4.2 Article

Effects of artificial CO2-rich cold-water immersion on repeated-cycling work efficiency

期刊

RESEARCH IN SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 215-227

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15438627.2020.1860048

关键词

Cold water; work efficiency; Wingate test; lactate; heart rate; carbon dioxide

资金

  1. Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) Regional IndustryAcademia Value Program [C7710]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the acute effects of cold-water immersion with higher CO2 concentration on subjects' sublingual temperature, blood lactate, heart rate, and aerobic cycling work efficiency. The results showed that CO2 immersion improved work efficiency and reduced blood lactate and heart rate.
We investigated the acute effects of cold-water immersion (20 degrees C) with higher CO2 concentration (CCWI) following a high-intensity Wingate anaerobic exercise test (WAnT) on subjects' sublingual temperature (T-sub), blood lactate ([La]b), heart rate (HR), and aerobic cycling work efficiency (WE) compared to cold tap-water immersion (20 degrees C; CWI) and passive recovery (PAS). Fifteen subjects completed three testing sessions at 1-week intervals. Each trial consisted of a first WE and WAnT, and a 20-min recovery intervention (randomized: CCWI, CWI, and PAS) before repeating a second WE and WAnT. The WE was measured by the metabolic demand during 50%V?O(2)max exercise. HR, T-sub, and [La]b were recorded throughout the testing sessions. There was a signi?cant decline in the WE from 1st bout to 2nd bout at each recovery intervention. The WAnT was also significantly reduced at 2nd bout. Significantly reduced [La]b was achieved at CCWI compared to PAS, but not to the CWI. Likewise, the reduction in HR following immersion was the largest at CCWI compared to the other conditions. These ?ndings indicate that CCWI is an effective intervention for maintaining repeated cycling work efficiency, which might be associated with reduced [La]b and HR.

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