4.4 Article

Plasma catecholamine and cardiovascular reactivity during an acute high ropes course event

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 303-314

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8760(01)00152-0

关键词

plasma catecholamines; cardiovascular; stress; psychosocial; ropes course

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The primary purpose of this study was to describe physiological responses to an acute high ropes course stress. The selected dependent variables were epinephrine (E), norepinephrine (NE), heart rate (HR), systolic/diastolic blood pressure (BPs and BPd) and self-reported anxiety. A secondary purpose was to explore possible relationships between the observed physiological responses and physical fitness. College-age males were recruited for preliminary V,,, max testing to identify a high-fit and low-fit subject pool. Eleven were identified as eligible participants and gave informed consent. Six participants were in the high-fit category (V-o2 max > 60 ml/kg) and five in the low-fit category (V-o2, max < 42 ml/kg). The Power Pole, a common high ropes course event, was selected as the acute field-based challenge activity. During participation in the challenge, a series of five (T1-T5) 10-ml blood samples were taken (via intravenous catheter) to be analyzed for E and NE. Subjective anxiety, HR, BPs and BPd were also measured at T1-T5. When the data were analyzed in a 2 (fitness group) X 5 (time) factorial ANOVA, there was a significant main effect for time with each dependent variable. However, the only difference between fitness levels was found with HR. These results indicate that the Power Pole is an acute field-based stressor for individuals of both high and low fitness levels. Due to the lack of difference between fitness groups for all variables other than HR, we conclude that participating in the Power Pole event elicits more stress of a psychosocial nature than stress of physical exertion. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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