Randomized trial investigates sex differences in inflammatory and oxidative responses to acute high-intensity exercise, highlighting unique adaptations.
High-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) induces transient increases in reactive oxygen species (ROS) and inflammatory mediators that drive skeletal muscle adaptations. Sex influences oxidative stress and inflammation, yet the interplay between sex and exercise-induced signaling remains incompletely understood. The purpose of this study was to investigate sex differences in markers of inflammation, oxidative stress, and antioxidant status at rest and following acute HIIE in young, healthy males and females matched for aerobic fitness. Twenty-four participants (12/sex) underwent muscle biopsies and blood sampling at rest and immediately post-exercise (10×1 min at 90% HRmax). Skeletal muscle was analyzed for oxidative stress (NOX2, 4HNE, total protein carbonylation via oxyblot, p38 MAPK), antioxidant enzymes (TRX1, glutathione reductase, GPX1) and cytokine content (array) and plasma analyzed for inflammatory markers (IL-6, TNFα) and antioxidant status. Acute HIIE increased plasma IL-6 and TNFα and decreased total antioxidant status with no differences between sexes. Basally, females had higher phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and elevated growth- and repair-associated cytokines (IGFBP-1/3, TIMP-1/2, TGF-β2/3, FGF-7/9, M-CSF, SDF-1), whereas males had higher basal pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1α, IL-13, IP-10, oncostatin M). Following exercise, males showed a greater upregulation of growth and repair mediators, while females had broader suppression of inflammatory and chemotactic factors. No sex differences were observed in muscle oxidative stress markers or antioxidant content. These findings indicate that while acute HIIE elicits comparable plasma inflammatory responses in males and females, underlying skeletal muscle cytokine signaling and adaptive potential are sex-specific, emphasizing the need to consider sex in exercise physiology studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beaudry et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: