4.6 Article

Motor Unit Number Estimates in Masters Runners: Use It or Lose It?

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 42, 期 9, 页码 1644-1650

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181d6f9e9

关键词

AGING; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; MUSCLE FUNCTION; MASTER ATHLETES; EMG

资金

  1. The Newfoundland and Labrador Center for Applied Health Research (NLCAHR)
  2. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

POWER, G. A., B. H. DALTON, D. G. BEHM, A. A. VANDERVOORT, T. J. DOHERTY, and C. L. RICE. Motor Unit Number Estimates in Masters Runners: Use It or Lose It? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 42, No. 9, pp. 1644-1650, 2010. Introduction: A contributing factor to the loss of muscle mass and strength during aging is the reduction in the number of functioning motor units (MU). It has been shown that lifelong physically active older rats have greater numbers of MU compared with age-matched sedentary controls, suggesting that chronic exercise may preserve MU function with advancing age. This has not previously been examined in humans. Purpose: Thus, the purpose of this study was to estimate the number of functioning MU in the tibialis anterior of masters runners (similar to 65 yr) and to compare the values with recreationally active young (similar to 25 yr) and healthy age-matched controls (similar to 65 yr). Methods: Decomposition-enhanced spike-triggered averaging was used to collect surface and intramuscular EMG signals during dorsiflexion at 25% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction. Results: The estimated number of MU did not differ between masters runners and young, but MU number estimates were lower in the old (91 +/- 22 MU) compared with the masters runners (140 +/- 53 MU) and young (150 +/- 43 MU). Conclusion: These results demonstrate that lifelong high-intensity physical activity could potentially mitigate the loss of MU associated with aging well into the seventh decade of life.

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

4.6
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