Search Results
Search for other papers by Michelle J Galvan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michael J Sanchez in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS), Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Search for other papers by Andrew J McAinch in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jeffrey D Covington in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jason B Boyle in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sudip Bajpeyi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction/purpose
Most US adults (54%) do not meet the minimum exercise recommendations by the American College of Sports Medicine. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is a novel alternate strategy to induce muscle contraction. However, the effectiveness of NMES to improve insulin sensitivity and energy expenditure is unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 4 weeks of NMES on glucose tolerance in a sedentary overweight or obese population.
Methods
Participants (n = 10; age: 36.8 ± 3.8 years; BMI = 32 ± 1.3 kg/m2) were randomized into either control or NMES group. All participants received bilateral quadriceps stimulation (12 sessions; 30 min/session; three times/week at 50 Hz and 300 µs pulse width) altering pulse amplitude to either provide low-intensity sensory level (control; tingling sensation) or at high-intensity neuromuscular level (NMES; maximum tolerable levels with visible muscle contraction). Glucose tolerance was assessed by a 3-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and substrate utilization was measured by indirect calorimetry and body composition via dual X-ray absorptiometry at baseline and after 4 weeks of NMES intervention.
Results
Control and NMES groups had comparable fasting blood glucose, glucose tolerance, substrate utilization, and muscle mass at baseline. Four weeks of NMES resulted in a significant improvement in glucose tolerance measured by OGTT, whereas no change was observed in the control group. There was no change in substrate utilization and muscle mass in both control and NMES groups.
Conclusion
NMES is a novel and effective strategy to improve glucose tolerance in an at-risk overweight or obese sedentary population.
Search for other papers by Anna C Simcocks in
Google Scholar
PubMed
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia
Search for other papers by Kayte A Jenkin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Lannie O’Keefe in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Chrishan S Samuel in
Google Scholar
PubMed
The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Search for other papers by Michael L Mathai in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS), College of Health and Biomedicine, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Search for other papers by Andrew J McAinch in
Google Scholar
PubMed
School of Environment and Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
Search for other papers by Deanne H Hryciw in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Atypical cannabinoid compounds O-1602 and O-1918 are ligands for the putative cannabinoid receptors G protein-coupled receptor 55 and G protein-coupled receptor 18. The role of O-1602 and O-1918 in attenuating obesity and obesity-related pathologies is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to determine the role that either compound had on body weight and body composition, renal and hepatic function in diet-induced obesity. Male Sprague–Dawley rats were fed a high-fat diet (40% digestible energy from lipids) or a standard chow diet for 10 weeks. In a separate cohort, male Sprague–Dawley rats were fed a high-fat diet for 9 weeks and then injected daily with 5 mg/kg O-1602, 1 mg/kg O-1918 or vehicle (0.9% saline/0.75% Tween 80) for a further 6 weeks. Our data demonstrated that high-fat feeding upregulates whole kidney G protein receptor 55 expression. In diet-induced obesity, we also demonstrated O-1602 reduces body weight, body fat and improves albuminuria. Despite this, treatment with O-1602 resulted in gross morphological changes in the liver and kidney. Treatment with O-1918 improved albuminuria, but did not alter body weight or fat composition. In addition, treatment with O-1918 also upregulated circulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines including IL-1α, IL-2, IL-17α, IL-18 and RANTES as well as plasma AST. Thus O-1602 and O-1918 appear not to be suitable treatments for obesity and related comorbidities, due to their effects on organ morphology and pro-inflammatory signaling in obesity.
