3.9 Article

Effect of Level and Downhill Running on Breathing Efficiency

Journal

SPORTS
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 12-20

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sports3010012

Keywords

eccentric exercise; muscle damage; ventilatory equivalent; metabolic equivalent; moderate intensity; treadmill running

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ventilatory equivalents for oxygen and carbon dioxide are physiological measures of breathing efficiency, and are known to be affected by the intensity and mode of exercise. We examined the effect of level running (gradient 0%) and muscle-damaging downhill running (-12%), matched for oxygen uptake, on the ventilatory equivalents for oxygen ((V) over dotE/(V) over dot(2)) and carbon dioxide ((V) over dotE/(V) over dotCO(2)). Nine men (27 +/- 9 years, 179 +/- 7 cm, 75 +/- 12 kg, (V) over dotO(2)max: 52.0 +/- 7.7 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) completed two 40-min running bouts (5 x 8-min with 2-min inter-bout rest), one level and one downhill. Running intensity was matched at 60% of maximal metabolic equivalent. Maximal isometric force of m. quadriceps femoris was measured before and after the running bouts. Data was analyzed with 2-way ANOVA or paired samples t-tests. Running speed (downhill: 13.5 +/- 3.2, level: 9.6 +/- 2.2 km +/- h(-1)) and isometric force deficits (downhill: 17.2 +/- 7.6%, level: 2.0 +/- 6.9%) were higher for downhill running. Running bouts for level and downhill gradients had (V) over dotO(2), heart rates and respiratory exchange ratio values that were not different indicating matched intensity and metabolic demands. During downhill running, the (V) over dotE/(V) over dotO(2), (downhill: 29.7 +/- 3.3, level: 27.2 +/- 1.6) and (V) over dotE/(V) over dotCO(2) (downhill: 33.3 +/- 2.7, level: 30.4 +/- 1.9) were 7.1% and 8.3% higher (p < 0.05) than level running. In conclusion, breathing efficiency appears lower during downhill running (i.e., muscle-damaging exercise) compared to level running at a similar moderate intensity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available