Exercise training alters effect of high-fat feeding on the ACTH stress response in pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating and physical activity behaviors influence neuroendocrine output. The purpose of this study was to test, in an animal model of diet-induced cardiovascular disease, the effects of high-fat feeding and exercise training on hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axis activity. We hypothesized that a high-fat diet would increase circulating free fatty acids (FFAs) and decrease the adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and cortisol response to an acute stressor. We also hypothesized that exercise training would reverse the high-fat diet-induced changes in FFAs and thereby restore the ACTH and cortisol response. Pigs were placed in 1 of 4 groups (normal diet, sedentary; normal diet, exercise training; high-fat diet, sedentary; high-fat diet, exercise training; n = 8/group). Animals were placed on their respective dietary and activity treatments for 16-20 weeks. After completion of the treatments animals were anesthetized and underwent surgical intubation. Blood samples were collected after surgery and the ACTH and cortisol response to surgery was determined and the circulating concentrations of FFAs, glucose, cholesterol, insulin, and IGF-1 were measured. Consistent with our hypothesis, high-fat feeding increased FFAs by 200% and decreased the ACTH stress response by 40%. In exercise-trained animals, the high-fat diet also increased FFA; however, the increase in FFA in exercise-trained pigs was accompanied by a 60% increase in the ACTH response. The divergent effect of high-fat feeding on ACTH response was not expected, as exercise training alone had no effect on the ACTH response. Results demonstrate a significant interaction between diet and exercise and their effect on the ACTH response. The divergent effects of high-fat diet could not be explained by changes in weight gain, blood glucose, insulin, or IGF-1, as these were altered by high-fat feeding, but unaffected by exercise training. Thus, the increase in FFA with high-fat feeding may explain the blunted ACTH response to an acute stressor in sedentary animals, but cannot explain the exaggerated response in exercise trained animals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".