Archive for the ‘Bodybuilding’ Category

Lower muscle mass and an increase in body fat are common consequences of growing older.

While exercise is a proven way to prevent the loss of muscle mass, a new study led by McMaster researcher Dr. Mark Tarnopolsky shows that taking a combination of creatine monohydrate (CrM) and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in addition to resistance exercise training provides even greater benefits.

The study to be published on Oct. 3 in PLoS One, an international, peer-reviewed online journal of the Public Library of Science, involved 19 men and 20 women who were 65 years or older and took part in a six-month program of regular resistance exercise training.

In the randomized double blind trial, some of the participants were given a daily supplement of creatine (a naturally produced compound that supplies energy to muscles) and linoleic acid (a naturally occurring fatty acid), while others were given a placebo. All participants took part in the same exercise program.

The exercise training resulted in improvements of functional ability and strength in all participants, but those taking the CrM and CLA showed even greater gains in muscle endurance, an increase in fat-free mass and a decrease in the percentage of body fat.

“This data confirms that supervised resistance exercise training is safe and effective for increasing strength and function in older adults and that a combination of CrM and CLA can enhance some of the beneficial effects of training over a six month period,” said Tarnopolsky, a professor of pediatrics and medicine.

This study provides functional outcomes that build on an earlier mechanistic study co-led by Tarnopolsky and Dr. S. Melov at the Buck Institute of Age Research, published in PLoS One this year, which provided evidence that six months of resistance exercise reversed some of the muscle gene expression abnormalities associated with the aging process.
—————————-
Article adapted by MD Sports Weblog from original press release.
—————————-

Contact: Veronica McGuire
McMaster University

Trying to reap the health benefits of exercise? Forget treadmills and spin classes, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies may have found a way around the sweat and pain. They identified two signaling pathways that are activated in response to exercise and converge to dramatically increase endurance.

The team of scientists, led by Howard Hughes Medical Investigator Ronald M. Evans, Ph.D., a professor in the Salk Institute’s Gene Expression Laboratory report in the July 31 advance online edition of the journal Cell that simultaneously triggering both pathways with oral drugs turned laboratory mice into long-distance runners and conferred many of exercise’s other benefits.

In addition to their allure for endurance athletes, drugs that mimic the effects of exercise have therapeutic potential in treating certain muscle diseases, such as wasting and frailty, hospital patients unable to exercise, veterans and others with disabilities as well as obesity and a slew of associated metabolic disorders where exercise is known to be beneficial.

Previous work with genetically engineered mice in the Evans lab had revealed that permanently activating a genetic switch known as PPAR delta turned mice into indefatigable marathon runners. In addition to their super-endurance, the altered mice were resistant to weight gain, even when fed a high-fat diet that caused obesity in ordinary mice. On top of their lean and mean physique, their response to insulin improved, lowering levels of circulating glucose.

“We wanted to know whether a drug specific for PPAR delta would have the same beneficial effects,” says Evans. “Genetic engineering in humans, commonly known as gene doping when mentioned in connection with athletic performance, is certainly feasible but very impractical.”

An investigational drug, identified only as GW1516 (and not commercially available), fit the bill. When postdoctoral researcher and lead author Vihang A. Narkar, Ph.D., fed the substance to laboratory mice over a period of four weeks, the researchers were in for a surprise.

“We got the expected benefits in lowering fatty acids and blood glucose levels but no effect, absolutely none, on exercise performance,” says Narkar. Undeterred, he put mice treated with GW1516 on a regular exercise regimen and every day had them run up to 50 minutes on a treadmill.

Now the exact same drug that had shown no effect in sedentary animals improved endurance by 77 percent over exercise alone and increased the portion of “non-fatiguing” or “slow twitch” muscle fibers by 38 percent. The result, while very dramatic, gave rise to a vexing question: Why is exercise so important?

First and foremost, exercise depletes muscles’ energy store, a chemical known as ATP. In times of high demand, ATP releases all its energy and forms AMP. Rising AMP levels alert AMPK, a metabolic master regulator, which acts like a gas gauge that the cell is running on empty and revs up the production of ATP. “That led us to consider whether AMPK activation was the critical trigger that allowed PPAR delta to work,” recalls Narkar.

Usually, AMPK can be found in the cytoplasm, the compartment that surrounds the nucleus, but the Salk researchers’ experiment revealed that some exercise-activated AMPK molecules slip into the nucleus. There they physically interact with PPAR delta and increase its ability to turn on the genetic network that increases endurance.

“It essentially puts a turbo charge on PPAR delta, which explains why exercise is so important,” says Evans.

Then came the ultimate couch potato experiment. The researchers fed untrained mice AICAR, a synthetic AMP analog that directly activates AMPK. After only four weeks and without any prior training, these mice got up and ran 44 percent longer than untreated, untrained mice. “That’s as much improvement as we get with regular exercise,” says Narkar.

“Exercise in a pill” might sound tempting to couch potatoes and Olympic contenders alike, but the dreams of the latter might be cut short. Evans developed a test that can readily detect GW1516 and its metabolites as well as AICAR in blood and urine and is already working with officials at the World Anti-Doping Association, who are racing to have a test in place in time for this year’s Summer Olympics.

—————————-
Article adapted by MD Sports Weblog from original press release.
—————————-

Contact: Gina Kirchweger
Salk Institute

The study was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Hillblom Foundation and the National Institute of Health.

Researchers who contributed to the work include postdoctoral researchers Michael Downes, Ph.D., Ruth T. Yu, Ph.D., doctoral candidate Emi Embler, B.S., research associates Michael C. Nelson, B.S., Yuhua Zou, M.S., Ester Banayo, and Henry Juguilon, in the Gene Expression Laboratory, doctoral candidate M. Mihaylova, and assistant professor Reuben Shaw, Ph.D., in the Molecular and Cell Biology Laboratory, assistant professor Yong-Xu Wang, Ph.D., at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Massachusetts, and professor Heonjoon Kang, Ph.D., at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University, South Korea.

By studying the genes of a German child born with unusually well developed muscles, an international research team has discovered the first evidence that the gene whose loss makes “mighty mice” also controls muscle growth in people.

Writing in the June 24 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, German neurologist Markus Schuelke, M.D., and the team show that the child’s extra-large muscles are due to an inherited mutation that effectively silences the myostatin gene, proving that its protein normally keeps muscle development in check in people.

People with muscle-wasting conditions such as muscular dystrophy, and others just wanting to “bulk up,” have eagerly followed work on myostatin, hoping for a way to counteract the protein’s effects in order to build or rebuild muscle mass. But while research with mice has continued to reveal myostatin’s role and the effects of interfering with it, no one knew whether any of the results would be relevant to humans.

“This is the first evidence that myostatin regulates muscle mass in people as it does in other animals,” says Se-Jin Lee, M.D., Ph.D., professor of molecular biology and genetics in the Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences at Johns Hopkins and co-author on the study. “That gives us a great deal of hope that agents already known to block myostatin activity in mice may be able to increase muscle mass in humans, too.”

Lee and his team discovered in 1997 that knocking out the myostatin gene led to mice that were twice as muscular as their normal siblings, lending them the moniker “mighty mice.” Later, others showed that naturally bulky cattle, such as Belgian Blues, got their extra muscles from lack of myostatin, too.

An unusual opportunity to examine myostatin’s role in humans arose when Schuelke examined a newborn baby boy, almost five years ago, and was struck by the visible muscles on the infant’s upper legs and upper arms. When ultrasound proved that the muscles were roughly twice as large as other infants’, but otherwise normal, Schuelke realized that a naturally occurring mutation in the child’s myostatin gene might be the cause.

Sequencing the myostatin gene from the boy and his mother, who had been a professional athlete, revealed a single change in the building blocks of the gene’s DNA. Surprisingly, the change was not in the gene regions that correspond to the resulting protein, but in the intervening regions that are used only to create protein-making instructions, thus changing the gene’s protein-building message.

“The mutation caused the gene’s message, the messenger RNA, to be wrong,” says Hopkins

neurologist Kathryn Wagner, M.D., Ph.D., who tested the genetic mutation’s effect in laboratory studies. “If the message had been used to make a protein, it would be much shorter than it should be. But we think the process doesn’t even get that far; instead the cells just destroy the message.”

Co-authors from Wyeth Research, Cambridge, Mass., analyzed samples of the child’s blood for evidence of the myostatin protein and found none. “Both copies of the child’s myostatin gene have this mutation, so little if any of the myostatin protein is made,” says Schuelke. “As a result, he has about twice the muscle mass of other children.”

Completely lacking myostatin, the boy is stronger than other children his age, and fortunately has no signs of problems with his heart so far, Schuelke says. But he adds that it’s impossible to know whether the lack of myostatin in that crucial muscle might lead to problems as the boy gets older.

While other family members — the boy’s mother and her brother, father and grandfather — were also reported to have been usually strong, only the mother’s DNA was available for analysis along with her son’s. Schuelke discovered that only one copy of the mother’s myostatin gene had the mutation found in both copies of her son’s myostatin gene. (We have two copies of each gene; one inherited from the mother and one inherited from the father.)

—————————-
Article adapted by MD Sports Weblog from original press release.
—————————-

 Contact: Joanna Downer
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

 

The Johns Hopkins researchers were funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Muscular Dystrophy Association. The German researchers were funded by the parents’ self-help group (Helft dem muskelkranken Kind).

Authors on the paper are Schuekle, Christoph Hubner, Thomas Riebel and Wolfgang Komen of Charite, University Medical Center Berlin, Germany; Wagner and Lee of Johns Hopkins; Leslie Stolz and James Tobin of Wyeth Research, Cambridge, Ma.; and Thomas Braun of Martin-Luther-University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.

*Under a licensing agreement between MetaMorphix Inc. and The Johns Hopkins University, Lee is entitled to a share of royalty received by the University on sales of products described in this article. Lee also is entitled to a share of sublicensing income from arrangements between MetaMorphix and American Home Products (Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories) and Cape Aquaculture Technologies. Lee and the University own MetaMorphix Inc. stock, which is subject to certain restrictions under University policy. Lee owns Cape Aquaculture Technologies stock, which is subject to certain restrictions under University policy. Lee has served as a paid consultant to MetaMorphix Inc. The terms of these arrangements are being managed by The Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.

And it increases endurance to run a mile and decreases inflammation

The Salk Institute scientist who earlier discovered that enhancing the function of a single protein produced a mouse with an innate resistance to weight gain and the ability to run a mile without stopping has found new evidence that this protein and a related protein play central roles in the body’s complex journey to obesity and offer a new and specific metabolic approach to the treatment of obesity related disease such as Syndrome X (insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia and atherosclerosis).

Dr. Ronald M. Evans, a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator at The Salk Institute’s Gene Expression Laboratory, presented two new studies (date) at Experimental Biology 2005 in the scientific sessions of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The studies focus on genes for two of the nuclear hormone receptors that control broad aspects of body physiology, including serving as molecular sensors for numerous fat soluble hormones, Vitamins A and D, and dietary lipids.

The first study focuses on the gene for PPARd, a master regulator that controls the ability of cells to burn fat. When the “delta switch” is turned on in adipose tissue, local metabolism is activated resulting in increased calorie burning. Increasing PPARd activity in muscle produces the “marathon mouse,” characterized by super-ability for long distance running. Marathon mice contain altered muscle composition, which doubles its physical endurance, enabling it to run an hour longer than a normal mouse. Marathon mice contain increased levels of slow twitch (type I) muscle fiber, which confers innate resistance to weight gain, even in the absence of exercise.

Additional work to be reported at Experimental Biology looks at another characteristic of PPARd: its role as a major regulator of inflammation. Coronary artery lesions or atherosclerosis are thought to be sites of inflammation. Dr. Evans found that activation of PPARd suppresses the inflammatory response in the artery, dramatically slowing down lesion progression. Combining the results of this new study with the original “marathon mouse” findings suggests that PPARd drugs could be effective in controlling atherosclerosis by limiting inflammation and at the same time promoting improved physical performance.

Dr. Evans says he is very excited about the therapeutic possibilities related to activation of the PPARd gene. He believes athletes, especially marathon runners, naturally change their muscle fibers in the same way as seen in the genetically engineered mice, increasing levels of fat-burning muscle fibers and thus building a type of metabolic ‘shield” that keeps them from gaining weight even when they are not exercising.

But athletes do it through long periods of intensive training, an approach unavailable to patients whose weight or medical problems prevent them from exercise. Dr. Evans believes activating the PPARd pathway with drugs (one such experimental drug already is in development to treat people with lipid metabolism) or genetic engineering would help enhance muscle strength, combat obesity, and protect against diabetes in these patients.

—————————-
Article adapted by MD Sports Weblog from original press release.
—————————-

Contact: Sarah Goodwin
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

When given extra shots of the plant steroid brassinolide, plants “pump up” like major league baseball players do on steroids. Tracing brassinolide’s signal deep into the cell’s nucleus, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies have unraveled how the growth-boosting hormone accomplishes its job at the molecular level.The Salk researchers, led by Joanne Chory, a professor in the Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Laboratory and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, published their findings in this week’s journal Nature.

“The steroid hormone brassinolide is central to plants’ growth. Without it, plants remain extreme dwarfs. If we are going to understand how plants grow, we need to understand the response pathway to this hormone,” says Chory. “This study clarifies what’s going on downstream in the nucleus when brassinolide signals a plant cell to grow.”

Brassinolide, a member of a family of plant hormones known as brassinosteroids, is a key element of plants’ response to light, enabling them to adjust growth to reach light or strengthen stems. Exploiting its potent growth-promoting properties could increase crop yields or enable growers to make plants more resistant to drought, pathogens, and cold weather.

Unfortunately, synthesizing brassinosteroids in the lab is complicated and expensive. But understanding how plant steroids work at the molecular level may one day lead to cheap and simple ways to bulk up crop harvests.

Likewise, since low brassinolide levels are associated with dwarfism, manipulating hormone levels during dormant seasons may allow growers to control the height of grasses, trees or other plants, thereby eliminating the need to constantly manicure gardens.

Based on earlier studies, the Salk researchers had developed a model that explained what happens inside a plant cell when brassinolide signals a plant cell to start growing.

But a model is just a model. Often evidence in favor of a particular model is indirect and could support multiple models. Describing the components of the signaling cascade that relays brassinolide’s message into a cell’s nucleus, postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the study Grégory Vert, now at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) in Montpellier, France, said, “All the players are old acquaintances and we knew from genetic studies that they were involved in this pathway. But when we revisited the old crew it became clear that we had to revise the original model.”

When brassinosteroids bind a receptor on the cell’s surface, an intracellular enzyme called BIN2 is inactivated by an unknown mechanism. Previously, investigators thought that inactivation of BIN2, which is a kinase, freed a second protein known as BES1 from entrapment in the cytoplasm, the watery compartment surrounding a cell’s nucleus, and allowed it to migrate or “shuttle” into the nucleus where it tweaked the activity of genes regulating plant growth.

A closer inspection, however, revealed that BIN2 resides in multiple compartments of a cell, including the nucleus, and it is there–not in the cytoplasm–that BIN2 meets up with BES1 and prevents it from activating growth genes. “All of a sudden the ‘BES1 shuttle model’ no longer made sense,” says Vert, adding that it took many carefully designed experiments to convince himself and others that it was time to retire the old model.

A new picture of how brassinosteroids stimulate plant growth now emerges based on those experiments: steroid hormones are still thought to inactivate BIN2 and reciprocally activate BES1, but instead of freeing BES1 to shuttle into the nucleus, it is now clear that the crucial activation step occurs in the nucleus where BES1 is already poised for action. Once released from BIN2 inhibition, BES1 associates with itself and other regulatory factors, and this modified form of BES1 binds to DNA, activating scores of target genes.

Referring to the work of Vert and other members of the brassinosteroid team, Chory says, “The old model may be out, but Greg’s new studies, together with those of former postdocs, Yanhai Yin and Zhiyong Wang, have allowed us to unravel the nuclear events controlling brassinosteroid responses at the genomic level. This turns our attention to the last mystery: the gap in our understanding of the events between steroid binding at the cell surface and these nuclear mechanisms.”

—————————-
Article adapted by MD Sports Weblog from original press release.
—————————-

Contact: Gina Kirchweger
Salk Institute

The Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, is an independent nonprofit organization dedicated to fundamental discoveries in the life sciences, the improvement of human health and the training of future generations of researchers. Jonas Salk, M.D., whose polio vaccine all but eradicated the crippling disease poliomyelitis in 1955, opened the Institute in 1965 with a gift of land from the City of San Diego and the financial support of the March of Dimes.

The Johns Hopkins scientists who first created “mighty mice” have developed, with pharmaceutical company Wyeth and the biotechnology firm MetaMorphix, an agent that’s more effective at increasing muscle mass in mice than a related potential treatment for muscular dystrophy now in clinical trials.

The new agent is a version of a cellular docking point for the muscle-limiting protein myostatin. In mice, just two weekly injections of the new agent triggered a 60 percent increase in muscle size, the researchers report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published and available publicly through the journal’s website.

The researchers’ original mighty mice, created by knocking out the gene that codes for myostatin, grew muscles twice as big as normal mice. An antibody against myostatin now in clinical trials caused mice to develop muscles 25 percent larger than those of untreated mice after five weeks or more of treatment.

The researchers’ expectation is that blocking myostatin might help maintain critical muscle strength in people whose muscles are wasting due to diseases like muscular dystrophy or side effects from cancer treatment or AIDS.

“This new inhibitor of myostatin, known as ACVR2B, is very potent and gives very dramatic effects in the mice,” says Se-Jin Lee, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of molecular biology and genetics in Johns Hopkins’ Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences. “Its effects were larger and faster than we’ve seen with any other agent, and they were even larger than we expected.”

ACVR2B is the business end of a cellular docking point for the myostatin protein, and it probably works in part by mopping up myostatin so it can’t exert its muscle-inhibiting influence. But the researchers’ experiments also show that the new agent’s extra potency stems from its ability to block more than just myostatin, says Lee.

“We don’t know how many other muscle-limiting proteins there may be or which ones they are,” says Lee, “but these experiments clearly show that myostatin is not the whole story.”

The evidence for other players came from experiments with mighty mice themselves. Because these mice don’t have any myostatin, any effects of injecting the new agent would come from its effects on other proteins, explains Lee. After five injections over four weeks, mighty mice injected with the new agent had muscles 24 percent larger than their counterparts that didn’t get the new agent.

“In some ways this was supposed to be a control experiment,” says Lee. “We weren’t really expecting to see an effect, let alone an effect that sizeable.”

In other experiments with normal female mice, weekly injections of the new agent provided the biggest effect on muscle growth after just two weeks at the highest dose given (50 milligrams per kilogram mouse weight). Depending on the muscle group analyzed, the treated mice’s muscles were bigger than untreated mice by 39 percent (the gastrocnemius [calf] muscle) to 61 percent (the triceps).

After just one week, mice given a fifth of that highest dose had muscles 16 percent to 25 percent bigger than untreated mice, depending on the muscle group analyzed, and mice treated with one injection a week for two, three or four weeks continued to gain muscle mass.

But although the new agent seems quite promising, its advantage in potency also requires extra caution. “We don’t know what else the new agent is affecting or whether those effects will turn out to be entirely beneficial,” says Lee.

Lee says they also are conducting experiments with the mice now to see whether the effect lasts after injections cease and whether it helps a mouse model of muscular dystrophy retain enough muscle strength to prolong life.

 —————————-
Article adapted by MD Sports Weblog from original press release.
—————————-

Contact: Joanna Downer
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

The research was funded by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Cancer Institute and by funds from Wyeth Research and MetaMorphix Inc. The new agent was produced and first tested at Wyeth, and the inhibitor used in the current mouse studies was produced at MetaMorphix. All of the mouse studies described in this article and in the PNAS paper were conducted in Lee’s laboratory at Johns Hopkins.

Authors on the report are Se-Jin Lee and Suzanne Sebald of Johns Hopkins; Lori Reed of Wyeth Exploratory Drug Safety, and Monique Davies, Stefan Girgenrath, Mary Goad, Kathy Tomkinson, Jill Wright and Neil Wolfman of Wyeth Discovery Research; Christopher Barker, Gregory Ehrmantraut, James Holmstrom and Betty Trowell of MetaMorphix Canada; Barry Gertz, Man-Shiow Jiang, Li-fang Liang, Edwin Quattlebaum and Ronald Stotish of MetaMorphix, Beltsville, Md.; Martin Matzuk of Baylor College of Medicine; and En Li of Harvard Medical School.

Myostatin was licensed by The Johns Hopkins University to MetaMorphix and sublicensed to Wyeth. Lee is entitled to a share of sales royalty received by The Johns Hopkins University from sales of this factor. The Johns Hopkins University and Lee also own MetaMorphix stock, which is subject to certain restrictions under university policy. Lee is a paid consultant to MetaMorphix. The terms of these arrangements are being managed by the university in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.

On the Web: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0505996102v1

Genetic research into athletic ability should be encouraged for its potential benefits in both sport and public health, a leading group of scientists meeting at the University of Bath said today. Genetic research into athletic ability should be encouraged for its potential benefits in both sport and public health, a leading group of scientists meeting at the University of Bath said today.

However, ethical concerns, such as whether seeking information about differences between ethnic groups could be perceived as racist research, need to be properly addressed, they warn.

Their recommendations are published in a ‘position stand’ on genetic research and testing launched at the British Association of Sport & Exercise Sciences annual meeting today.

They call for more genetic research in the sport and exercise sciences because of the anticipated benefits for public health, but want researchers to take a more active role in debating the implications of their work with the public.

“If a powerful muscle growth gene was identified, on the one hand this could help develop training programmes that increase muscle size and strength in athletes, but even more importantly the knowledge could be used to develop exercise programmes or drugs to combat muscle wasting in old age,” said Dr Alun Williams from Manchester Metropolitan University, one of the report’s authors.

“We, as scientists investigating genetics, acknowledge a public concern about some genetic research and we believe scientists need to engage in public in debates about the potential benefits of their research.

“Research into the athletic success of East African distance runners or sprinters of West African ancestry might be perceived as unethical.

“But understanding the limits of human exercise capacity in sport could lead to the development of treatments for a range of diseases like cancer and cardiovascular disease.”

The potential applications of genetic testing in sport and exercise also raise some ethical concerns, for example in identifying potential athletic ability before birth.

An Australian company already offers the first genetic performance test (for the ACTN3 gene) which has been linked to sprint and power performance.

The report authors are sceptical about whether this test is useful but anticipate that more advanced versions of these tests will be available in future.

“We are not yet at a point where we can identify a potential future Olympic champion from genetic tests but we may not be very far away,” said Dr Williams, who wrote the report with Drs Henning Wackerhage (Aberdeen University), Andy Miah (University of Paisley), Roger Harris (University of Chichester) and Hugh Montgomery (University College London).

They highlight two dangers of genetic performance tests. Firstly, genetic performance tests might later be linked to disease. For example, a muscle growth gene may later be linked to cancer growth.

“Not all people may want to know, while young that they are at increased risk of cancer by early middle age, but they might inadvertently become aware of that just because they had a ‘sport gene’ test,” said Dr Williams.

Secondly, genetic performance tests can be performed even before birth and this may lead to the selection of foetuses or to abortions based on athletic potential.

The report recommends genetic counselling and that the testing should be confined to mature individuals who fully understand the relevant issues.

Genetic tests might also be used to screen for health risks during sport such as genes that are linked to sudden cardiac death.

Genetic tests for sudden cardiac death are already available but the report recommends that such testing should not be enforced on athletes.

Problems with mandatory testing are highlighted by the case of the basketball player Eddy Curry, who had an irregular heart beat.

Curry was asked by his club, the Chicago Bulls, to perform a predictive genetic test for a heart condition. The athlete refused and was traded to the New York Knicks who did not make such a demand.

In future, genetic tests might be used to identify those that respond with the biggest drop in cholesterol, blood pressure or glucose to exercise.

In a personalised medicine approach, such tests could be used to select subjects for therapeutic exercise programmes but scientists are concerned that this might undermine the ‘exercise for all’ message that already seems difficult to get across to the public.

The authors say that genetic testing might also be used to detect gene doping, which may be a real threat by the time of the London Olympics in 2012, or to show that positive doping tests are the result of a genetic mutation in an athlete.

The report recommends that genetic testing should be used for anti-doping testing as long as the genetic samples are destroyed after testing.

—————————-
Article adapted by MD Sports Weblog from original press release.
—————————-

Contact: Andrew McLaughlin
University of Bath