Search

Multiple studies in humans and animals have demonstrated the profound impact that exercise can have on the immune system. There is a general consensus that regular bouts of short-lasting (i.e. up to 45 minutes) moderate intensity exercise is beneficial for host immune defense, particularly in older adults and people with chronic diseases. In contrast, infection burden is reported to be high among high performance athletes and second only to injury for the number of training days lost during preparation for major sporting events. This has shaped the common view that arduous exercise (i.e. those activities practiced by high performance athletes/military personnel that greatly exceed recommended physical activity guidelines) can suppress immunity and increase infection risk. However, the idea that exercise per se can suppress immunity and increase infection risk independently of the many other factors (e.g. anxiety, sleep disruption, travel, exposure, nutritional deficits, environmental extremes, etc.) experienced by these populations has recently been challenged. The purpose of this debate article was to solicit opposing arguments centered around this fundamental question in the exercise immunology field: can exercise affect immune function to increase susceptibility to infection. Issues that were contested between the debating groups include: (i) whether or not athletes are more susceptible to infection (mainly of the upper respiratory tract) than the general population; (ii) whether exercise per se is capable of altering immunity to increase infection risk independently of the multiple factors that activate shared immune pathways and are unique to the study populations involved; (iii) the usefulness of certain biomarkers and the interpretation of in vitro and in vivo data to monitor immune health in those who perform arduous exercise; and (iv) the quality of scientific evidence that has been used to substantiate claims for and against the potential negative effects of arduous exercise on immunity and infection risk. A key point of agreement between the groups is that infection susceptibility has a multifactorial underpinning. An issue that remains to be resolved is whether exercise per se is a causative factor of increased infection risk in athletes. This article should provide impetus for more empirical research to unravel the complex questions that surround this contentious issue in the field of exercise immunology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are common pathways by which psychological stress and exercise stress alter immunity. However, it remains unknown whether psychological stress plays a role in the in vivo immune response to exercise. We examined the relationship between anxiety and perceived psychological stress reported before exercise and in vivo immunity after exercise using skin sensitisation with Diphenylcyclopropenone (DPCP). In a randomised design, sixty four, thoroughly familiarised, males completed widely used psychological instruments to assess state-anxiety and perceived psychological stress before exercise, and ran either 30 minutes at 60% (30MI) or 80% (30HI) V .O2peak, 120 minutes at 60% (120MI) ̇ O2peak or rested (CON) before DPCP sensitisation. Cutaneous recall to DPCP was measured as the dermal thickening response to a low-dose series DPCP challenge 4-weeks after sensitisation. After accounting for exercise (R2 = 0.20; P < 0.01), multiple-regression showed that pre-exercise state-anxiety (STAI-S; ΔR2 = 0.19; P < 0.01) and perceived psychological stress (ΔR2 = 0.13; P < 0.05) were moderately associated with the DPCP response after exercise. The STAI-S scores before exercise were considered low-to-moderate in these familiarised individuals (median split; mean STAI-S of low 25 and moderate 34). Further examination showed that the DPCP response after exercise (30MI, 30HI or 120MI) was 62% lower in those reporting low vs. moderate state-anxiety before exercise (mean difference in dermal thickening: -2.6 mm; 95% CI: -0.8 to -4.4 mm; P < 0.01). As such, the results indicate a beneficial effect of moderate (vs. low) state-anxiety and perceived psychological stress on in vivo immunity after exercise. Moreover, correlations were of comparable strength for the relationship between physiological stress (heart rate training impulse) and the summed dermal response to DPCP (r = -0.37; 95% CI: -0.05 to -0.62; P = 0.01), and state-anxiety and the summed dermal response to DPCP (r = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.63; P < 0.01). In conclusion, state-anxiety and perceived psychological stress levels before exercise play an important role in determining the strength of the in vivo immune response after exercise. These findings indicate a similar strength relationship for the level of state-anxiety prior to exercise and the level of physiological stress during exercise with the in vivo immune response after exercise. Future research is required to investigate exercise-immune responses in athletes, military personnel and others in physically demanding occupations experiencing higher levels of psychological stress than those reported in this study e.g. related to important competition, military operations and major life events. Nevertheless, the present findings support the recommendation that exercise scientists should account for anxiety and psychological stress when examining the immune response to exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vitamin D is mainly obtained through sunlight ultraviolet-B (UVB) exposure of the skin, with a small amount typically coming from the diet. It is now clear that vitamin D has important roles beyond its well-known effects on calcium and bone homeostasis. Immune cells express the vitamin D receptor, including antigen presenting cells, T cells and B cells, and these cells are all capable of synthesizing the biologically active vitamin D metabolite, 1, 25 dihydroxy vitamin D. There has been growing interest in the benefits of supplementing vitamin D as studies report vitamin D insufficiency (circulating 25(OH)D < 50 nmol/L) in more than half of all athletes and military personnel tested during the winter, when skin sunlight UVB is negligible. The overwhelming evidence supports avoiding vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D < 30 nmol/L) to maintain immunity and prevent upper respiratory illness (URI) in athletes and military personnel. Recent evidence supports an optimal circulating 25(OH)D of 75 nmol/L to prevent URI and enhance innate immunity and mucosal immunity and bring about anti-inflammatory actions through the induction of regulatory T cells and the inhibition of pro-inflammatory cytokine production. We provide practical recommendations for how vitamin D sufficiency can be achieved in most individuals by safe sunlight exposure in the summer and daily 1, 000 IU vitamin D3 supplementation in the winter. Studies are required in athletes and military personnel to determine the impact of these recommendations on immunity and URI; and, to demonstrate the purported benefit of achieving 25(OH)D > 75 nmol/L. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the importance of managing physical training to maintain immune health, particulary for elite athletes.Topics include training considerations, nutritional countermeasures to immune perturbations induced by exercise, how the immune function is affected by stress and the immune response to exercise. Also mentioned are the factors influencing athletes' immune function, health and exercise performance, including potential exposure to pathogens, health status, lifestyle behaviors, sleep and psychosocial issues.

The article focuses on the scientific basis about the influence of exercise on immune response. It notes that the commonly held beliefs that the frequency of upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) is increased in high performance athletes after single bouts of ultra-endurance exercise and during intensive training periods have stimulated the focus on respiratory infections in exercise. It also states that the major effector function of the mucosal immune system that provides the first line of defence against pathogens is the production of secretory immunoglobulin A (SIgA).

Vitamin D is mainly obtained through sunlight ultraviolet-B (UVB) exposure of the skin, with a small amount typically coming from the diet.It is now clear that vitamin D has important roles beyond its well-known effects on calcium and bone homeostasis. Immune cells express the vitamin D receptor, including antigen presenting cells, T cells and B cells, and these cells are all capable of synthesizing the biologically active vitamin D metabolite, 1, 25 hydroxy vitamin D.There has been growing interest in the benefits of supplementing vitamin D as studies report vitamin D insufficiency (circulating 25(OH)D < 50 nmol/L) in more than half of all athletes and military personnel tested during the winter, when skin sunlight UVB is negligible. The overwhelming evidence supports avoiding vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D< 30 nmol/L)to maintain immunity and prevent upper respiratory illness (URI) in athletes and military personnel.Recent evidence supports an optimal circulating 25(OH)D of 75 nmol/L to prevent URI and enhance innate immunity and mucosal immunity and bring about anti-inflammatory actions through the induction of regulatory T cells and the inhibition of pro-inflammatory cytokine production. We provide practical recommendations for how vitamin D sufficiency can be achieved in most individuals by safe sunlight exposure in the summer and daily 1, 000 IU vitamin D3 supplementation in the winter. Studies are required in athletes and military personnel to determine the impact of these recommendations on immunity and URI; and,to demonstrate the purported benefit of achieving 25(OH)D>75 nmol/L., (Copyright © 2015 International Society of Exercise and Immunology. All rights reserved.)