4.3 Article

Blood flow and muscle oxygenation during low, moderate, and maximal sustained isometric contractions

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00387.2014

关键词

dorsiflexors; muscle blood flow; near-infrared spectroscopy

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A reduction of blood flow to active muscle will precipitate fatigue, and sustained isometric contractions produce intramuscular and compartmental pressures that can limit flow. The present study explored how blood flow and muscle oxygenation respond to isometric contractions at low, moderate, and maximal intensities. Over two visits, 10 males (26 +/- 2 yr; means +/- SD) performed 1-min dorsiflexion contractions at 30, 60, and 100% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) torque. Doppler ultrasound of the anterior tibial artery was used to record arterial diameter and mean blood velocity and to calculate absolute blood flow. The tissue oxygenation index (TOI) of tibialis anterior was acquired with near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). There was a progressive increase in blood flow at 30% MVC (peak of 289 +/- 139% resting value), no change from rest until an increase in the final 10 s of exercise at 60% MVC (peak of 197 +/- 102% rest), and an initial decrease (59 +/- 30% resting value) followed by a progressive increase at 100% MVC (peak of 355 +/- 133% rest). Blood flow was greater at 30 and 100% than 60% MVC during the last 30 s of exercise. TOI was similar to 63% at rest and, within 30 s of exercise, reached steady-state values of similar to 42%, similar to 22%, and similar to 22% for 30, 60, and 100% MVC, respectively. Even maximal contraction of the dorsiflexors is unable to cause more than a transient decrease of flow in the anterior tibial artery. Unlike dynamic or intermittent isometric exercise, our results indicate blood flow is not linearly graded with intensity or directly coupled with oxygenation during sustained isometric contractions.

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

4.3
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