3.8 Article

Gastrocnemius medialis and vastus lateralis oxygenation during whole-body vibration exercise

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 694-700

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/mss.0b013e31803084d8

关键词

vibration exercise; muscle oxygenation; near-infrared spectroscopy; oxidative metabolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different whole-body vibration (WBV) frequencies on oxygenation of vastus lateralis (VL) and gastrocnemius medialis (GM) muscles during static squatting in sedentary and physically active healthy males. Methods: Twenty volunteers (age: 24.6 +/- 2.9 yr; body mass: 80.6 +/- 11.8 kg; height: 178.1 +/- 7.6 cm) participated in this study. Ten subjects were sedentary individuals and 10 were athletes practicing different sports. All subjects completed four trials (control, and 30-, 40, and 50-Hz WBV) in a randomized controlled crossover design. The trials consisted of static squatting on a vibrating platform for a total duration of 110 s. Muscle-oxygenation status was recorded with near-infrared spectroscopy. Results: The data analysis revealed no significant treatment-by-time interactions in tissue-oxygenation index TOI) or A total hemoglobin volume (tHb) in VL and GM muscles. A significant main effect of time in TOI of both VL and GM muscles was identified (P < 0.001). VL TOI significantly decreased by 2.8% at 90 s in the control condition and by 3.3% at 110 s in the 30-Hz condition; VL TOI significantly increased by 2.1 and 3.0% at 30 s in the 40- and 50-Hz conditions, respectively. GM TOI significantly decreased by 3.2% at 60 s, by 4.1% at 90 s, and by 4.3% at 110 s in the control condition, and by 5.5% at 110 s in the 30-Hz condition. Conclusion: This study showed that WBV exercise with frequencies of 30, 40, and 50 Hz and small amplitudes does not affect muscle oxygenation of VL and GM muscles to a higher degree than a nonvibration condition.

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

3.8
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