Why the study?
Running therapy is efficacious for depression and anxiety, but little is known about its effects on functional brain connectivity.
Does 16 weeks running therapy improve functional brain connectivity and clinical symptoms in individuals with affective disorders?
Does 16 weeks running therapy improve functional brain connectivity and clinical symptoms in individuals with affective disorders?
Running therapy improves clinical symptoms of depression and anxiety but does not significantly alter global functional brain connectivity.
OBJECTIVES: Running therapy has been shown to be efficacious for depression and anxiety disorders. However, little is known about the effects of running therapy on functional brain connectivity. METHODS: We used resting-state functional MRI scans from 25 individuals with an affective disorder that performed 16 weeks running therapy as part of the MOod Treatment with Antidepressants or Running (MOTAR) study. Using an atlas-based approach we investigated therapy-induced changes in connectivity and topology of several functional systems, e.g. the default-mode and salience networks. We additionally performed a case-control analysis using the pre-treatment scans of affective disorder patients (N = 50) and matched healthy controls (N = 66). RESULTS: Running therapy significantly improved depressive (Inventory of Depressive Symptoms; IDS) and anxiety (Beck's Anxiety Inventory; BAI) symptoms after 16 weeks (IDS: Z = -4.13, P < 0.001, BAI: Z = -2.87, P = 0.003), but it had no significant effect on functional connectivity or network topology. The case-control analyses at baseline also did not reveal any between-group differences. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there were either no functional abnormalities to improve or the effects of 16 weeks running therapy may be too subtle to impact (global) network communication of functional systems and may be limited to changes in localized brain regions. Discrepancies between our case-control results and that of previous literature are interpreted in light of methodological and clinical heterogeneity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vriend et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: