3.9 Article

Running speed and maximal oxygen uptake in rats and mice: practical implications for exercise training

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1097/HJR.0b013e3281eacef1

关键词

aerobic interval training; endurance training; intensity control; mice; oxygen uptake; rats; running speed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Valid and reliable experimental models are essential to gain insight into the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of exercise in prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of lifestyle-related diseases. Studies with large changes, low variation, and reproducible training outcome require individualized training intensity, controlled by direct measurements of maximal oxygen uptake or heart rate. As this approach is expensive and time consuming, we discuss whether maximal treadmill running speed in a gradually increasing ramp protocol might be sufficient to control intensity without lossing accuracy. Combined data from six studies of rats and mice from our lab demonstrated a close correlation between running speed and oxygen uptake. This relationship changed towards a steeper linear slope after endurance training, indicating improved work economy, that is, less oxygen was consumed at fixed submaximal running speeds. Maximal oxygen uptake increased 40-70% after high-intensity aerobic interval training in mice and rats. The speed at which oxygen uptake reached a plateau, increased in parallel with the change in maximal oxygen uptake during the training period. Although this suggests that running speed can be used to assess training intensity throughout a training program, the problem is to determine the exact relative intensity related to maximal oxygen uptake from running speed alone. We therefore suggest that directly measured oxygen uptake should be used to assess exercise intensity and optimize endurance training in rats and mice. Running speed may serve as a supplement to ensure this intensity. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 14:753-760 (c) 2007.

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

3.9
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