4.5 Article

Dynamics of intramuscular 31P-MRS Pi peak splitting and the slow components of PCr and O2 uptake during exercise

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 93, 期 6, 页码 2059-2069

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00446.2002

关键词

O-2 uptake kinetics; magnetic resonance spectroscopy; exercise; intramuscular pH; P-i peak splitting; phosphocreatine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dynamics of pulmonary O-2 uptake ((V)over dotO(2)) during the on-transient of high-intensity exercise depart from monoexponentiality as a result of a slow component whose mechanisms remain conjectural. Progressive recruitment of glycolytic muscle fibers, with slow O-2 utilization kinetics and low efficiency, has, however, been suggested as a mechanism. The demonstration of high- and low-pH components of the exercising skeletal muscle P-31 magnetic resonance (MR) spectrum [inorganic phosphate (P-i) peak] at high work rates (thought to be reflective of differences between oxidative and glycolytic muscle fibers) is also consistent with this conjecture. We therefore investigated the dynamics Of (V)over dotO(2) (using a turbine and mass spectrometry) and intramuscular ATP, phosphocreatine (PCr), and P-i concentrations and pH, estimated from the P-31 MR spectrum. Eleven healthy men performed prone square-wave high-intensity knee extensor exercise in the bore of a whole body MR spectrometer. A (V)over dotO(2) slow component of magnitude 15.9 +/- 6.9% of the phase II amplitude was accompanied by a similar response (11.9 +/- 7.1%) in PCr concentration. Only five subjects demonstrated a discernable splitting of the P-i peak, however, which began from between 35 and 235 s after exercise onset and continued until cessation. As such, the dynamics of the pH distribution in intramuscular compartments did not consistently reflect the temporal features of the (V)over dotO(2) slow component, suggesting that P-i splitting does not uniquely reflect the activity of oxidative or glycolytic muscle fibers per se.

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