Metabolic Effects of Voluntary Training in Young vs Old Syrian Golden Hamsters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metabolic effects of exercise training are wide spread. Animals models are useful in identifying the underlying mechanisms, but may be flawed because exercise training is often forced causing elevations in stress hormones that promote insulin resistance. The Syrian golden hamster has been used for studies of insulin resistance and diabetes and this animal is known to voluntarily exercise at high volumes. PURPOSE: To explore the metabolic effects of short term voluntary training in both young and old Syrian golden hamsters. METHODS: 6-week old (YOUNG) and 6-month old (OLD) male animals were randomly divided into sedentary (i.e. YOUNG-S or OLD-S) or running wheel (i.e. YOUNG-RW or OLD-RW) groups (n=8/ group). RW groups had 24-hour access to activity wheels while S were housed in standard rodent cages. RESULTS: At the start of wheel exposure, the number of revolutions were similar in both groups but by day 15 were nearly two-fold higher in the YOUNG vs OLD. OLD ate more than YOUNG and wheel running increased food intake by ∼50%. YOUNG-RW maintained the same total body mass as YOUNG-S, while OLD-RW had a transient weight loss of ∼10g (∼7% of body mass, p < 0.05). Perirenal fat mass was smaller in YOUNG- and OLD-RW groups compared with S groups (45 and 66%, respectively. Plantaris muscle cytochome c oxidase activity was also ∼2-fold higher in YOUNG-RW than in YOUNG-S hamsters but was similar between OLD-RW and OLD-S groups. Plasma leptin levels were ∼60% lower in YOUNG-RW compared with YOUNG-S and correlated significantly with visceral fat pad mass (r2 = 0.58, p= 0.001). Corticosterone levels were lower in YOUNG-RW (13.0±0.36 ng/ml) than in YOUNG-S (16.4±0.83 ng/ml) hamsters and higher in OLD-RW (22.62 ± 0.47 ng/ml) than in OLD-S (15.54 ±0.13 ng/ml) hamsters. CONCLUSION: These observations reveal that the hamster is a suitable model for accelerating the effects of exercise on body composition and metabolic alterations associated with training and that the training adaptations are more pronounced in younger compared with older hamsters, possibly as a result of the higher voluntary wheel activity in the former group.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".