysiology of hypertension and of chronic kidney disease. On the other hand, aerobic physical training is recommended in the management of hypertension and CKD. Moreover, dynamic resistance training has been recommended as a complement to aerobic, however few studies have explored the influence of this type of training on oxidative stress markers in hypertensive females. In this sense, the objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of dynamic resistance training (DRT) of moderate intensity on physical capacity, hemodynamic parameters and renal oxidative stress profile in female spontaneously hypertensive rats. Sixteen female spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR, 3 months old) were distributed into 2 groups (n=8/group): sedentary (SF) and trained (TF). The TF group underwent 8 weeks of DRT on adapted ladder (40–60% of the maximal load test). At the end of the training, physical capacity, blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) and oxidative stress in renal tissue were evaluated. As a result, the maximum load of the TF group was increased in relation to SF (485.43±25.03 vs. 403.62±28.51 g) and body weight increase in both groups during the protocol (p <0.05). There was no difference in BP (mean BP‐ SF:173±6.8 vs. TF: 172±5.7 mmHg) and HR (SF: 379±11 vs. TF: 370±11 bpm) between the groups. In the oxidative stress parameters, there was a decrease in protein oxidation (4.84±0.14 vs. 5.72±0.38 nmol/mg protein) and in lipoperoxidation (1475±218 vs. 2680±351 cps/mg protein) in the TF compared to SF group. Regarding antioxidant enzymes, there was no difference in superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase, but there was a decrease in the activity of the catalasein the TF in relation SF group (3.5±0.2 vs. 4.2±0.2 nmol/mg protein). In addition, there was no difference between groups in NADPH oxidase activity (0.18±0.01 vs. 0.22±0.02 μmol/mg protein) and superoxide anion concentration (1.56±0.04 vs. 1.91±0.05 O2.‐ mmol/mg protein). However, there was a reduction in hydrogen peroxide in the TF in relation to SF group (10.54±1.99 vs. 21.98±1.85 nmol H2O2). There was a positive correlation between catalase and hydrogen peroxide (r=0.57, p<0.05). In conclusion, moderate‐intensity DRT was a safe approach considering that it did not alter BP. Furthermore, DRT was able to induce strength gain and attenuation of oxidative stress, evidenced by the decrease in pro oxidants (hydrogen peroxide) and markers of tissue damage. Thus, our data reinforces the positive role of DRT in the management of hypertension consequences. Support or Funding Information CAPES, CNPq, FAPESP 2015/10329‐5 This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .