4.6 Article

Phosphocreatine degradation in type I and type II muscle fibres during submaximal exercise in man: effect of carbohydrate ingestion

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 537, 期 1, 页码 305-311

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.0305k.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of carbohydrate (CHO) ingestion on changes in ATP and phosphocreatine (PCr) concentrations in different muscle fibre types during prolonged running and relate those changes to the degree of glycogen depletion. 2, Five male subjects performed two runs at 70% maximum oxygen uptake ((V)over-dot(O2),(max)),1 week apart. Each subject ingested 8 ml (kg body mass (BM))(-1) of either a placebo (Con trial) or a 5.5% CHO solution (CHO trial) immediately before each run and 2 ml (kg BM)(-1) every 20 min thereafter. In the Con trial, the subjects ran to exhaustion (97.0 +/- 6.7 min). In the CHO trial, the run was terminated at, the time coinciding with exhaustion in the Con trial. Muscle samples were obtained from the vastus lateralis before and after each trial. 3. Carbohydrate ingestion did not affect ATP concentrations. However, it attenuated the decline in PCr concentration by 46% in type I fibres (CHO: 20 +/- 8 mmol (kg dry matter (DM))(-1); Con: 34 +/- 6 mmol (kg DM)(-1); P < 0.05) and by 36% in type II fibres (CHO: 30 +/- 5 mmol (kg DM)(-1); Con: 48 +/- 6 mmol (kg DM)(-1); P < 0.05). 4. A 56% reduction in glycogen utilisation in type I fibres was observed in CHO compared with Con (117 +/- 39 vs. 240 +/- 32 mmol glucosyl units (kg DM)(-1), respectively; P < 0.01), but no difference was observed in type II fibres. 5. It is proposed that CHO ingestion during exhaustive running attenuates the decline in oxidative ATP resynthesis in type I fibres, as indicated by sparing of both PCr and glycogen P breakdown. The CHO-induced sparing of PCr, but not glycogen, in type II fibres may reflect differential recruitment and/or role of PCr between fibre types.

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

4.6
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