| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Center for the Study of Complementary and Alternative Therapies (B.A.I.), Departments of Human Services (B.A.I., A.W.), Health Evaluation Sciences (J.T.P.), Internal Medicine (S.M.A., W.S.E., A.W.), Obstetrics and Gynecology (W.S.E.), and General Clinical Research Center (B.A.I., J.T.P., D.D.W.-W., K.I.F., A.W.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908; and Endocrine Research Unit (J.D.V.) and General Clinical Research Center (J.D.V.), Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota 55905
Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Arthur Weltman, Ph.D., Exercise Physiology Laboratory/Memorial Gymnasium, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904. E-mail: alw2v{at}virginia.edu.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Although GH administration has been recognized as an effective mechanism to enhance nitrogen retention and exercise performance among GH-deficient adults and (5, 6) healthy older men (3, 7), there are limited data in the literature that examine GH administration in healthy adult athletes (4). Moreover, few data exist with regard to the acute effects of GH administration on metabolic and performance responses during subsequent exercise. A recent study that examined acute GH administration reported increased blood lactate concentrations (HLa) and a concomitant decrease in exercise performance in some highly trained cyclists (4). However, Lange et al. (4) examined performance 4 h after acute administration of GH, and their results may have been influenced by the administration of a meal 2 h before exercise. In the present investigation, we examined the effects of acute GH administration on metabolic and performance measures during a 30-min constant load power output (CLPO) exercise at five time frames post GH infusion: 0.75, 1.50, 2.25, 3.00, and 3.75 h. We hypothesized that acute administration of GH would not impact metabolic or performance measures during 30 min of moderate- to high-intensity exercise.
| Subjects and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Volunteers provided a detailed medical history and underwent a complete physical examination, after providing written informed consent as approved by the Institutional Review Board, Human Investigation Committee of the University of Virginia Health System. Inclusion criterion comprised healthy young adults of age less than 35 yr. Exclusion criteria included substance abuse, acute or chronic systemic illness, endocrinopathy, hepatorenal disease, metabolic disorders, anemia (hematocrit < 38%), or exposure to psychoactive medications within five biological half-lives, recent transmeridian travel, shift work, weight gain or loss (exceeding 3 kg in the preceding 6 wk), and failure to provide informed consent. All subjects were nonsmokers and were asked to refrain from caffeine and alcohol for 24 h before each exercise condition. Nine recreationally active men participated in the present study. None were competitive cyclists. Table 1
presents the descriptive characteristics of the subjects.
|
The PO for the 30-min constant load (CL) aerobic exercise sessions (CLPO) (see below) was calculated as follows:
![]() |
Metabolic data were collected during the VO2peak/LT protocol and the CLPO sessions, using standard open-circuit spirometric techniques (Vmax; Sensor Medics). Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed at the end of each stage during the VO2peak/LT protocol and every 10 min during the CLPO protocol using the Borg Scale (11), and heart rate was determined electrocardiographically (Marquette Max-1 electrocardiograph, Marquette, WI). Total work was measured by summing minute-by-minute PO, and kilocalorie expenditure [total, and kilocalorie carbohydrate (CHO) and kilocalories fat] was calculated (using minute-by-minute VO2 and respiratory exchange ratio values) for each 30-min CLPO exercise session. Heart rate and blood lactate concentrations were assessed every 10 min during exercise during the CLPO session.
Body composition
Body density was measured using air displacement plethysmography (Bod-Pod, Life Measurement Instruments, Concord, CA) corrected for thoracic gas volume as described previously (12). The computational procedure of Brozek et al. (13) was used to determine percent fat from body density measurements.
To examine the effects of GH infusion on CLPO exercise, subjects were admitted to the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) on six separate occasions [1 saline (S)/exercise, 5 GH/exercise]. To avoid an order or training effect, a prospectively randomized ordered within-subject design was employed. All tests were completed within 1228 d, with approximately 24 d separating each exercise session. To obviate nutritional confounds, volunteers ingested a constant snack at 1800 h the evening before, comprising 500 kcal (60% CHO, 20% protein, and 20% fat), and then remained fasting overnight. To allow simultaneous blood sampling and GH infusion, bilateral forearm venous catheters were inserted at 0600 h the next morning. The paradigm scheduled is shown schematically in Fig. 1
. A single dose of recombinant human GH (rhGH) (10 µg/kg) or S was infused iv as a 6-min square-wave pulse beginning at 0800 h. Exercise was initiated 0.75 h later (08450915 h) for the S condition, and for the GH conditions, the exercise sessions were staggered by 0.75 h (0845, 0930, 1015, 1100, and 1145 h). These time intervals were chosen so the time course after GH administration on metabolism (e.g. fat oxidation) during exercise could be examined. The five time intervals roughly reflect extensive known physiology about rapid direct effects of GH on hypothalamic peptide release in gene expression (over an interval of 0.53 h); the intermediate time delay induces feedback by unknown effects, which may include systemic metabolites of different putative kinds; and the delayed time course of greater than 4 h inconsistent with data in the 1980s demonstrating that GH induces central nervous system IGF-I gene expression after that much delay. No one knows otherwise the time course of feedback action in humans. These different time renditions are reviewed in detail by Giustina and Veldhuis (14) and Muller et al. (15).
|
Total work and energy expenditure (total kilocalories, total CHO kilocalories, total fat kilocalories) as well as end exercise VO2 (EE VO2), end exercise heart rate (EE HR), peak blood lactate concentration (peak HLa), and peak RPE data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale. The natural logarithmic transformation functioned both as a variance stabilizing transformation to reduce heterogeneous variance and as a remedial measure to reduce the impact that single extreme observations had on the statistical analysis.
The values of each response variable were analyzed by mixed effect repeated-measures ANOVA (16). The ANOVA procedure was used to compare the distribution of the response under the control condition (30-min CLPO exercise session initiated at 0.75 h post S infusion) to the distribution of the response under the five experimental conditions (five 30-min CLPO exercise sessions initiated at 0.75, 1.50, 2.25, 3.0, and 3.75 h post GH infusion, respectively).
The model specification included a single independent variable with six levels that identified the response to a 30-min CLPO exercise session initiated 0.75 h post S infusion and the responses to 30-min CLPO exercise initiated at 0.75, 1.50, 2.25, 3.00, and 3.75 h after GH infusion. The ANOVA model parameters were estimated by restricted-maximum likelihood, and the variance-covariance matrix was modeled in the compound symmetry form (17). Statistical tests were formulated as a 1 degree of freedom contrast, where under the null hypothesis, it was assumed that the mean change in the value of the response from the response under the S condition was equal to zero. Multiple-comparison type I error rate adjustment was based on a two-sided Bonferroni criterion, in which the experimental type I error rate was 0.05 or less. Linear and nonlinear trends, with respect to the change in the response, were evaluated by way of a set of orthogonal contrasts of the mean response at 0.75, 1.50, 2.25, 3.00, and 3.75 h post GH infusion. Model goodness of fit was evaluated by standard residual diagnostic procedures.
Because the response data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale, the ANOVA estimates for the postinfusion change in the response will be presented as a ratio of geometric means (18). The ratio of geometric means is a measure of the shift in the central location of two distributions and is equivalent in value to the antilogarithm of the difference between the two sample means computed from logarithmically transformed data. Often the ratio of geometric means is simply interpreted as the fold change in the response.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
Statistically significant reductions in EE VO2 were observed in response to the 30-min CLPO exercise sessions that were initiated at 1.50, 2.25, 3.00, and 3.75 h post GH infusion, compared with the S condition, with geometric mean ratios of 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.80, 0.98), P = 0.011], 0.89 [CI (0.80, 0.980, P = 0.013], 0.90[CI (0.81, 1.00), P = 0.042], 0.89[CI (0.80, 0.98), P = 0.016], respectively. The decrease in EE VO2 observed over the 3.75 h of post-GH infusion was determined to be linear (P = 0.039). The average EE VO2 corresponded to approximately 75% of VO2 peak and the average CLPO corresponded to approximately 73% of peak PO.
Marginal elevations in EE HR were observed during the CLPO sessions that were initiated at 2.25, 3.0, and 3.75 h post GH infusion. However, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences observed between any of the GH infusion conditions and the S condition for EE HR, with the adjusted P values ranging from 0.120 to 1.0.
A marginally significant elevation in the HLa concentration was observed during the CLPO session that was initiated 3.0 h post GH infusion, compared with the S condition with a geometric mean ratio of 1.20 [CI (0.99, 1.463), P = 0.069]. There were no statistically significant differences observed among the four other GH infusion conditions and the S condition for peak HLa concentrations, with the adjusted P values ranging from 0.703 to 1.00.
Similarly, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences observed among the five GH infusion conditions and the condition for peak RPE concentrations, with adjusted p-values equal to 1.00.
A graphic representation of the data is shown in Figs. 36![]()
![]()
![]()
, with each figure showing the fold change for each GH condition vs. the S condition (solid dot), the unadjusted (least significant difference) 95% CI (solid lines), the Bonferroni-adjusted 95% CI (dotted lines), and the 1.0-fold change reference line (dashed line). The fold change under each condition was deemed statistically significant at P
0.05 if the 95% CI does not include 1.0.
|
|
|
|
Figure 5
presents the fold change in EE VO2 for the five GH conditions minus the S condition in response to the 30-min CLPO exercise. There were significant reductions in EE VO2 observed in response to each 30-min CLPO exercise session that was initiated 1.5 h post GH infusion or later, compared with the S condition.
Significant elevations in the unadjusted EE HR were observed (Fig. 6A
) during the 30-min CLPO exercise session that were initiated at 2.25 and 3.0 h post GH infusion, compared with S. However, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, the elevations in EE HR were no longer significant.
The fold changes in peak HLa in response to the 30-min CLPO exercise sessions among the five GH conditions, compared with S, are presented in Fig. 6B
. An unadjusted significant elevation in HLa was observed in response to the 30-min CLPO exercise session initiated at 3.0 h post GH infusion. However, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, this elevation in peak HLa was no longer significant.
No statistically significant differences were observed in the fold change in peak RPE (Fig. 6C
).
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The current data indicate that the acute administration of GH does not alter exercise performance initiated 45 min to 3.75 h later. Specifically, all nine subjects in the present study completed each exercise session without a detectable decrease or increase in their individual power output across conditions. This outcome does not support recent observations of Lange et al. (4), who suggested that acute GH administration may inhibit cycling performance in some subjects because two of the seven participants failed to complete the exercise protocol. Several factors may account for the foregoing difference. First, the route of GH administration may have had an impact on serum GH concentrations before and during exercise. Lange et al. (4) administered GH using a sc injection at the midthigh. This resulted in serum GH concentrations of approximately 20 µg/liter, just before and during exercise (see their Fig. 2A
). In the present study, a 6-min iv infusion was employed. This resulted in peak GH concentrations of approximately 95 µg/liter before exercise (Fig. 2
). Whereas in the 0845 h GH condition serum GH concentration was approximately 20 µg/liter during the other five exercise conditions, the GH response to exercise was approximately 48 µg/liter. In addition, in the present study, a 30-min CLPO protocol was used (
75% of VO2 peak), whereas in the study of Lange et al. (4), cyclists exercised for 90 min (45 min at 65% of VO2 peak followed by 45 min at 75% of VO2 peak). It is possible that we would have observed drop-off in the present study had a longer exercise duration been chosen. It is also possible that the reduction in exercise performance observed in the analysis of Lang et al. (4) may be related to ingestion of a meal 2 h after GH infusion and 2 h before exercise. The timing of the meal resulted in a significantly elevated serum insulin concentration at the onset of exercise in the GH condition (see their Fig. 4B
). Whereas under most circumstances, initiation of exercise during postprandial hyperinsulinemia will be associated with an exercise-induced hypoglycemia and impaired exercise performance in some individuals (22), Lange et al.(4) actually report elevated blood glucose (9%) in the GH condition (see their Fig. 4A
). As the author suggests short-term GH administration likely induced insulin resistance as a result of an oral glucose load (e.g. the preexercise meal). The observed elevation in blood glucose during exercise in the GH condition might be reflective of impaired muscle glucose uptake, which in turn may have resulted in impaired exercise performance.
The graded time delay between GH infusion and a consistent exercise stimulus allowed examination of the combined metabolic effect of the two interventions. This analysis is significant, given that GH is a strong lipolytic hormone (14). Statistical comparisons disclosed a marginal reduction in total caloric expenditure (Fig. 3
) during exercise that was initiated at 2.25 h after GH, compared with S infusion. This may be explained in part by a concomitant reduction in EE VO2 (Fig. 5
). On the other hand, CHO and fat oxidation did not differ (Fig. 4
, A and B).
The detection of subtle differences may be limited by our use of minute-by-minute VO2 and respiratory exchange ratio values to estimate total caloric and the total CHO and fat expenditures. Nonetheless, whereas non-steady-state gas exchange can influence outcomes to some extent, all measurements were made at steady-state lactate concentrations and therefore stable tissue energy use. Our results support those of Lange et al. (4), wherein the 3-fold elevation in plasma glycerol and nonesterified fatty acid concentrations during exercise after acute GH administration did not increase whole-body fat oxidation. Analogously, we reported that GH output in response to exercise primarily stimulates fat oxidation during the recovery interval thereafter (23).
A novel finding is that GH administration 90 min or more before exercise reduced EE VO2 without lowering PO (Fig. 5
). Moreover, the decrease in EE VO2 observed over the 3.75 h of post-GH infusion was determined to be linear (P = 0.039). The precise basis for this effect is not known but plausibly could reflect enhanced cycling economy and could translate to improved cycling performance with longer duration exercise. An alternative consideration is that the duration of (overnight) caloric restriction modulated EE VO2 after GH infusion. Nutrient withdrawal reduces the resting metabolic rate (24, 25, 26). The observation that EE VO2 did not decline when S was injected 45 min before exercise does not exclude this testable hypothesis. It should be noted that the CLPO sessions were performed on an electronically braked cycle ergometer in which PO is maintained as long as pedaling rates fall within 60100 rpm. Although pedaling cadence was not controlled in the present study (which could potentially affect economy), none of the subjects were competitive cyclists, and all subjects pedaled at approximately 70 rpm.
EE HR rose in response to exercise that began at 2.25, 3.00, and 3.75 h after GH infusion. Lange et al. (27) also noted increased resting and exercising heart rate (4) after acute GH administration. The nitric oxide-dependent arterial dilating action of GH could contribute to this effect (14).
Exercise and GH combined did not influence RPE over exercise alone. RPE reflects comparable HLa concentrations during moderate- to high-intensity exercise (28, 29, 30). Thus, RPE values are consistent with stable HLa measures (see above).
In conclusion, preexercise timed GH administration does not affect total work, caloric expenditure, HLa concentrations, or RPE during 30 min of CL exercise at an intensity above the lactate threshold. In contradiction, preinfusion of GH reduced exercise VO2 at fixed PO, potentially denoting enhanced exercise economy in the fasting state. Although a marginal increase in heart rate was observed, this response was not statistically significant. The finding that GH administration resulted in lower exercise VO2 without a drop-off in power output may suggest that GH administration can improve exercise economy. Further studies will be required to appraise how this adaptation impacts sustained exercise performance.
| Footnotes |
|---|
The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCCAM or NIH.
First Published Online August 24, 2004
Abbreviations: CHO, Carbohydrate; CL, constant load; CLPO, constant load power output; EE HR, end exercise heart rate; EE VO2, end exercise VO2; HLa, blood lactate concentration; LT, lactate threshold; PO, power output; rhGH, recombinant human GH; RPE, ratings of perceived exertion; VO2, oxygen consumption.
Received January 14, 2004.
Accepted May 26, 2004.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. Gibney, M.-L. Healy, and P. H. Sonksen The Growth Hormone/Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I Axis in Exercise and Sport Endocr. Rev., October 1, 2007; 28(6): 603 - 624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Hansen, R. Morthorst, B. Larsson, R. Dall, A. Flyvbjerg, M. H. Rasmussen, H. Orskov, M. Kjaer, and K. H. W. Lange No effect of growth hormone administration on substrate oxidation during exercise in young, lean men J. Physiol., September 15, 2005; 567(3): 1035 - 1045. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Berggren, C. Ehrnborg, T. Rosen, L. Ellegard, B.-A. Bengtsson, and K. Caidahl Short-Term Administration of Supraphysiological Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (GH) Does Not Increase Maximum Endurance Exercise Capacity in Healthy, Active Young Men and Women with Normal GH-Insulin-Like Growth Factor I Axes J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., June 1, 2005; 90(6): 3268 - 3273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Endocrinology | Endocrine Reviews | J. Clin. End. & Metab. |
| Molecular Endocrinology | Recent Prog. Horm. Res. | All Endocrine Journals |