A1C Almanac

Main Page

Multi-System Organ Conditioning Through Exercise as a Framework for Cardiometabolic Health and Longevity

Posted

by

dr Karunia Valeriani Japar

Table of Contents
Category:
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Keywords: Organ Training, Metabolic Health, Exerkines, Digital Biomarkers, Longevity

Introduction

Conventional fitness culture has traditionally emphasized skeletal muscle size and strength, despite mounting evidence that the principal longevity benefits of physical activity are mediated through adaptations in internal organs and their regulatory networks. In this context, the cardiovascular, hepatic, adipose, pancreatic, and neuroendocrine systems emerge as central targets of lifestyle intervention, with exercise functioning less as a purely musculoskeletal stimulus and more as a systemic conditioning signal. Reframing lifestyle modification as “organ training” therefore represents a conceptual shift from aesthetics‑driven goals toward function‑oriented outcomes, positioning the prevention of cardiometabolic and age‑related disease as a performance objective rather than a passive reduction of statistical risk.

A growing body of experimental and clinical data indicates that structured exercise, targeted nutrition, and adequate recovery induce coordinated remodelling of the liver, heart, vasculature, adipose tissue, pancreas, and brain, mirroring the progressive conditioning observed in athletic training paradigms. These adaptations include improvements in insulin sensitivity, substrate flexibility, endothelial function, autonomic balance, and neuroplasticity, collectively enhancing resilience to metabolic and inflammatory stressors across the lifespan. Within this framework, organs can be conceptualized as “athletes” whose performance can be quantified, trained, and monitored over time in response to specific lifestyle “loading” patterns.

The present article proposes a practical, clinically oriented framework to operationalize the concept of “training organs like athletes” in preventive and longevity care. Central to this framework is the use of laboratory biomarkers, imaging modalities, and continuous or near‑continuous digital signals as dynamic “scoreboards” that reflect organ‑level performance and adaptation trajectories, rather than as isolated static measurements. By integrating these data streams, clinicians and health‑technology systems can iteratively adjust exercise prescriptions, nutritional strategies, and recovery protocols in a manner analogous to performance coaching in sport.

This narrative is intended for clinicians, health‑tech practitioners, and researchers engaged in the design and implementation of longitudinal wellness programs, with a particular emphasis on aging‑related and metabolic disease prevention. It aims to bridge mechanistic physiology with real‑world digital health tools, outlining how AI‑driven analytics and personalization can support scalable, organ‑centric training strategies. Ultimately, the organ‑training paradigm seeks to recast everyday lifestyle choices as structured, data‑informed training cycles for the body’s internal systems, aligning patient engagement with a performance mindset that may be more intuitive and motivating than traditional risk‑factor counselling.

Conceptual Framework: From Muscle-Centric to Organ-Athlete Paradigm

Exercise physiology has historically been framed through a predominantly muscle‑centric lens, with training responses described in terms of hypertrophy, strength gains, and improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness. This perspective, while valuable, overlooks the fact that skeletal muscle constitutes only one component of a distributed network of organs and tissues that adapt in parallel to repeated exercise stimuli. Regular physical activity elicits coordinated metabolic and structural changes in the liver, adipose tissue, vasculature, heart, and pancreas, which collectively contribute to improved insulin sensitivity, substrate handling, and cardiometabolic risk reduction. Contemporary work has emphasized that many of these benefits are mediated not only by intrinsic tissue responses but also by inter‑organ communication via exercise‑induced signalling molecules, providing a physiological basis for moving beyond a muscle‑only paradigm [1,2,3,4].

Central to this broader view is the concept of “exerkines,” an umbrella term encompassing myokines, hepatokines, adipokines, and other circulating factors released in response to acute and chronic exercise. Myokines such as interleukin‑6, irisin, and IL‑15, along with hepatokines like fibroblast growth factor 21 and adipokines derived from white adipose tissue, participate in a complex network of crosstalk that redistributes energy substrates, modulates inflammation, and orchestrates systemic metabolic adaptations. These signalling pathways enable exercise to reprogram the metabolic phenotype of non‑muscle organs, including reductions in hepatic steatosis, improvements in endothelial function, and shifts toward a more insulin‑sensitive adipose tissue profile. The organism‑wide nature of these responses provides mechanistic support for conceptualizing exercise as multi‑organ training rather than as an intervention targeting skeletal muscle alone [1,3,4,5,6,7].

Within an “organ‑athlete” paradigm, each major organ system is treated as a trainable performer characterized by specific workloads (stimuli), measurable performance metrics, and predictable adaptation trajectories over time. For example, the cardiovascular system can be trained through structured aerobic and interval loads, with performance indexed by variables such as VO₂max, stroke volume, arterial stiffness, and heart rate recovery, whereas hepatic training loads may be reflected in changes in hepatic fat content, fasting insulin, and dynamic glucose tolerance. Similarly, adipose tissue, pancreatic beta‑cell function, and brain–autonomic regulation can be tracked via depot‑specific fat measures, insulin secretion indices, inflammatory markers, cognitive function, and heart rate variability, all of which respond to repeated lifestyle “loading” in a dose‑dependent manner. This framing allows clinicians to design interventions that are organ‑specific in intent, while still recognizing the inherent interdependence of these systems [1,2,3,4,7,8].

Figure 1. Cardiometabolic Health Benefits of Exercise [8]

The organ‑athlete model aligns closely with foundational principles from sports training science specificity, progressive overload, recovery, and periodization, applied at the level of organ function rather than exclusively to muscle strength or whole‑body aerobic capacity. Specificity is expressed through the deliberate selection of exercise modes, intensities, and nutritional contexts that preferentially target certain organ adaptations, such as low‑to‑moderate‑intensity aerobic training for mitochondrial and hepatic improvements or resistance training for skeletal muscle and bone. Progressive overload is operationalized by incremental adjustments in training volume, intensity, or complexity, with organ‑level biomarkers and functional tests serving as feedback on whether adaptation or maladaptation is occurring. Recovery and periodization become essential for consolidating gains and preventing overtraining‑like states, which may manifest as deteriorations in glycemic control, autonomic imbalance, or chronic low‑grade inflammation [1,2,3,8,9].

This conceptual shift also dovetails with the emerging science of biological aging, which increasingly recognizes that different organs and systems can age at discordant rates. Recent work on organ‑specific and multi‑organ biological aging clocks suggests that cardiovascular, metabolic, renal, and brain “ages” may diverge substantially from chronological age and from each other, with important implications for disease risk and functional decline. These clocks, derived from proteomic, metabolomic, imaging, and composite phenotypic data, provide quantitative estimates of organ‑level aging trajectories that can be modified by lifestyle exposures, including physical activity patterns. Integrating the organ‑athlete paradigm with organ‑specific biological age metrics creates a framework in which targeted training programs are explicitly designed to decelerate or reverse accelerated organ aging, transforming abstract risk into actionable performance goals that can be monitored longitudinally [10,.

Mechanistic Basis: How Exercise Trains Internal Organs

Regular exercise is a potent modulator of systemic metabolism, exerting its effects through both acute, bout‑related perturbations and longer‑term structural adaptations across multiple organs. Acute exercise increases insulin‑independent glucose uptake in skeletal muscle, augments energy expenditure, and transiently alters circulating substrates and hormones, thereby acutely improving insulin sensitivity in the post‑exercise period. With repeated training, these transient effects are consolidated into chronic adaptations, including enhanced whole‑body insulin sensitivity, improved metabolic flexibility, and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and non‑alcoholic fatty liver disease. These systemic changes arise from coordinated remodelling of skeletal muscle, liver, adipose tissue, vasculature, and the pancreas, underscoring the multi‑organ nature of exercise as a “training” intervention [1,11,12].

In skeletal muscle, endurance and mixed‑mode training drive a well‑characterized program of mitochondrial and microvascular adaptations. Repeated aerobic loading increases mitochondrial content and oxidative enzyme activity, enhances capillary density, and improves the efficiency of fatty acid and glucose oxidation. These changes facilitate greater glucose uptake via both insulin‑dependent and insulin‑independent pathways, reduce accumulation of lipotoxic intermediates such as diacylglycerols and ceramides, and improve muscle insulin sensitivity. Over longer timescales, lifelong recreational sport and endurance training are associated with upregulation of autophagy‑related genes, heat‑shock proteins, and proteasome components in skeletal muscle, supporting protein quality control and cellular housekeeping functions that are critical for healthy aging. Together, these adaptations position skeletal muscle as a more oxidative, metabolically flexible organ that can buffer fluctuations in nutrient availability and systemic energy demand [1,2,9,11,12].

Beyond muscle, the liver undergoes profound exercise‑induced remodelling that contributes directly to improved metabolic health. Regular training reduces hepatic de novo lipogenesis, increases fatty acid oxidation, and improves hepatic insulin sensitivity, thereby lowering endogenous glucose production and intrahepatic triglyceride accumulation. Randomized trials and meta‑analyses in individuals with non‑alcoholic fatty liver disease demonstrate that structured aerobic or combined training can reduce intrahepatic triglyceride content by several percentage points, even in the absence of significant weight loss, indicating a weight‑loss‑independent hepatic training effect. Experimental models further suggest that exercise normalizes markers of lipid droplet dynamics and lipogenic enzymes, consistent with a shift toward a less steatotic, more metabolically resilient hepatic phenotype. These hepatic adaptations, in turn, help stabilize systemic glucose and lipid fluxes during both fasting and postprandial states [1,12,13,14,15,16].

Concomitantly, exercise drives adaptive changes in the vascular and cardiac systems that reduce cardiometabolic risk and expand the body’s capacity to tolerate higher “training loads.” Regular aerobic and interval training improve endothelial function, enhance nitric‑oxide‑mediated vasodilation, and reduce arterial stiffness, leading to more favourable hemodynamics at rest and during exertion. Cardiac adaptations include increases in stroke volume, improved diastolic function, and more efficient myocardial energetics, which collectively manifest as higher cardiorespiratory fitness and greater cardiac reserve. These vascular and cardiac changes are tightly linked to reductions in blood pressure, improved coronary perfusion, and lower incidence of cardiovascular events, highlighting their central role in the translation of exercise training into clinical benefit. When viewed through an organ‑training lens, the heart and vasculature thus emerge as key “athletes” whose structural and functional remodelling underpins the safe execution of higher systemic workloads over the lifespan [8,12,16].

Organ-Specific Training: Heart and Vasculature

Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is now recognized as a major independent predictor of morbidity and mortality, integrating cardiac, pulmonary, vascular, and metabolic function into a single quantitative construct. Large overviews of cohort studies and meta‑analyses, encompassing millions of person‑years of follow‑up, demonstrate that higher CRF is associated with substantially lower risks of all‑cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and multiple incident chronic conditions, with evidence of a clear dose–response relationship across fitness levels. These findings support the positioning of CRF as a core vital sign in clinical practice and provide a rationale for viewing the heart and vasculature as trainable organs whose performance status has direct prognostic implications [17,18,19].

From a mechanistic standpoint, aerobic and interval training elicit coordinated adaptations in both the myocardium and the vascular tree. Repeated endurance loading increases stroke volume and maximal cardiac output, improves myocardial contractility and relaxation, and enhances coronary perfusion, thereby augmenting overall cardiac efficiency. In parallel, exercise training improves endothelial function, largely through increased shear‑stress‑mediated nitric oxide bioavailability, and reduces arterial stiffness as reflected by decreases in pulse wave velocity and improved flow‑mediated dilation. These central and peripheral adaptations together underlie the observed gains in CRF and contribute to reductions in blood pressure, improved perfusion of skeletal muscle and other organs, and attenuation of atherosclerotic processes [8,20,21,22,23,24].

At the clinical phenotype level, a “trained” cardiovascular system is characterized by lower resting heart rate, faster heart rate recovery after exercise, and greater functional reserve capacity during physical and hemodynamic stress. Resting bradycardia in trained individuals reflects enhanced stroke volume and parasympathetic tone, while rapid heart rate recovery is associated with favourable autonomic balance and lower cardiovascular risk. Higher VO₂max values correlate with thinner carotid intima–media thickness and reduced prevalence of carotid atherosclerosis, underscoring the link between fitness and vascular structural health. Collectively, these features provide a clinically accessible portrait of a cardiovascular system that has undergone beneficial remodelling in response to chronic exercise loading [24,25,26].

Within an organ‑athlete framework, commonly used cardiopulmonary and vascular measurements can be viewed as performance metrics for the heart and vessels. Direct or estimated VO₂max, resting and recovery heart rates, ambulatory and clinic blood pressure profiles, echocardiographic indices of chamber size and function, and measures of arterial stiffness such as pulse wave velocity or augmentation index all offer complementary information about cardiovascular performance status and adaptation. When tracked longitudinally, changes in these metrics can be interpreted analogously to improvements in race times or power outputs in sports, signalling successful “training” of the cardiovascular system or, conversely, early signs of deconditioning or maladaptation [8,17,18,25].

The organ‑athlete model therefore reframes CRF targets, such as achieving at least moderate‑to‑high fitness quintiles for age and sex, as akin to building race‑ready capacity in endurance athletes, but with the primary objective of enhancing resilience for everyday life and aging rather than competition. Epidemiologic data indicate that even modest upward shifts in CRF categories are associated with meaningful reductions in mortality risk, supporting the clinical value of progressive, attainable fitness goals. For preventive cardiology and longevity‑focused care, this paradigm encourages clinicians to prescribe and periodize aerobic and interval training with the explicit intention of conditioning the heart and vasculature, using objective performance metrics to guide progression, recovery, and long‑term maintenance of cardiovascular “fitness age” [9,17,19].

Organ-Specific Training: Liver and Metabolic Apparatus

The liver occupies a central position in whole‑body energy homeostasis, acting as a dynamic buffer that determines postprandial glycemia, lipid handling, and resilience to chronic overnutrition. In states of energy surplus, excess carbohydrate and lipid flux are directed toward hepatic de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride storage, promoting intrahepatic fat accumulation and contributing to systemic insulin resistance. Conversely, regular physical activity acutely and chronically reprograms hepatic metabolism, enabling more efficient matching of glucose output to peripheral demand and reducing the tendency toward pathological lipid accumulation. Within an organ‑athlete framework, the liver can thus be conceptualized as a “metabolic athlete” whose performance can be conditioned through appropriate exercise loading and monitored using specific biochemical and imaging markers [1,27,28].

During individual exercise bouts, hepatic glucose production increases to maintain euglycemia in the face of heightened skeletal‑muscle uptake, mediated by coordinated changes in glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis. Over time, repeated exposure to these acute perturbations enhances hepatic insulin sensitivity, improving the suppression of endogenous glucose production under insulinized conditions and contributing to better fasting and postprandial glycemic control. Short‑term training studies in individuals with non‑alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) demonstrate that as little as 7 days of aerobic exercise can increase hepatic insulin extraction and reduce hyperinsulinemia in a weight‑loss‑independent manner, highlighting the rapid trainability of liver‑specific metabolic processes. Meta‑analytic data further indicate that structured exercise programs improve basal hepatic insulin sensitivity indices, though effects on insulin‑stimulated hepatic insulin sensitivity require additional clarification [1,12,14,29].

Chronic training also shifts hepatic lipid metabolism away from lipogenesis toward greater fatty acid oxidation and export, thereby lowering intrahepatic triglyceride content and mitigating the progression of NAFLD. Systematic reviews and meta‑analyses pooling magnetic‑resonance‑based data show that exercise interventions of 1–24 weeks can elicit absolute reductions in intrahepatic triglyceride of approximately 3 percentage points, with benefits observed even in the absence of significant weight loss and amplified when weight loss occurs. Randomized trials comparing aerobic and resistance modalities in NAFLD report that both approaches can reduce hepatic fat content and liver enzymes (ALT, AST), with some evidence that combined training yields particularly favourable changes in liver function and lipid profiles. Mechanistically, aerobic training has been linked to upregulation of hepatic AMPK and PPAR‑α signalling and attenuation of steatosis and inflammation, supporting a more oxidative, less lipogenic hepatic phenotype [14,27,28,30,31,32,33,34].

In clinical practice, a range of laboratory and imaging markers can serve as “training scoreboards” for liver and broader metabolic apparatus performance. Fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and derived indices such as HOMA‑IR provide information on basal insulin sensitivity and secretory demand, while oral glucose tolerance tests capture postprandial glycemic handling and dynamic hepatic glucose output. Liver enzymes (ALT, AST, γ‑GT), lipid parameters (triglycerides, HDL‑cholesterol, non‑HDL cholesterol), and non‑invasive fibrosis scores offer additional insight into hepatic injury, steatosis, and fibrosis risk. Imaging‑derived measures of liver fat, obtained via ultrasound, MRI‑PDFF, or magnetic resonance spectroscopy are particularly valuable for quantifying training‑induced changes in hepatic triglyceride content over time [14,27,34,35].

Structured exercise programs that combine aerobic and resistance components have shown consistent benefits across these “scoreboards,” underscoring the liver’s capacity for adaptation. Randomized and controlled trials in NAFLD populations indicate that 8–12 weeks of supervised aerobic or resistance training, with or without dietary modification, can reduce hepatic fat content, improve liver enzymes, enhance whole‑body and muscle insulin sensitivity, and modestly decrease visceral adiposity. Meta‑analyses suggest that combined exercise modalities may provide the most favourable overall improvements in liver function markers and lipids, though aerobic training often exerts broader effects on metabolic risk factors. These findings collectively position the liver and its connected metabolic apparatus as highly trainable targets within preventive and longevity‑focused care, where exercise prescriptions can be periodized and titrated using liver‑specific metrics in a manner analogous to performance coaching in sports [14,27,28,31,33,34].

Organ-Specific Training: Adipose Tissue and Inflammation

Adipose tissue is now firmly recognized as an active endocrine and immunometabolic organ whose cellular and secretory phenotype can be remodelled by chronic physical activity. Rather than serving merely as a passive energy store, white adipose tissue (WAT) secretes a broad repertoire of adipokines and cytokines that influence systemic insulin sensitivity, vascular function, and inflammatory tone. Exercise training induces structural and molecular adaptations in WAT and brown adipose tissue (BAT), including changes in adipocyte size, mitochondrial function, vascularization, and immune‑cell composition, which together shift adipose tissue toward a more metabolically “fit” state. Within an organ‑athlete framework, these changes can be viewed as the conditioning of adipose tissue to better buffer energy fluxes, reduce lipotoxic spillover, and support whole‑body metabolic resilience [35,36,37,38,39,40].

One of the central ways exercise “trains” adipose tissue is by enhancing its capacity to store and mobilize lipids safely, thereby limiting ectopic fat deposition in liver, skeletal muscle, and viscera. Chronic endurance and mixed‑mode training are associated with reductions in adipocyte hypertrophy, improvements in adipose tissue insulin sensitivity, and increased mitochondrial oxidative capacity, particularly in subcutaneous depots. These adaptations allow adipose tissue to accommodate energy surpluses with less accompanying inflammation and fewer lipotoxic intermediates entering the circulation. In parallel, exercise promotes “browning” or “beiging” of certain white adipose depots, characterized by upregulation of UCP1 and thermogenic programs, which increases energy expenditure and contributes to improved systemic metabolic health [36,38,39,40].

Visceral adipose tissue (VAT), a key driver of cardiometabolic risk, appears particularly responsive to exercise‑induced energy expenditure and hormonal changes. Systematic reviews and meta‑analyses demonstrate that aerobic training, especially at moderate to vigorous intensity can significantly reduce VAT in overweight and obese adults, even when total body weight loss is modest or absent. In some trials, exercise‑only interventions have produced meaningful reductions in CT‑ or MRI‑quantified visceral fat, with estimates of approximately 6% VAT reduction in the absence of weight loss and a clear dose–response relationship between exercise energy expenditure and VAT loss. These preferential reductions in visceral depots help ameliorate the pro‑inflammatory and insulin‑resistant milieu associated with central obesity, translating into improvements in cardiometabolic risk markers [41,42].

At the molecular level, the interplay between myokines and adipokines during and after exercise is a key mechanism linking activity to improvements in metabolic flexibility and low‑grade inflammation. Skeletal muscle contractions stimulate the release of myokines such as interleukin‑6, which in the exercise context acts in concert with other factors to enhance lipolysis, promote fatty acid oxidation, and exert anti‑inflammatory effects in adipose tissue. Concurrently, exercise shifts the adipokine profile toward increased adiponectin and reduced leptin and pro‑inflammatory cytokines (for example, TNF‑α and IL‑6 in its chronic, adipose‑derived form), thereby improving insulin sensitivity and dampening systemic inflammation. Experimental models show that chronic training can reduce adipose tissue macrophage infiltration, promote a shift from pro‑inflammatory M1 to anti‑inflammatory M2 macrophage phenotypes, and downregulate TLR4‑mediated inflammatory signalling in WAT. Together, this myokine–adipokine crosstalk configures adipose tissue into a more anti‑inflammatory, metabolically flexible organ that supports rather than impairs systemic homeostasis [36,37,38,39,43,44,45,46].

In clinical and translational settings, several anthropometric and biochemical measures can function as adipose‑focused “performance metrics” to monitor training responses. Waist circumference and waist‑to‑height ratio provide pragmatic proxies for central adiposity and VAT burden, while imaging‑based estimates of visceral fat (via CT, MRI, or DXA‑derived surrogates) offer more precise quantification of depot‑specific remodelling over time. High‑sensitivity C‑reactive protein (hs‑CRP) serves as a global marker of low‑grade inflammation and often declines with sustained exercise training in parallel with improvements in adipose tissue function. Panels of adipokines, including adiponectin, leptin, and selected pro‑inflammatory cytokines can further characterize the endocrine phenotype of adipose tissue and its response to exercise prescriptions. When integrated into an organ‑athlete framework, these metrics allow clinicians to track the “fitness” of adipose tissue, titrate training loads, and personalize interventions aimed at reducing visceral adiposity and adipose‑driven inflammation as part of comprehensive cardiometabolic prevention programs [37,38,39,41,42,44].

Organ- Specific Training: Skeletal Muscle as Metabolic Engine

Skeletal muscle is the largest organ by mass and the principal site for insulin‑stimulated glucose disposal, responsible for the majority of postprandial glucose uptake and thus a central determinant of whole‑body glycemic control. Impairments in muscle insulin signalling and glucose transport are sufficient to induce systemic insulin resistance, underscoring the role of muscle as a metabolic “engine” that buffers circulating glucose and substrates. In this context, the quantity and quality of skeletal muscle tissue become key levers for cardiometabolic health and aging trajectories, making muscle a prime target for organ‑specific training within preventive frameworks [47,48,49,50,51].

Resistance and mixed‑mode (aerobic plus resistance) training constitute the primary strategies to preserve and augment muscle mass and strength across the lifespan. Age‑related sarcopenia, characterized by progressive loss of muscle mass and function is strongly associated with long‑term functional decline and increased mortality in community‑dwelling older adults, highlighting the clinical importance of early and sustained intervention. Systematic reviews indicate that appropriately prescribed resistance training (including high‑load and, in some cases, lower‑load to failure protocols) improves muscle cross‑sectional area, strength, and functional performance, thereby countering sarcopenia and reducing fall risk and dependency. Mixed‑mode programs that combine resistance with aerobic components further enhance muscle oxidative capacity and functional outcomes, making them particularly suitable for older and metabolically compromised populations [49,52,53,54].

Aerobic and so‑called zone‑2 style training (low‑to‑moderate intensity, steady‑state work) induce complementary adaptations focused on mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative metabolism in skeletal muscle. Prolonged, submaximal training increases mitochondrial density and size, upregulates oxidative enzymes, and enhances capillary supply, collectively improving fat oxidation and endurance capacity. These adaptations support improved metabolic flexibility, allowing greater reliance on lipid oxidation at a given workload and sparing glycogen, which in turn contributes to better glycemic control and lower cardiometabolic risk. Interval‑based protocols, including high‑intensity and sprint interval training, further augment insulin sensitivity and glycemic regulation, even in individuals with established cardiometabolic disease, by rapidly enhancing muscle glucose uptake and mitochondrial function [2,49,55,56,57].

Lifelong engagement in structured physical activity has been linked to upregulation of longevity‑related pathways and autophagy markers in skeletal muscle, offering a plausible cellular mechanism for exercise‑associated healthy aging. Studies of older adults with decades of recreational football (soccer) training show increased expression of genes and proteins involved in autophagy, proteasome activity, and protein quality control, such as ATG5‑ATG12 complexes, heat‑shock proteins, and proteasome subunits, compared with age‑matched untrained controls. These molecular signatures are accompanied by superior cardiovascular capacity and muscle function, suggesting that lifelong “training” maintains muscle proteostasis and mitigates age‑related deterioration. Such findings support the notion that skeletal muscle not only responds acutely to training stimuli but also accumulates protective, longevity‑linked adaptations over decades of consistent activity [9].

Within an organ‑athlete paradigm, a range of muscle‑focused “performance metrics” can be used to quantify training status and adaptation. Handgrip strength, one‑repetition maximum (1‑RM) tests, and multi‑joint functional measures (for example, chair‑rise time, gait speed, timed up‑and‑go) capture neuromuscular capacity and are robustly associated with disability and mortality risk. Body composition assessments via DXA, BIA, or CT provide estimates of appendicular lean mass and intramuscular adipose tissue, enabling detection of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity. When combined with metabolic markers such as HbA1c, fasting glucose, and measures of insulin sensitivity, these metrics create an integrated view of skeletal muscle as both a mechanical and metabolic organ, directly linking muscle‑level adaptations to mobility, independence, and long‑term survival [47,50,53,54].

Organ- Specific Training: Brain, Autonomic Nervous System, and Mood

Physical exercise functions as a potent neuromodulatory intervention, exerting measurable effects on cognitive performance, affective states, and stress‑related circuitry that accumulate with sustained practice. Epidemiologic and interventional data indicate that physically active individuals show a reduced risk of cognitive impairment and slower trajectories of late‑life cognitive decline, with particular benefits observed for episodic memory and executive functions. Randomized trials in older adults at risk for mobility disability further suggest that structured physical activity programs can yield parallel improvements in physical and cognitive performance, reinforcing the concept that motor and cognitive domains share overlapping plasticity. At the mechanistic level, these benefits are underpinned by improved cerebral blood flow, modulation of neuroinflammation, and upregulation of neurotrophic factors, positioning the brain as a trainable organ within a broader exercise‑centric health strategy [58,59,60,61,62].

A central molecular mediator of exercise‑induced brain adaptation is brain‑derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which supports neuronal survival, synaptic plasticity, and neurogenesis in regions critical for mood and cognition, such as the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. Meta‑analytic and mechanistic studies show that acute and chronic exercise can increase peripheral and central BDNF levels, with aerobic and combined aerobic–resistance protocols, as well as mind–body practices like yoga, demonstrating particular efficacy in populations with depressive symptoms. These neurobiological changes correspond with clinically relevant improvements in depressive symptomatology and anxiety, to the point that contemporary reviews describe exercise as a viable, non‑pharmacologic adjunct, or in some cases, alternative to conventional antidepressant treatments. Within an organ‑athlete framing, repeated “training sessions” thus act as scheduled neuromodulatory exposures that reinforce plasticity and resilience in mood‑regulating networks [59,62,63,64,65,66].

Exercise training also induces robust adaptations in autonomic nervous system (ANS) control, shifting the balance toward enhanced parasympathetic (vagal) tone and more flexible sympathetic responses. Heart rate variability (HRV) studies in healthy adults and clinical populations demonstrate that structured exercise programs increase time‑domain and frequency‑domain indices of vagal activity (for example, RMSSD, HF power) and reduce markers of sympathetic predominance (for example, LF/HF ratio), consistent with more favourable autonomic balance. These changes are accompanied by lower resting heart rate and more rapid post‑exercise heart rate recovery, which are themselves associated with reduced cardiovascular risk and improved stress resilience. Experimental work further indicates that the pattern of autonomic adaptation depends on training load and context, with transient reductions in HRV after exhaustive efforts and longer‑term upward shifts in baseline HRV with appropriately dosed chronic training, mirroring the distinction between acute fatigue and chronic fitness in the cardiovascular “athlete} [67,68,69,70].

In an organ‑athlete paradigm, the brain and ANS are “coached” not only through structured movement but also through recovery practices and sleep hygiene that consolidate neural and autonomic adaptations. Emerging literature links regular physical activity to improvements in sleep quality and architecture, which in turn supports memory consolidation, emotional regulation, and autonomic recalibration; conversely, sleep restriction can blunt some of the cognitive and mood benefits of exercise, underscoring the need to integrate training and recovery prescriptions. Practical tools for monitoring these systems include standardized cognitive test batteries (for example, assessing memory, processing speed, and executive function), validated mood scales for depression and anxiety, HRV metrics derived from wearables, and polysomnography or high‑resolution wearable sleep staging to characterize sleep architecture. Additionally, digital behaviour patterns, such as activity regularity, social interaction proxies, and smartphone‑based cognitive assessments, offer scalable phenotypes of brain and ANS function that can be incorporated into longitudinal “performance dashboards” for this organ system [62,63,64,69,71].

Taken together, the available evidence supports a view of the brain and autonomic nervous system as highly trainable targets of lifestyle intervention, with exercise acting as a central programming signal. By structuring physical activity, recovery, and sleep in a manner analogous to athletic periodization, and by tracking cognitive, affective, and autonomic metrics over time, clinicians and health‑tech systems can operationalize brain‑and‑ANS training as a core pillar of preventive and longevity‑oriented care [62,63,71].

Measuring Organ Performance: From Lab Tests to Digital Biomarkers

Training any athlete depends on timely, relevant feedback, and the same principle applies when conceptualizing organs as trainable systems. Traditional laboratory biomarkers remain foundational, but their greatest value emerges when they are followed longitudinally, interpreted as dynamic trajectories rather than isolated snapshots. Standard panels, fasting and postprandial glucose and insulin, lipid profiles, liver enzymes, inflammatory markers such as high‑sensitivity C‑reactive protein, and indices of renal function capture key aspects of cardiometabolic, hepatic, and renal performance and can be used to infer organ‑specific adaptations to lifestyle interventions over weeks to years. Repeated measurement allows clinicians to distinguish sustained training effects from short‑lived fluctuations, much as performance coaches track trends rather than single test days [1,14,34,35,72,73].

Structural imaging adds another layer of insight by visualizing organ morphology and composition as they remodel under training loads. Echocardiography and cardiac imaging can document changes in chamber size, wall thickness, and diastolic function that accompany improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, while carotid ultrasound and vascular imaging track arterial structure and stiffness. In the metabolic domain, liver ultrasound, MRI‑derived proton density fat fraction, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy quantify intrahepatic triglyceride content and can detect exercise‑induced reductions in steatosis independent of weight change. Dual‑energy X‑ray absorptiometry and related body‑composition scans, meanwhile, characterize regional fat and lean mass distribution, providing structural correlates of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue training adaptations. When considered together, these modalities link biochemical dynamics to tangible structural remodelling in organ “athletes”[8,14,15,24,27].

The emergence of continuous and high‑frequency data streams from wearable devices and biosensors introduces a further, temporal dimension to organ performance assessment. Continuous glucose monitoring captures minute‑to‑minute interstitial glucose dynamics in free‑living conditions, enabling characterization of time in range, glycemic variability, postprandial excursions, and circadian patterns that are invisible to intermittent laboratory testing. Similar advances in wearable biosensing now support near real‑time monitoring of multiple metabolites and physiological signals, including glucose, lactate, and other analytes through minimally invasive or non‑invasive platforms, generating rich time series that can be analyzed as digital biomarkers. Concurrent accelerometry, heart‑rate and heart‑rate‑variability data, and sleep metrics provide continuous proxies for cardiovascular, autonomic, and behavioural status, capturing how organs respond to real‑world loads, recovery, and circadian influences [74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81].

By integrating these heterogeneous data streams, labs, imaging, and digital biomarkers, clinicians and health‑technology systems can construct organ‑specific dashboards analogous to performance analytics used in sports science. N‑of‑1 and longitudinal digital health studies have demonstrated the feasibility of tracking biomarker dynamics at the individual level and adapting interventions based on observed trajectories rather than population averages. Frameworks for digital biomarker development emphasize rigorous sensor selection, data quality control, and model validation to translate raw wearable signals into clinically interpretable indices of organ function. In an organ‑athlete paradigm, such dashboards can display, for example, concurrent trends in VO₂‑related proxies, liver fat estimates, CGM‑derived metrics, and HRV indices, thereby providing a holistic, time‑resolved view of how each organ is adapting to training prescriptions and where adjustments are needed to optimize performance and long‑term health [65,72,73,77,79,82,83].

Training Principles for Organs: Translating Sports Science

Core principles from sports science, specificity, progressive overload, recovery, and periodization offer a useful conceptual scaffold for designing organ‑focused preventive interventions. Specificity, which in athletic contexts dictates that training adaptations mirror the nature of the imposed demand, translates clinically into matching exercise mode and intensity to the target organ and pathway. For example, sustained low‑to‑moderate intensity “zone‑2” aerobic work preferentially stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative metabolism, with downstream benefits for hepatic fat oxidation and glycemic control, whereas resistance training is particularly effective for augmenting skeletal muscle mass, strength, and bone loading. Organ‑specific goals, such as reducing liver fat, improving endothelial function, or increasing muscle cross‑sectional area, thus become the anchor for selecting training modalities and dosing parameters [2,27,52,84].

Progressive overload, the gradual increase in training stimulus required to elicit continued adaptation, can be operationalized by titrating frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise while monitoring organ‑level markers for evidence of beneficial versus maladaptive responses. In practice, this might involve stepwise increases in weekly zone‑2 minutes while tracking continuous glucose monitoring metrics for hepatic and pancreatic adaptation, or incremental resistance‑training load progressions guided by changes in strength, lean mass, and insulin sensitivity. Importantly, progressive overload in a preventive medicine setting should be individualized and data‑informed, acknowledging comorbidities and baseline deconditioning to avoid inadvertently crossing into overreaching or injury [2,14,52,84].

Recovery is a critical, often under‑emphasized, element of organ training, as it provides the physiological window during which adaptations are consolidated and maladaptive responses can be reversed. Inadequate recovery relative to load has been linked in athletic populations to overtraining syndromes characterized by autonomic imbalance, endocrine disruption, chronic inflammation, and impaired glucose metabolism. Analogous patterns can emerge in non‑athletic individuals who accumulate excessive training or life stress without sufficient sleep, energy intake, or psychological recovery, manifesting as persistent sympathetic activation, reductions in heart rate variability, deterioration in glycemic control, or elevations in inflammatory markers. Within an organ‑athlete framework, deliberate recovery planning, encompassing sleep hygiene, deload weeks, and stress‑management practices is therefore essential to maintain favourable adaptations in the heart, liver, skeletal muscle, brain, and immune system [63,69,70,85,86,87].

Periodization, the systematic cycling of training emphasis and load over time, provides a higher‑order strategy for coordinating multi‑organ objectives in preventive and longevity care. Classic models of linear and non‑linear periodization in sport vary volume and intensity across mesocycles to optimize performance while minimizing overuse; a similar logic can be applied to therapeutic training blocks that sequentially prioritize hepatic and adipose remodelling, cardiovascular conditioning, or neuromuscular strength and power. For instance, an initial mesocycle might emphasize higher total aerobic volume with dietary support to target liver fat and visceral adiposity, followed by a phase with greater resistance‑training focus to build muscle mass and functional capacity, all the while using organ‑specific biomarkers and digital metrics to reassess progress and recalibrate the next block. Over the long term, such periodized, data‑driven programming aligns organ‑level training with evolving clinical priorities and life circumstances, mirroring how athletic periodization aligns physical preparation with competition schedules and recovery needs [27,52,72,84].

Future Directions

Future research is poised to refine organ‑specific biological age clocks and test how targeted training can slow or reverse these organ‑level aging trajectories, linking changes in “organ age” to hard outcomes like morbidity and mortality. Interventional studies that combine structured exercise, tailored nutrition, pharmacologic adjuncts, and adaptive digital coaching will be needed to map precise dose–response relationships for different organs and populations. Systems‑biology approaches integrating multi‑omics data promise to identify new exerkines and signalling pathways that mediate cross‑organ adaptation and resilience, potentially revealing druggable targets that complement lifestyle interventions. In parallel, human‑centered design and behavioural science must ensure that complex, data‑driven organ training programs remain intuitive, culturally sensitive, and sustainably engaging for diverse users. The convergence of longevity science, sports physiology, and AI‑enabled health technology offers a pathway to make high‑performance aging a realistic default, rather than a niche pursuit limited to early adopters and elite athletes [3,10,73,79,88,89,90,91,92].

Conclusion

Viewing organs as trainable athletes offers a unifying, mechanistically grounded paradigm for preventive and longevity‑focused medicine. Within this paradigm, the primary objective is not simply to normalize laboratory values, but to enhance organ‑level performance and resilience across the cardiovascular, metabolic, neurocognitive, and immune axes. By conceptualizing the heart, liver, adipose tissue, skeletal muscle, pancreas, and brain as adaptive systems that respond to graded lifestyle “loads,” clinicians can design interventions that more closely resemble structured training plans than isolated behaviour change advice.

In practical terms, exercise, nutrition, sleep, and stress management can be periodized and titrated to elicit specific, organ‑targeted adaptations. Aerobic and resistance training, tailored nutritional strategies, and deliberate recovery practices can be prescribed with the explicit intention of improving discrete performance domains such as hepatic insulin sensitivity, autonomic balance, endothelial function, or cognitive endurance. Longitudinal tracking of performance markers, ranging from VO₂max, body composition, and glycemic metrics to sleep architecture and mood indices enables clinicians to monitor adaptation trajectories and distinguish true training responses from maladaptive or overtraining‑like patterns.

The convergence of conventional biomarkers, imaging modalities, wearable‑derived signals, and advanced analytics further strengthens this organ‑athlete model. When these multimodal data sources are integrated into coherent dashboards, they function as visible “scoreboards” that make internal adaptation tangible to both clinicians and patients. Such scoreboards can guide precise adjustment of training loads, recovery windows, and nutritional levers, while simultaneously reinforcing patient engagement through clear, performance‑oriented feedback. This shift from episodic, static risk assessment to continuous, dynamic capacity building has the potential to reshape how both clinicians and patients understand “doing well” in the context of aging and metabolic health.

For clinicians, health‑tech innovators, and system designers, adopting an organ‑athlete perspective reframes prevention away from a defensive stance focused on avoiding disease toward a proactive ethos of cultivating high‑functioning physiology across the lifespan. It aligns patient journeys with narratives familiar from sports and skill acquisition, in which progress is tracked, plateaus are anticipated, and setbacks are part of iterative adaptation rather than failure. As evidence accumulates and digital tools for monitoring and personalization continue to mature, organ‑centric training frameworks are poised to become a foundational element of aging‑well strategies, applicable across both clinical settings and consumer‑facing wellness ecosystems.

Reference

  1. Thyfault JP, Bergouignan A. Exercise and metabolic health: beyond skeletal muscle. Diabetologia [Internet]. 2020 Jun 11;63(8):1464–74. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7377236/
  2. Smith J, Murach KA, Dyar KA, Zierath JR. Exercise metabolism and adaptation in skeletal muscle. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2023 May 24;
  3. Robbins J, Gerszten RE. Exercise, exerkines, and cardiometabolic health: from individual players to a team sport. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2023 Jun 1;133(11).
  4. Jin L, Candela Diaz-Canestro, Wang Y, Michael Andrew Tse, Xu A. Exerkines and cardiometabolic benefits of exercise: from bench to clinic. EMBO molecular medicine. 2024 Feb 6;16(3):432–44.
  5. Gonzalez-Gil AM, Elizondo-Montemayor L. The Role of Exercise in the Interplay between Myokines, Hepatokines, Osteokines, Adipokines, and Modulation of Inflammation for Energy Substrate Redistribution and Fat Mass Loss: A Review. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 26;12(6):1899.
  6. Ren Y, Zhao H, Yin C, Lan X, Wu L, Du X, et al. Adipokines, Hepatokines and Myokines: Focus on Their Role and Molecular Mechanisms in Adipose Tissue Inflammation. Frontiers in Endocrinology [Internet]. 2022;13:873699. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35909571/
  7. de Oliveira dos Santos AR, de Oliveira Zanuso B, Miola VFB, Barbalho SM, Santos Bueno PC, Flato UAP, et al. Adipokines, Myokines, and Hepatokines: Crosstalk and Metabolic Repercussions. International Journal of Molecular Sciences [Internet]. 2021 Mar 5 [cited 2022 Apr 25];22(5):2639. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7961600/
  8. Belanger MJ, Rao P, Robbins JM. Exercise, Physical Activity, and Cardiometabolic Health. Cardiology in Review. 2022 Apr 2;30(3):134–44.
  9. Mancini A, Vitucci D, Randers MB, Schmidt JF, Hagman M, Andersen TR, et al. Lifelong Football Training: Effects on Autophagy and Healthy Longevity Promotion. Frontiers in Physiology. 2019 Feb 19;10.
  10. Wang Y, Xiao S, Liu B, Jiang R, Liu Y, Hang Y, et al. Organ-specific proteomic aging clocks predict disease and longevity across diverse populations. Nature Aging [Internet]. 2025 Nov 26 [cited 2026 Feb 14];6(1):162–80. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-025-01016-8
  11. Ashcroft SP, Stocks B, Egan B, Zierath JR. Exercise induces tissue-specific adaptations to enhance cardiometabolic health. Cell Metabolism. 2024 Jan 1;36(2).
  12. Joao Victor Esteves, Stanford KI. Exercise as a tool to mitigate metabolic disease. American journal of physiology Cell physiology. 2024 Jul 9;
  13. Science Direct. ScienceDirect.com | Science, Health and Medical journals, Full Text Articles and books. [Internet]. Sciencedirect.com. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
  14. Sargeant JA, Gray LJ, Bodicoat DH, Willis SA, Stensel DJ, Nimmo MA, et al. The effect of exercise training on intrahepatic triglyceride and hepatic insulin sensitivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews. 2018 Aug 9;19(10):1446–59.
  15. Sullivan S, Kirk EP, Mittendorfer B, Patterson BW, Klein S. Randomized trial of exercise effect on intrahepatic triglyceride content and lipid kinetics in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2012 Apr 25;55(6):1738–45.
  16. John, Bergouignan A. Exercise and metabolic health: beyond skeletal muscle. [Internet]. SHARE @ Children’s Mercy. 2020 [cited 2026 Feb 16]. Available from: https://scholarlyexchange.childrensmercy.org/papers/1884/
  17. Lang JJ, Prince SA, Merucci K, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Chaput JP, Fraser BJ, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness is a strong and consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality among adults: an overview of meta-analyses representing over 20.9 million observations from 199 unique cohort studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine [Internet]. 2024 Apr 9;58(10):bjsports-2023-107849. Available from: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/early/2024/04/09/bjsports-2023-107849.full.pdf
  18. Singh B, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Bruno, José Castro-Piñero, Chaput JP, Cuenca-García M, et al. Comparison of objectively measured and estimated cardiorespiratory fitness to predict all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 studies representing 35 cohorts and 3.8 million observations. Journal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2024 Sep 1;100986–6.
  19. com. 2023. Available from: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/59/5/339
  20. Kodama S. Cardiorespiratory Fitness as a Quantitative Predictor of All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Healthy Men and Women. JAMA. 2009 May 20;301(19):2024.
  21. Kitzman DW, Brubaker PH, Herrington DM, Morgan TM, Stewart KP, Hundley WG, et al. Effect of Endurance Exercise Training on Endothelial Function and Arterial Stiffness in Older Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013 Aug;62(7):584–92.
  22. Silveira R, Silveira D, Caetano P, Waclawovsky G, Maximiliano Isoppo Schaun. Effects of aerobic, resistance and combined training on endothelial function and arterial stiffness in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2024 Dec 2;19(12):e0308600–0.
  23. Mora-Rodriguez R, Ramirez-Jimenez M, Fernandez-Elias VE, Guio de Prada MV, Morales-Palomo F, Pallares JG, et al. Effects of aerobic interval training on arterial stiffness and microvascular function in patients with metabolic syndrome. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension. 2017 Nov 6;20(1):11–8.
  24. Kang SJ, Ko KJ. Association between resting heart rate, VO2max and carotid intima-media thickness in middle-aged men. IJC Heart & Vasculature [Internet]. 2019 Jun;23:100347. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235290671930034X#bb0065
  25. Hughes AD, Chaturvedi N. Estimation of maximal oxygen consumption and heart rate recovery using the Tecumseh sub-maximal step test and their relationship to cardiovascular risk factors. Artery Research. 2017 Jun;18:29–35.
  26. Miao G, Yan Q, Zhu H, Li F. Study on heart rate recovery index to predict maximum oxygen uptake in healthy adults aged 30 to 60 years old. Frontiers in Physiology. 2024 Dec 24;15.
  27. van der Windt DJ, Sud V, Zhang H, Tsung A, Huang H. The Effects of Physical Exercise on Fatty Liver Disease. Gene Expression [Internet]. 2018 May 18;18(2):89–101. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954622/
  28. Cigrovski Berkovic M, Bilic-Curcic I, Mrzljak A, Cigrovski V. NAFLD and Physical Exercise: Ready, Steady, Go! Frontiers in Nutrition. 2021 Oct 5;8.
  29. Checking your browser – reCAPTCHA [Internet]. Nih.gov. 2024 [cited 2026 Feb 16]. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7299756/
  30. Marcinko K, Sikkema SR, Samaan MC, Kemp BE, Fullerton MD, Steinberg GR. High intensity interval training improves liver and adipose tissue insulin sensitivity. Molecular Metabolism [Internet]. 2015 Dec;4(12):903–15. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4731736/pdf/main.pdf
  31. Charatcharoenwitthaya P, Kuljiratitikal K, Aksornchanya O, Chaiyasoot K, Bandidniyamanon W, Charatcharoenwitthaya N. Moderate-Intensity Aerobic vs Resistance Exercise and Dietary Modification in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology. 2021 Mar;12(3):e00316
  32. Diniz TA, de Lima Junior EA, Teixeira AA, Biondo LA, da Rocha LAF, Valadão IC, et al. Aerobic training improves NAFLD markers and insulin resistance through AMPK-PPAR-α signaling in obese mice. Life Sciences. 2021 Feb;266:118868.
  33. Shamsoddini A, Sobhani V, Ghamar Chehreh ME, Alavian SM, Zaree A. Effect of Aerobic and Resistance Exercise Training on Liver Enzymes and Hepatic Fat in Iranian Men With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Hepatitis Monthly. 2015 Oct 10;15(10).
  34. Hejazi K, Hackett D. Effect of Exercise on Liver Function and Insulin Resistance Markers in Patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023 Apr 20;12(8):3011–1.
  35. Bianco A, Franco I, Curci R, Bonfiglio C, Campanella A, Mirizzi A, et al. Diet and Exercise Exert a Differential Effect on Glucose Metabolism Markers According to the Degree of NAFLD Severity. Nutrients [Internet]. 2023 Jan 1;15(10):2252. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/10/2252#
  36. Porter JW, Rowles JL, Fletcher JA, Zidon TM, Winn NC, McCabe L, et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of exercise training in adipose tissue do not require FGF21. Journal of Endocrinology. 2017 Nov 1;235(2):97–109.
  37. Winn NC, Cottam MA, Wasserman DH, Hasty AH. Exercise and Adipose Tissue Immunity: Outrunning Inflammation. Obesity. 2021 Apr 26;29(5):790–801.
  38. Golbidi S, Laher I. Exercise Induced Adipokine Changes and the Metabolic Syndrome. Journal of Diabetes Research. 2014;2014:1–16.
  39. Vidal P, Stanford KI. Exercise-Induced Adaptations to Adipose Tissue Thermogenesis. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2020 Apr 29;11.
  40. Vieira-Potter VJ, Zidon TM, Padilla J. Exercise and Estrogen Make Fat Cells “Fit.” Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. 2015 Jul;43(3):172–8.
  41. Recchia F, Leung CK, Yu AP, Leung W, Yu DJ, Fong DY, et al. Dose–response effects of exercise and caloric restriction on visceral adiposity in overweight and obese adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. British Journal of Sports Medicine [Internet]. 2023 Jan 20; Available from: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2023/01/26/bjsports-2022-106304
  42. Vissers D, Hens W, Taeymans J, Baeyens JP, Poortmans J, Van Gaal L. The Effect of Exercise on Visceral Adipose Tissue in Overweight Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Votruba SB, editor. PLoS ONE. 2013 Feb 8;8(2):e56415.
  43. Kawanishi N, Yano H, Yokogawa Y, Suzuki K. Exercise training inhibits inflammation in adipose tissue via both suppression of macrophage infiltration and acceleration of phenotypic switching from M1 to M2 macrophages in high-fat-diet-induced obese mice. Exercise Immunology Review [Internet]. 2010;16:105–18. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20839495/
  44. Leal LG, Lopes MA, Batista ML. Physical Exercise-Induced Myokines and Muscle-Adipose Tissue Crosstalk: A Review of Current Knowledge and the Implications for Health and Metabolic Diseases. Frontiers in Physiology. 2018 Sep 24;9.
  45. Gonzalez-Gil AM, Elizondo-Montemayor L. The Role of Exercise in the Interplay between Myokines, Hepatokines, Osteokines, Adipokines, and Modulation of Inflammation for Energy Substrate Redistribution and Fat Mass Loss: A Review. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 26;12(6):1899.
  46. Goh J, Goh KP, Abbasi A. Exercise and Adipose Tissue Macrophages: New Frontiers in Obesity Research? Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2016 Jun 14;7.
  47. Merz KE, Thurmond DC. Role of Skeletal Muscle in Insulin Resistance and Glucose Uptake. Comprehensive Physiology [Internet]. 2020 Jul 8;10(3):785–809. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8074531/
  48. Sylow L, Tokarz VL, Richter EA, Klip A. The many actions of insulin in skeletal muscle, the paramount tissue determining glycemia. Cell Metabolism. 2021 Apr;33(4):758–80.
  49. Islam H, Gillen JB. Skeletal muscle mechanisms contributing to improved glycemic control following intense interval exercise and training. Sports Medicine and Health Science [Internet]. 2023 Jan 25; Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337623000021
  50. Hulett NA, Scalzo RL, Reusch JEB. Glucose Uptake by Skeletal Muscle within the Contexts of Type 2 Diabetes and Exercise: An Integrated Approach. Nutrients. 2022 Feb 3;14(3):647.
  51. Ramos PA, Lytle KA, Delivanis D, Nielsen S, LeBrasseur NK, Jensen MD. Insulin-Stimulated Muscle Glucose Uptake and Insulin Signaling in Lean and Obese Humans. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2020 Dec 31;
  52. Yasuda T. Selected Methods of Resistance Training for Prevention and Treatment of Sarcopenia. Cells. 2022 Apr 20;11(9):1389.
  53. Govindasamy K, Rao CR, Chandrasekaran B, Parpa K, Granacher U. Effects of Resistance Training on Sarcopenia Risk Among Healthy Older Adults: A Scoping Review of Physiological Mechanisms. Life. 2025 Apr 23;15(5):688.
  54. Zhao Y, Jiang Y, Guo Y, Pan W, Tian W, Tang L, et al. Long-term impact of sarcopenia on functional decline and mortality in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2026 Jan 8;12.
  55. DR T S DIDWAL. Zone 2: Mitochondrial Biogenesis, Endurance, and Aerobic Science [Internet]. DR T S DIDWAL. 2025. Available from: https://drdidwal.com/zone-2-mitochondrial-biogenesis-endurance-and-aerobic-science
  56. Rutberg J. Zone 2 Training to Improve Aerobic Endurance and Fat Burning [Internet]. CTS. 2022. Available from: https://trainright.com/zone-2-training-to-improve-aerobic-endurance-and-fat-burning/
  57. EvoHealth Functional Medicine [Internet]. Evohealthkansas.com. 2025 [cited 2026 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.evohealthkansas.com/the-kansas-longevity-blueprint-how-zone-2-training-supercharges-metabolic-health-and-mitochondrial-function/
  58. Farhad Sanaeifar, Pourranjbar S, Pourranjbar M, Ramezani S, Samira Rostami Mehr, Al-Hassan Soliman Wadan, et al. Beneficial effects of physical exercise on cognitive-behavioral impairments and brain-derived neurotrophic factor alteration in the limbic system induced by neurodegeneration. Experimental Gerontology [Internet]. 2024 Aug 8;195(112539):112539–9. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556524001815#:~:text=Exercise increases neural activity%2C which
  59. Romero Garavito A, Díaz Martínez V, Juárez Cortés E, Negrete Díaz JV, Montilla Rodríguez LM. Impact of physical exercise on the regulation of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in people with neurodegenerative diseases. Frontiers in Neurology. 2025 Jan 28;15.
  60. Xu L, Gu H, Cai X, Zhang Y, Hou X, Yu J, et al. The effects of exercise for cognitive function in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [Internet]. 2023 Jan 7;20(2):1088. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9858649/
  61. Williamson JD, Espeland M, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, King AC, Pahor M, et al. Changes in Cognitive Function in a Randomized Trial of Physical Activity: Results of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders Pilot Study. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2009 Feb 24;64A(6):688–94.
  62. Szuhany KL, Bugatti M, Otto MW. A meta-analytic review of the effects of exercise on brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Journal of Psychiatric Research [Internet]. 2015 Jan;60(60):56–64. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314337/
  63. Hossain MN, Lee J, Choi H, Kwak YS, Kim J. The impact of exercise on depression: How moving makes your brain and body feel better. Physical Activity and Nutrition [Internet]. 2024 Jun 30;28(2):43–51. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11298280/
  64. Monèm Jemni, Zaman R, Frederick Robert Carrick, Neil David Clarke, Marina M, Bottoms L, et al. Exercise improves depression through positive modulation of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). A review based on 100 manuscripts over 20 years. Frontiers in Physiology. 2023 Mar 8;14.
  65. Phillips C. Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor, Depression, and Physical Activity: Making the Neuroplastic Connection. Neural Plasticity. 2017;2017(1):1–17.
  66. Yuping Z, Tianbi L, Wentao S, Yun L, Guodong Z. The Optimal Type and Dose of Exercise for Elevating Brain‐Derived Neurotrophic Factor Levels in Patients With Depression: A Systematic Review With Pairwise, Network, and Dose–Response Meta‐Analyses. Barlati S, editor. Depression and Anxiety. 2024 Jan;2024(1).
  67. Wang W, Shao M, Du W, Xu Y. Impact of exhaustive exercise on autonomic nervous system activity: insights from HRV analysis. Frontiers in Physiology. 2024 Dec 3;15.
  68. Marçal IR, Abreu RM, Cornelis N, Leicht AS, Forjaz CLM, Cucato G, et al. Effects of exercise training on heart rate variability in individuals with lower extremity arterial disease and claudication: A systematic review. Journal of Vascular Nursing [Internet]. 2023 Dec 1;41(4):226–34. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1062030323000729
  69. Youssra Amekran, Abdelkader. Effects of Exercise Training on Heart Rate Variability in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Cureus [Internet]. 2024 Jun 16; Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11250637/
  70. Grant CC, Viljoen M, Janse van Rensburg DC, Wood PS. Heart Rate Variability Assessment of the Effect of Physical Training on Autonomic Cardiac Control. Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology. 2012 Jul;17(3):219–29.
  71. Iso-Markku P, Aaltonen S, Kujala UM, Halme HL, Phipps D, Knittle K, et al. Physical Activity and Cognitive Decline Among Older Adults. JAMA network open [Internet]. 2024 Feb 1;7(2):e2354285–5. Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2814503#:~:text=Physical activity was associated with
  72. Wang P, Tadeo X, Shi H, Yoann Sapanel, Yoong Hun Ong, Yong N, et al. N-of-1 health optimization: Digital monitoring of biomarker dynamics to gamify adherence to metabolic switching. PNAS Nexus. 2024 May 30;3(6).
  73. Lu JK, Wang W, Mahadzir MDA, Poganik JR, Moqri M, Herzog C, et al. Digital biomarkers of ageing for monitoring physiological systems in community-dwelling adults. The Lancet Healthy Longevity. 2025 Jun;100725.
  74. Mansour M, Saeed Darweesh M, Soltan A. Wearable devices for glucose monitoring: A review of state-of-the-art technologies and emerging trends. Alexandria Engineering Journal [Internet]. 2024 Feb 1;89:224–43. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016824000231#se0160
  75. Bent B, Cho PJ, Henriquez M, Wittmann A, Thacker C, Feinglos M, et al. Engineering digital biomarkers of interstitial glucose from noninvasive smartwatches. npj Digital Medicine. 2021 Jun 2;4(1).
  76. Dowd R, Jepson LH, Green CR, Norman GJ, Thomas R, Leone K. Glycemic Outcomes and Feature Set Engagement Among Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Users With Type 1 or Non–Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Analysis of Real-World Data. JMIR Diabetes. 2023 Jan 18;8:e43991.
  77. Brasier N, Wang J, Dincer C, Güder F, Schauwecker I, Schaffarczyk D, et al. Next-generation digital biomarkers: continuous molecular health monitoring using wearable devices. Trends in Biotechnology. 2024 Mar;42(3):255–7.
  78. Kim S, Han S, Park S, Koo J. Seeing inside the Body Using Wearable Sensing and Imaging Technologies. Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2025 Aug 6;e02480–0.
  79. Daniore P, Nittas V, Haag C, Bernard J, Gonzenbach R, von Wyl V. From wearable sensor data to digital biomarker development: ten lessons learned and a framework proposal. NPJ digital medicine [Internet]. 2024 Jun 18;7(1):161. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38890529/
  80. Welcome To Zscaler Directory Authentication [Internet]. Nih.gov. 2026 [cited 2026 Feb 16]. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10475794/
  81. Yang M, Wang H, Cheng J. Continuous monitoring of multiple biomarkers with an ultrasensitive 3D-structured wearable biosensor. Cell Reports Methods [Internet]. 2023 Sep;3(9):100579. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10545935/
  82. Liu C, Fan H, Kim M, Zhou T, Yang P, Zhao L, et al. Multimodal Wearable Biosensing Meets Multidomain AI: A Pathway to Decentralized Healthcare. Advanced Science. 2026 Feb 12;
  83. Assaad RH, Mohammadi M, Poudel O. Developing an Intelligent IoT-enabled Wearable Multimodal Biosensing Device and Cloud-Based Digital Dashboard for Real-Time and Comprehensive Health, Physiological, Emotional, and Cognitive Monitoring Using Multi-Sensor Fusion Technologies. Sensors and Actuators A Physical. 2024 Nov 1;116074–4.
  84. Reiman MP, Lorenz DS. INTEGRATION OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PRINCIPLES INTO A REHABILITATION PROGRAM. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy [Internet]. 2011 Sep;6(3):241. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3164002/
  85. Kreher JB, Schwartz JB. Overtraining Syndrome. Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach [Internet]. 2012;4(2):128–38. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435910/
  86. Fiala O, Hanzlova M, Borska L, Fiala Z, Holmannova D. Beyond physical exhaustion: Understanding overtraining syndrome through the lens of molecular mechanisms and clinical manifestation. Sports Medicine and Health Science. 2025 Jul;7(4):237–48.
  87. LEHMANN M, FOSTER C, DICKHUTH HH, GASTMANN U. Autonomic imbalance hypothesis and overtraining syndrome. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 1998 Jul;30(7):1140–5.
  88. Taylor A, Taylor RS, Ingram W, Dean SG, Jolly K, Mutrie N, et al. Randomised controlled trial of an augmented exercise referral scheme using web-based behavioural support for inactive adults with chronic health conditions: the e-coachER trial. British Journal of Sports Medicine [Internet]. 2021 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Oct 18];55(8):444–50. Available from: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/8/444
  89. Tzimourta KD. Human-Centered Design and Development in Digital Health: Approaches, Challenges, and Emerging Trends. Cureus. 2025 Jun 13;
  90. Zhou N, Gong L, Zhang E, Wang X. Exploring exercise-driven exerkines: unraveling the regulation of metabolism and inflammation. PeerJ. 2024 Apr 29;12:e17267–7.
  91. Jia S, Yu Z, Bai L. Exerkines and osteoarthritis. Frontiers in Physiology. 2023 Dec 1;14.
  92. Shcherbina A, Hershman SG, Lazzeroni L, King AC, O’Sullivan JW, Hekler E, et al. The effect of digital physical activity interventions on daily step count: a randomised controlled crossover substudy of the MyHeart Counts Cardiovascular Health Study. The Lancet Digital Health [Internet]. 2019 Nov 1;1(7):e344–52. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(19)30129-3/fulltext

Discover more from A1C Almanac

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading