4.6 Article

Refuting the myth of non-response to exercise training: 'non-responders' do respond to higher dose of training

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 595, 期 11, 页码 3377-3387

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/JP273480

关键词

-

资金

  1. Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One in five adults following physical activity guidelines are reported to not demonstrate any improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Herein, we sought to establish whether CRF non-response to exercise training is dose-dependent, using a between-and within-subject study design. Seventy-eight healthy adults were divided into five groups (1-5) respectively comprising one, two, three, four and five 60 min exercise sessions per week but otherwise following an identical 6-week endurance training (ET) programme. Non-response was defined as any change in CRF, determined by maximal incremental exercise power output (W-max), within the typical error of measurement (+/- 3.96%). Participants classified as non-responders after the ET intervention completed a successive 6-week ET period including two additional exercise sessions per week. Maximal oxygen consumption ((V) over dotO(2max)), haematology and muscle biopsies were assessed prior to and after each ET period. After the first ET period, Wmax increased (P < 0.05) in groups 2, 3, 4 and 5, but not 1. In groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, 69%, 40%, 29%, 0% and 0% of individuals, respectively, were non-responders. After the second ET period, non-response was eliminated in all individuals. The change in (V) over dotO(2max) with exercise training independently determined Wmax response (partial correlation coefficient, r(partial) >= 0.74, P< 0.001). In turn, total haemoglobin mass was the strongest independent determinant of (V) over dotO(2max) (r(partial) = 0.49, P < 0.001). In conclusion, individual CRF non-response to exercise training is abolished by increasing the dose of exercise and primarily a function of haematological adaptations in oxygen-carrying capacity.

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