4.7 Article

A Forty-Year Follow-Up of the Dallas Bed Rest and Training Study: The Effect of Age on the Cardiovascular Response to Exercise in Men

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/gln025

关键词

Maximal oxygen uptake; Cardiac output; Arteriovenous oxygen difference; Longitudinal

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR000633] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG017479, R01 AG 017479] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. In 1966, five 20-year-old men underwent a comprehensive physiological evaluation of the capacity for adaptation of the cardiovascular system in response to 3 weeks of bed rest and 8 weeks of heavy endurance training; these same participants were reevaluated before and after training at the age of 50. The aim of the present study was to reexamine these same men 40 years following the original assessments. Methods and Results. In all three studies, minute ventilation and expired gases were analyzed during exercise testing with Douglas bag collection. Cardiac output (CO) was determined using the acetylene rebreathing technique. Compared with the original 30-year interval, the decline in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) (-11% vs -25%), maximal CO (+6% vs -11%), and maximal stroke volume(+10% vs -10%) were greater between 50 and 60 years of age. The annualized decline in VO2max (55 mL/min/y) between ages 50 and 60 was approximately fourfold higher than the decline between 20 and 50 years (12 mL/min/y). Conclusions. In the original five participants of the Dallas Bed Rest and Training Study, VO2max declined after 40 years of living due to a balanced decrease in central and peripheral determinants of oxygen uptake. The rate of decline in VO2max and its components accelerated after the age of 50 years secondary to age and clinical comorbidities. The net proportional decline in VO2max for a period of 40 years of life was comparable with that experienced after 3 weeks of strict bed rest at the age of 20 (27% vs 26%, respectively).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据