4.6 Article

Non-targeted metabolomics analyses by mass spectrometry to explore metabolic stress after six training weeks in high level swimmers.

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
卷 39, 期 9, 页码 969-978

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1851933

关键词

Swimming; metabolomics; periodization

资金

  1. Ministere des sports

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that metabolic responses differed between the polarised training group and threshold training group during high-intensity threshold training loads, with the threshold group showing higher glycogenic depletion and inflammation levels, while the polarised group exhibited lower levels of these reactions.
The objective was to compare the metabolic responses of high-level national swimmers to threshold or polarised training. 22 swimmers (n = 12 males and 10 females) participated in a 28-week cross-over intervention study consisting of 2 x 6 period weeks of training. Swimmers were assigned randomly to either training group for the first period: polarised (POL) (81% in energetic zone 1: blood lactate [La]b <= 2 mmol.L-1; 4% in zone 2: 2 mmol.L-1 4 mmol.L-1) or threshold (THR) (65%/25%/10%). Before and after each training period, urine samples were collected for non-targeted metabolomics analysis. Mixed model analysis was performed on metabolomics data including fatigue class factors and/or training and/or interaction. Ion intensities of 6-keto-decanoylcarnitine (+31%), pregnanediol-3-glucuronide (+81%), P-cresol sulphate (+18%) were higher in the threshold group (P < 0.05) indicating higher glycogenic depletion and inflammation without alteration of the neuroendocrine stress axis. 4-phenylbutanic acid sulphate was 200% higher in less fatigued swimmers (P < 0.01) linking the anti-inflammatory activity at the cell membrane level to the subjective perception of fatigue. This research suggests the importance of replenishing glycogen stores and reducing inflammation during high thresholds training loads.

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