4.6 Article

Validation of a Ramp Running Protocol for Determination of the True VO2max in Mice

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2016.00372

关键词

VO2max; mice; exercise protocol; comparative physiology; performance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the field of comparative physiology, it remains to be established whether the concept of VO2max is valid in the mouse and, if so, how this value can be accurately determined. In humans, VO2max is generally considered to correspond to the plateau observed when VO2max no longer rises with an increase in workload. In contrast, the concept of VO2peak tends to be used in murine studies. The objectives of the present study were to determine whether (i) a continuous ramp protocol yielded a higher VO2peak than a stepwise, incremental protocol, and (ii) the VO2peak measured in the ramp protocol corresponded to VO2max. The three protocols (based on intensity-controlled treadmill running until exhaustion with eight female FVB/N mice) were performed in random order: (a) an incremental protocol that begins at 10 m.min(-1) speed and increases by 3 m.min-1 every 3 min. (b) a ramp protocol with slow acceleration (3 m.min(-2)), and (c) a ramp protocol with fast acceleration (12 m.min-2). Each protocol was performed with two slopes (0 and 25E degrees). Hence, each mouse performed six exercise tests. We found that the value of VO2peak was protocol-dependent (p < 0.05) and was highest (59.0 ml.kg 75.min(-1)) for the 3 m.min(-2) 0 degrees ramp protocol. In the latter, the presence of a VO2max plateau was associated with the fulfillment of two secondary criteria (a blood lactate concentration >8 mmol.l(-1) and a respiratory exchange ratio >1). The total duration of the 3 m.min(-2) ramp protocol was shorter than that of the incremental protocol. Taken as a whole, our results suggest that VO2max in the mouse is best determined by applying a ramp exercise protocol with slow acceleration and no treadmill slope.

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