4.4 Article

Muscle Oxygenation Responses to Low-intensity Steady Rate Concentric and Eccentric Cycling

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 173-180

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-121272

关键词

Tissue saturation index; cardiovascular; vascular conductance; near infra-red spectroscopy; negative muscle work; oxygen uptake

资金

  1. Tomsk Polytechnic University Competitiveness Enhancement Program grant [BY-CGammaT-108/2017 - TPU CEP-HSTI-108/2017]
  2. Physiology - Functional explorations unit of Besancon teaching hospital (CHRU Jean Minjoz, Besancon, France)
  3. Exercise Performance Health Innovation platform (Franche-Comte University, Besancon, France)
  4. Physiological Society
  5. French Ministry of National Education
  6. French Ministry of Research
  7. French Ministry of Technology [EA3920, EA4267]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Muscle deoxygenation responses provide information about the training impulse of an exercise session enabling adaptation to be predicted. Our aim was to investigate muscle oxygenation profiles during prolonged low-intensity eccentric and concentric cycling. Twelve healthy men performed two 45-min exercise sessions of concentric (CON) and eccentric (ECC) cycling, matched for the same heart rate at the start of each session. Mechanical power output during ECC was similar to 2.5 times that of CON (210 +/- 40W vs. 82 +/- 16 W). Oxygen uptake, blood lactate, cardiac output and systolic arterial pressure responses did not differ between exercises. Heart rate was similar at 5min of each exercise bout but progressively increased during ECC and was higher at 15, 30 and 45min of ECC compared to CON (+10bpm), with a trend for a lower stroke volume. Diastolic and mean blood pressures were higher during ECC. No significant differences were observed in muscle oxygenation profiles. Muscle oxygenation responses during prolonged low-intensity exercise were not affected by the type of muscle action at the same metabolic demand and cardiac output.

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

4.4
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