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

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":"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","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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