Physiological and perceptual responses to sprint interval exercise using arm versus leg cycling ergometry

IF 2.3 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES Sports Medicine and Health Science Pub Date : 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1016/j.smhs.2024.01.007
{"title":"Physiological and perceptual responses to sprint interval exercise using arm versus leg cycling ergometry","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.smhs.2024.01.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Increases in power output and maximal oxygen consumption (<span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span>max) occur in response to sprint interval exercise (SIE), but common use of “all-out” intensities presents a barrier for many adults. Furthermore, lower-body SIE is not feasible for all adults. We compared physiological and perceptual responses to supramaximal, but “non-all-out” SIE between leg and arm cycling exercise. Twenty-four active adults (mean ​± ​<em>SD</em> age: [25 ​± ​7] y; cycling <span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span>max: [39 ​± ​7] mL·kg<sup>−1</sup>·min<sup>−1</sup>) performed incremental exercise using leg (LCE) and arm cycle ergometry (ACE) to determine <span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span>max and maximal work capacity (Wmax). Subsequently, they performed four 20 ​s bouts of SIE at 130% Wmax on the LCE or ACE at cadence ​= ​120–130 ​rev/min, with 2 ​min recovery between intervals. Gas exchange data, heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentration (BLa), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and affective valence were acquired. Data showed significantly lower (<em>p</em> ​&lt; ​0.001) absolute mean ([1.24 ​± ​0.31] L·min<sup>−1</sup> vs. [1.59 ​± ​0.34] L·min<sup>−1</sup>; <em>d</em> ​= ​1.08) and peak <span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span> ([1.79 ​± ​0.48] L·min<sup>−1</sup> vs. [2.10 ​± ​0.44] L·min<sup>−1</sup>; <em>d</em> ​= ​0.70) with ACE versus LCE. However, ACE elicited significantly higher (<em>p</em> ​&lt; ​0.001) relative mean ([62% ​± ​9%] <span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span>max vs. [57% ​± ​7%] <span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span>max, <em>d</em> ​= ​0.63) and peak <span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span> ([88% ​± ​10%] <span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span>max vs. [75% ​± ​10%] <span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span>max, <em>d</em> ​= ​1.33). Post-exercise BLa was significantly higher ([7.0 ​± ​1.7] mM vs. [5.7 ​± ​1.5] mM, <em>p</em> ​= ​0.024, <em>d</em> ​= ​0.83) for LCE versus ACE. There was no significant effect of modality on RPE or affective valence (<em>p</em> ​&gt; ​0.42), and lowest affective valence recorded (2.0 ​± ​1.8) was considered “good to fairly good”. Data show that non “all-out” ACE elicits lower absolute but higher relative HR and <span><math><mrow><mover><mi>V</mi><mo>˙</mo></mover><msub><mi>O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></math></span> compared to LCE. Less aversive perceptual responses could make this non-all-out modality feasible for inactive adults.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33620,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine and Health Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337624000076/pdfft?md5=1d694dda2fc9b3acc330f2ed41161f3f&pid=1-s2.0-S2666337624000076-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine and Health Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337624000076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Increases in power output and maximal oxygen consumption (V˙O2max) occur in response to sprint interval exercise (SIE), but common use of “all-out” intensities presents a barrier for many adults. Furthermore, lower-body SIE is not feasible for all adults. We compared physiological and perceptual responses to supramaximal, but “non-all-out” SIE between leg and arm cycling exercise. Twenty-four active adults (mean ​± ​SD age: [25 ​± ​7] y; cycling V˙O2max: [39 ​± ​7] mL·kg−1·min−1) performed incremental exercise using leg (LCE) and arm cycle ergometry (ACE) to determine V˙O2max and maximal work capacity (Wmax). Subsequently, they performed four 20 ​s bouts of SIE at 130% Wmax on the LCE or ACE at cadence ​= ​120–130 ​rev/min, with 2 ​min recovery between intervals. Gas exchange data, heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentration (BLa), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and affective valence were acquired. Data showed significantly lower (p ​< ​0.001) absolute mean ([1.24 ​± ​0.31] L·min−1 vs. [1.59 ​± ​0.34] L·min−1; d ​= ​1.08) and peak V˙O2 ([1.79 ​± ​0.48] L·min−1 vs. [2.10 ​± ​0.44] L·min−1; d ​= ​0.70) with ACE versus LCE. However, ACE elicited significantly higher (p ​< ​0.001) relative mean ([62% ​± ​9%] V˙O2max vs. [57% ​± ​7%] V˙O2max, d ​= ​0.63) and peak V˙O2 ([88% ​± ​10%] V˙O2max vs. [75% ​± ​10%] V˙O2max, d ​= ​1.33). Post-exercise BLa was significantly higher ([7.0 ​± ​1.7] mM vs. [5.7 ​± ​1.5] mM, p ​= ​0.024, d ​= ​0.83) for LCE versus ACE. There was no significant effect of modality on RPE or affective valence (p ​> ​0.42), and lowest affective valence recorded (2.0 ​± ​1.8) was considered “good to fairly good”. Data show that non “all-out” ACE elicits lower absolute but higher relative HR and V˙O2 compared to LCE. Less aversive perceptual responses could make this non-all-out modality feasible for inactive adults.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用手臂和腿部自行车测力计进行冲刺间歇运动的生理和知觉反应
短跑间歇运动(SIE)会增加动力输出和最大耗氧量(V˙O2max),但 "全力以赴 "强度的普遍使用对许多成年人来说是个障碍。此外,下半身 SIE 并非对所有成年人都可行。我们比较了腿部和手臂骑车运动对超大强度但 "非全力以赴 "SIE 的生理和知觉反应。24 名活泼好动的成年人(平均 ± SD 年龄:[25 ± 7] y;骑车 V˙O2max:[39 ± 7] mL-kg-1-min-1)通过腿部(LCE)和手臂循环测力(ACE)进行了增量运动,以确定 V˙O2max和最大工作能力(Wmax)。随后,他们在LCE或ACE上以130% Wmax的速度进行了4次20秒的SIE,速度=120-130转/分钟,间隔2分钟。研究人员采集了气体交换数据、心率(HR)、血乳酸浓度(BLa)、体力感知评分(RPE)和情绪情感。数据显示,与 LCE 相比,ACE 的绝对平均值([1.24 ± 0.31] L-min-1 vs. [1.59 ± 0.34] L-min-1;d = 1.08)和峰值 V˙O2([1.79 ± 0.48] L-min-1 vs. [2.10 ± 0.44] L-min-1;d = 0.70)明显较低(p < 0.001)。然而,ACE 引起的相对平均值([62%±9%] V˙O2max vs. [57%±7%] V˙O2max,d = 0.63)和峰值 V˙O2([88%±10%] V˙O2max vs. [75%±10%] V˙O2max,d = 1.33)显著更高(p < 0.001)。LCE 与 ACE 相比,运动后 BLa 明显更高([7.0 ± 1.7] mM vs. [5.7 ± 1.5] mM,p = 0.024,d = 0.83)。模式对 RPE 或情感价位没有明显影响(p > 0.42),记录到的最低情感价位(2.0 ± 1.8)被认为是 "好到相当好"。数据显示,与 LCE 相比,非 "全力以赴 "的 ACE 可引起较低的绝对心率和 V˙O2,但相对较高。较低的厌恶性知觉反应可使这种非 "全力以赴 "模式对不运动的成年人可行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Medicine and Health Science
Sports Medicine and Health Science Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
55 days
期刊最新文献
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular health in sedentary and athletes: Consensus, uncertainties, and ways for mitigation The effects of prolonged sitting behavior on resting-state brain functional connectivity in college students post-COVID-19 rehabilitation: A study based on fNIRS technology Effects of COVID-19 on the cardiovascular system: A mendelian randomization study Exercise self-efficacy in older adults with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease: a latent profile analysis Failed Single-Leg Assessment of Postural Stability After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries and Reconstruction: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1