Growing evidence supports that pharmacological application of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) suppresses appetite but also promotes sickness-like behaviors in rodents via GDNF family receptor α-like (GFRAL)-dependent mechanisms. Conversely, the endogenous regulation of GDF15 and its physiological effects on energy homeostasis and behavior remain elusive. Here we show, in four independent human studies that prolonged endurance exercise increases circulating GDF15 to levels otherwise only observed in pathophysiological conditions. This exercise-induced increase can be recapitulated in mice and is accompanied by increased Gdf15 expression in the liver, skeletal muscle, and heart muscle. However, whereas pharmacological GDF15 inhibits appetite and suppresses voluntary running activity via GFRAL, the physiological induction of GDF15 by exercise does not. In summary, exercise-induced circulating GDF15 correlates with the duration of endurance exercise. Yet, higher GDF15 levels after exercise are not sufficient to evoke canonical pharmacological GDF15 effects on appetite or responsible for diminishing exercise motivation.

At a threshold intramuscular pressure of 30-40 mm Hg during muscle contraction, oxygenation in the paravertebral muscles is significantly reduced. The effect of further increase in intramuscular pressure on tissue oxygenation over time may be compensated for by an increase in blood pressure and heart rate. Surface electromyogram amplitudes and intramuscular pressure can be used as indicators of paravertebral muscle force.

No abstract

To examine the importance of blood-borne vs. neural mechanisms for hormonal responses and substrate mobilization during exercise, six spinal cord-injured tetraplegic (C5-T1) males (mean age: 35 yr, range: 24-55 yr) were recruited to perform involuntary, electrically induced cycling [functional electrical stimulation (FES)] to fatigue for 24.6 +/- 2.3 min (mean and SE), and heart rate rose from 67 +/- 7 (rest) to 107 +/- 5 (exercise) beats/min. Voluntary arm cranking in tetraplegics (ARM) and voluntary leg cycling in six matched, long-term immobilized (2-12 mo) males (Vol) served as control experiments. In FES, peripheral glucose uptake increased [12.4 +/- 1.1 (rest) to 19.5 +/- 4.3 (exercise) mumol.min-1.kg-1; P < 0.05], whereas hepatic glucose production did not change from basal values [12.4 +/- 1.4 (rest) vs. 13.0 +/- 3.4 (exercise) mumol.min-1.kg-1]. Accordingly, plasma glucose decreased [from 5.4 +/- 0.3 (rest) to 4.7 +/- 0.3 (exercise) mmol/l; P < 0.05]. Plasma glucose did not change in response to ARM or Vol. Plasma free fatty acids and beta-hydroxybutyrate decreased only in FES experiments (P < 0.05). During FES, increases in growth hormone (GH) and epinephrine and decreases in insulin concentrations were abolished. Although subnormal throughout the exercise period, norepinephrine concentrations increased during FES, and responses of heart rate, adrenocorticotropic hormone, beta-endorphin, renin, lactate, and potassium were marked. In conclusion, during exercise, activity in motor centers and afferent muscle nerves is important for normal responses of GH, catecholamines, insulin, glucose production, and lipolysis. Humoral feedback and spinal or simple autonomic nervous reflex mechanisms are not sufficient. However, such mechanisms are involved in redundant control of heart rate and neuroendocrine activity in exercise.

In the last few years epidemiological surveys have shown correlation between low endurance capacity of the trunk extensors and low back trouble. In this report two methods for the determination of trunk extensor endurance are compared. In method I the fixated subject is lying prone with the cranial border of the iliac crest at the edge of a couch. The endurance time for maintaining the upper part of the body horizontal was measured (max. 240 s). In method II the standing subject performed a horizontal isometric pull on a strain gauge force transducer equivalent to 60% MVC of the trunk extensors. The time until complete exhaustion in the muscles (inability to maintain the preset force level) was determined. The methods were applied to two groups of normal, healthy subjects: 1) 23 female (22-61 years) and 53 male (27-60 years) postmen. 2) 10 male students (20-37 years). The results show that method II is preferable to method I, not least in the field of ergonomics. Method II is easily practicable and does not demand expensive or complicated equipment. Furthermore this method gives reliable results suitable for statistical preparation, and is not influenced by anthropometrical factors.