4.6 Article

In vivo reduction in ATP cost of contraction is not related to fatigue level in stimulated rat gastrocnemius muscle

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 536, 期 3, 页码 905-915

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.00905.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. We tested whether the reduction in ATP cost of contraction during in vivo stimulation of rat gastrocnemius muscle was related to fatigue level. 2. Muscles (n = 44) were electrically stimulated to perform 6 min repeated isometric contractions at different frequencies; one non-fatiguing protocol (stimulation at 0.8 Hz) and five fatiguing protocols (2, 3.2, 4, 5.2 and 7.6 Hz) were used. Anaerobic and oxidative ATP turnover rates were measured non-invasively using P-31-magnetic resonance spectroscopy. 3. At the onset of the stimulation period, no signs of fatigue were measured in the six protocols and ATP cost of contraction did not differ significantly (P = 0.45) among protocols (mean value of 1.76 +/- 0.11 mm (N s)(-1)). 4. For the six protocols, ATP cost of contraction was significantly reduced (P < 0.05) at the end of the stimulation period when compared with the initial value. This reduction did not differ significantly (P = 0.61) among the five fatiguing protocols (averaging 35 + 3 % of initial value), whereas isometric force decreased significantly as stimulation frequency increased. No significant correlation (P = 0.87, r(2) = 0.01) was observed between isometric force and ATP cost of contraction at the end of the stimulation period. In addition, this reduction was significantly lower (P < 0.05) for the non-fatiguing protocol (67 +/- 9 % of initial value) when compared with the fatiguing protocols. 5. These results demonstrate that (i) the reduction in ATP cost of contraction during in vivo stimulation of rat gastrocnemius muscle is not related to the fatigue level; (ii) surprisingly, this reduction was significantly larger during the fatiguing protocols compared with the non-fatiguing protocol.

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