Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: ACE inhibitors block PPARgamma
Mind and Muscle Forums > Chemically Correct > Advanced Hypothesis, Theory & Discussion
Spook
QUOTE
Hypertens Res. 2004 Jan;27(1):61-70.  Related Articles, Links 


Regulation of skeletal muscle peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma expression by exercise and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in fructose-fed hypertensive rats.

Kawamura T, Yoshida K, Sugawara A, Nagasaka M, Mori N, Takeuchi K, Kohzuki M.

Department of Internal Medicine and Rehabilitation Science, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of chronic exercise training and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) expression in fat and skeletal muscle in fructose-fed spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). SHR were fed a fructose-rich diet over 16 weeks of either exercise training (Ex group: 20 m/min, 0% grade, 60 min/day, 5 days/week), ACE inhibitor administration (TM group: temocapril, 10 mg/kg/day), or a combination of both treatments (TM+Ex group). The systolic blood pressure was reduced exclusively in the temocapril-treated groups. Serum leptin level was positively correlated with the ratio of epididymal fat weight to body weight (p<0.001). Exercise training significantly upregulated the PPARgamma expression in all tissues, which was attenuated by temocapril. PPARgamma expression was significantly upregulated in skeletal muscles in the Ex group, and temocapril administration attenuated this effect in the Ex+TM group. The level of PPARgamma protein was significantly higher in the extensor digitorum longus muscle than in the soleus muscle. Both TM and Ex prevented the fructose diet-induced transitions of fiber type. These data suggested that PPARgamma expression is tissue-specific, and that alterations in PPARgamma expression in the skeletal muscle induced by either or both treatments may have contributed to reducing the fat mass via the regulation of metabolic homeostasis. Changes in muscle morphology were independent of PPARgamma expression, and the higher proportion of type I fiber might also explain some of the beneficial impact of exercise and ACE inhibition on energy metabolism.

PMID: 15055257 [PubMed - in process]


very interesting. this shows that ace inhibition lowers the PPAR-gamma upregulation in skeletal muscle that acompanies exercise.
virtualcyber
I think the study doesn't quite apply to non-enduranc athletes.

One study of endurance athletes showed that the subjects' intramuscular fat content increased with endurance training. This seems to be consistent with the observation in Spook's above abstract that ppar-gamma (which promotes adipogenesis) was upregulated. Note that the muscle fiber type discussed in the abstract were of type I, slow twitch.

It would be interesting if ppar-gamma is upregulated in fast twitch muscle fibers as well.

My guess is that they will not be. Other studies showed that intramuscular fat content actually decreased with weight training. It would not make much sense that ppar gamma would be upregulated in those instances.
vain68
QUOTE
One study of endurance athletes showed that the subjects' intramuscular fat content increased with endurance training.
Other studies showed that intramuscular fat content actually decreased with weight training.


Was overall calorie balance considered?
virtualcyber
My assumption is that they were on maintenance -- I'd have to check the original abstracts.

I do think the studies make sense, though. Endurance training entails improving aerobic conditioning. That means training body to use fat as fuel substrate. It makes sense that, in that context, one's body would promote creating small fat depots around muscle, to provide immediate fuel source.
twistedneck
QUOTE
I do think the studies make sense, though. Endurance training entails improving aerobic conditioning. That means training body to use fat as fuel substrate. It makes sense that, in that context, one's body would promote creating small fat depots around muscle, to provide immediate fuel source.


I take an ACE inhibitor ED for the last three years. Its quite obvious that A, since I've been taking it my endurance has suffered greatly and B, i have not lost any more fat than i normally would.

It's so strong at reducing endurance I'm carefull not to take it at all the day of grappling or mountain biking. If i do, its increased lactic acid build up and reduced energy.
Spook
QUOTE
I take an ACE inhibitor ED for the last three years. Its quite obvious that A, since I've been taking it my endurance has suffered greatly and B, i have not lost any more fat than i normally would.

It's so strong at reducing endurance I'm carefull not to take it at all the day of grappling or mountain biking. If i do, its increased lactic acid build up and reduced energy.


yeah that is exactly what I would expect if taken chronically. If used chronicly muscle show an inability to synthesize NO in acordance with exercise and eventually become exercise intolerant because of it. Interestingly though, short term ussage indicates the oppisite effect. I apears which chronic daily usage, the bradykinnin NO system is eventually overloaded and just shuts down.

Quick question twistedneck. Do you expirience the chronic cough that is sometimes reported with ACE inhibitors. also which specfific drug do you take and at what dosage.

thanks.
Supnut
QUOTE(virtualcyber @ Apr 11 2004, 03:32 PM)
I do think the studies make sense, though.  Endurance training entails improving aerobic conditioning.  That means training body to use fat as fuel substrate.  It makes sense that, in that context, one's body would promote creating small fat depots around muscle, to provide immediate fuel source.

Sounds logical to me as well
Ryan Norton
QUOTE(Spook @ Apr 12 2004, 03:58 AM)
Quick question twistedneck. Do you expirience the chronic cough that is sometimes reported with ACE inhibitors. also which specfific drug do you take and at what dosage.

thanks.

Spook, there aren't many people who suffer with the ACE-I cough chronically. True ACE-I cough is rather annoying and intereferes with those patients' daily lives enough that they simply stop taking it.

Part of the problem is that some physicians feel the need to "warn" their patients about the potential for cough as a side effect. All they really seem to be doing is planting the seed for a pretty potent negative placebo effect in most cases. The truth is that if they never said a word about it until it happened, patients WOULD bring it up. It's just that annoying to them.

I'm going a bit off-topic here, but the same goes for statins and "muscle pains".
Colin
Bumped for discussion.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.