4.5 Article

Cardiovascular drift and cerebral and muscle tissue oxygenation during prolonged cycling at different pedalling cadences

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/H2012-011

Keywords

EMG; sympathetic nervous system; muscle contraction; cardiac output; haemodynamics

Funding

  1. Operational Education of European Social Fund and National Resources

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We hypothesized that a faster cycling cadence could exaggerate cardiovascular drift and affect muscle and cerebral blood volume and oxygenation. Twelve healthy males (mean age, 23.4 +/- 3.8 years) performed cycle ergometry for 90 min on 2 separate occasions, with pedalling frequencies of 40 and 80 r.min(-1), at individual workloads corresponding to 60% of their peak oxygen consumption. The main measured variables were heart rate, ventilation, cardiac output, electromyographic activity of the vastus lateralis, and regional muscle and cerebral blood volume and oxygenation. Cardiovascular drift developed at both cadences, but it was more pronounced at the faster than at the slower cadence, as indicated by the drop in cardiac output by 1.0 +/- 0.2 L.min(-1), the decline in stroke volume by 9 +/- 3 mL.beat(-1), and the increase in heart rate by 9 +/- 1 beats.min(-1) at 80 r.min(-1). At the faster cadence, minute ventilation was higher by 5.0 +/- 0.5 L.min(-1), and end-tidal CO2 pressure was lower by 2.0 +/- 0.1 torr. Although higher electromyographic activity in the vastus lateralis was recorded at 80 r.min(-1), muscle blood volume did not increase at this cadence, as it did at 40 r.min(-1). In addition, muscle oxygenation was no different between cadences. In contrast, cerebral regional blood volume and oxygenation at 80 r.min(-1) were not as high as at 40 r.min(-1) (p < 0.05). Faster cycling cadence exaggerates cardiovascular drift and seems to influence muscle and cerebral blood volume and cerebral oxygenation, without muscle oxygenation being radically affected.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available