4.7 Article

Maximum oxygen consumption and quantification of exercise intensity in untrained male Wistar rats

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-68455-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11775059]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018T110076]
  3. Fundamental Research Foundation of the China Institute of Sport Science [17-18, 17-19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to explore a valid test protocol for measuring VO2max in healthy untrained male Wistar rats of different ages and quantifying the exercise intensity (%VO2max) of running under different treadmill grades and speeds. The test protocols and %VO2max will provide a reference for the design of exercise intensity. We tested male Wistar rats aged 4 weeks, 10 weeks, 10 months and 16 months old with three test protocols (Procedure 1 [P1], 2 [P2] and 3 [P3]) for each age group to quantify VO2max. We analysed VO2max, respiratory exchange ratio and test duration to determine an optimal test protocol of VO2max for different age groups. We used the optimal test protocol to explore the changes in age-related VO2max. Finally, %VO2max of running under different treadmill speeds and grades was quantified. VO2max of Wistar rats decreased significantly after the age of 4 weeks (p<0.05). The optimum VO2max can be induced by personalised protocols for different ages. In 4-week-old Wistar rats, the highest VO2max values were attained by P1 (104.4 +/- 6.9 mL.kg(-1).min(-1), p=0.032). The highest VO2max value (84.7 +/- 3.7 mL.kg(-1).min(-1), p=0.037) of 8-week-old Wistar rats was attained in P2. In 10-month-old Wistar rats, the highest VO2max value was obtained in P3 (63.3 +/- 1.7 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)). This work could be used as a reference for assessing aerobic capacity in studies on exercise intervention with untrained male Wistar rats. However, the %VO2max measurements at various treadmill speeds and grades only apply to untrained male Wistar rats.

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