4.5 Article

Declines in physiological functional capacity with age: a longitudinal study in peak swimming performance

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 94, 期 2, 页码 764-769

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00438.2002

关键词

exercise performance; physical work capacity

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 AG000847] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [K07 CA088811] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG013038, AG-13038, R37 AG013038] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We followed up swimming performance times of 321 women and 319 men who participated in the US Masters Swimming Championships over a 12-yr period. All swimmers placed in the top 10 in their age group over 3 yr (mean = 5 yr). A random coefficients model for repeated measures was used to derive a line of best fit from a group of regression lines for each subject. Both 50- and 1,500-m swimming performance declined modestly until similar to70 yr of age, where a more rapid decline was observed in both men and women. Compared with 1,500-m swimming, the 50-m freestyle declined more modestly and slowly with age. The rate and magnitude of declines in swimming performance with age were greater in women than in men in 50-m freestyle; such sex-related differences were not observed in 1,500-m freestyle. Overall, the variability along a population regression line increased markedly with advancing age. The present longitudinal findings indicate that 1) swimming performance declines progressively until age 70, where the decrease becomes quadratic; 2) the rates of the decline in swimming performance with age are greater in a long-duration than in a short-duration event, suggesting a relatively smaller loss of anaerobic muscular power with age compared with cardiovascular endurance; 3) the age-related rates of decline are greater in women than in men only in a short-duration event; and 4) the variability of the age-related decline in performance increases markedly with advancing age.

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

4.5
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