4.5 Article

Sex Differences in Maximal Oxygen Uptake Adjusted for Skeletal Muscle Mass in Amateur Endurance Athletes: A Cross Sectional Study

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11101502

关键词

ventilatory threshold; VO2 max; triathlon; respiratory compensation point; women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Male athletes generally outperform female athletes in endurance sports due to higher VO(2)max values. However, when adjusting for lean mass, the differences in VO(2)max between sexes become insignificant. This suggests that lean mass may play a role in explaining sex differences in performance.
Male athletes tend to outperform female athletes in several endurance sports. Maximum cardiac output can be estimated by maximal oxygen consumption (VO(2)max), and it has been established that men present VO(2)max values about 20% higher than women. Although sex differences in VO(2)max have already been well studied, few studies have assessed sex differences with regard to muscle oxidative capacity. The aim of this study was to compare aerobic muscle quality, accessed by VO2max and adjusted by lower limb lean mass, between male and female amateur triathletes. The study also aimed to compare sex differences according to VO2 submaximal values assessed at ventilatory thresholds. A total of 57 participants (23 women and 34 men), who had been training for Olympic-distance triathlon races, underwent body composition evaluation by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and performed a cardiorespiratory maximal test on a treadmill. Male athletes had significantly higher VO(2)max, both absolutely and when adjusted to body mass. Conversely, when VO(2)max was adjusted for lean mass, there was no significant difference between sexes. The same was observed at submaximal exercise intensities. In conclusion, differences in VO(2)max adjusted to body mass but not lean mass may explain, at least in part, sex differences in performance in triathlons, marathons, cycling, and other endurance sports.

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

4.5
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