ArticleInternational journal of experimental pathology2015
Quick benefits of interval training versus continuous training on bone: a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry comparative study.
Article in International journal of experimental pathology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effects of various running exercise modalities on femoral bone quality in rats.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Article
- Effect of different running protocols on bone morphology and microarchitecture of the forelimbs in a male Wistar rat model.PloS one · 2024Article
- Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound enhances the positive effects of high-intensity treadmill exercise on bone in rats.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2023Article
- Does Physical Exercise Always Improve Bone Quality in Rats?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Impact of long-lasting spontaneous physical activity on bone morphogenetic protein 4 in the heart and tibia in murine model of heart failure.Physiological reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To delay age-related bone loss, physical activity is recommended during growth. However, it is unknown whether interval training is more efficient than continuous training to increase bone mass both quickly and to a greater extent. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of a 10-week interval training regime with a 14-week continuous training regime on bone mineral density (BMD). Forty-four male Wistar rats (8 weeks old) were separated into four groups: control for 10 weeks (C10), control for 14 weeks (C14), moderate interval training for 10 weeks (IT) and moderate continuous training for 14 weeks (CT). Rats were exercised 1 h/day, 5 day/week. Body composition and BMD of the whole body and femur respectively were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline and after training to determine raw gain and weight-normalized BMD gain. Both trained groups had lower weight and fat mass gain when compared to controls. Both trained groups gained more BMD compared to controls when normalized to body weight. Using a 30% shorter training period, the IT group showed more than 20% higher whole body and femur BMD gains compared to the CT. Our data suggest that moderate IT was able to produce faster bone adaptations than moderate CT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.