4.2 Article

Ventilatory responses to exercise training in obese adolescents

期刊

RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY & NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 184, 期 1, 页码 73-79

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resp.2012.08.001

关键词

Obesity; Adolescence; Exercise training; Ventilatory responses; Cardiorespiratory fitness

资金

  1. Chimie Sciences du Vivant Sante Biologie cluster of Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble I

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to examine ventilatory responses to training in obese adolescents. We assessed body composition, pulmonary function and ventilatory responses (among which expiratory flow limitation and operational lung volumes) during progressive cycling exercise in 16 obese adolescents (OB) before and after 12 weeks of exercise training and in 16 normal-weight volunteers. As expected, obese adolescents' resting expiratory reserve volume was lower and inversely correlated with thoraco-abdominal fat mass (r = -0.74, p < 0.0001). OB presented lower end expiratory (EELV) and end inspiratory lung volumes (EILV) at rest and during submaximal exercise, and modest expiratory flow limitation. After training, OB increased maximal aerobic performance (+19%) and maximal inspiratory pressure (93.7 +/- 31.4 vs 81.9 +/- 28.2 cm H2O, +14%) despite lack of decrease in trunk fat and body weight. Furthermore, EELV and EILV were greater during submaximal exercise (+11% and +9% in EELV and EILV, respectively), expiratory flow limitation delayed but was not accompanied by increased V-T. However, submaximal exertional symptoms (dyspnea and leg discomfort) were significantly decreased (-71.3% and -70.7%, respectively). Our results suggest that exercise training can improve pulmonary function at rest (static inspiratory muscle strength) and exercise (greater operating lung volumes and delayed expiratory flow limitation) but these modifications did not entirely account for improved dyspnea and exercise performance in obese adolescents. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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