3.8 Article

Mucosal immunity, respiratory illness, and competitive performance in elite swimmers

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 348-353

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005768-200103000-00002

关键词

illness; mucosal immunity; performance; swimming; immunoglobulin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Exercise and training are known to elicit changes in mucosal humoral immunity, but whether these alterations have any impact on competitive performance remains unclear. This investigation examined relationships between salivary immunoglobulin (Ig) concentration, the incidence of respiratory tract illness (RTI), and competitive performance in elite swimmers. Methods: Forty-one members of the Australian Swimming Team (21 males and 20 females) aged 15-27 yr were monitored during preparations for the 1998 Commonwealth Games. Twenty-five coaches and staff (19 males and 6 females) aged 32-65 yr, serving as environmental controls, were also monitored. Salivary IgA, IgM, and IgG and albumin concentration (mg.L-1) were measured in both groups in May 1998 and again in August 1998, 17 d before competition. Subjects were categorized as ill (at least one Rn) or healthy. Results: There were no significant changes in salivary IgA, IgM, or IgG concentration in the swimmers between May and August, nor were there any differences between healthy (N = 23) and ill (N = 18) swimmers. There was a significant positive relationship between IgM and performance in the male swimmers (r = 0.85, P < 0.001) but not for any other parameter. There was no significant difference in performance between ill and healthy swimmers (P = 0.11). Gold medal winners (N = 9) had higher IgM levels than other swimmers (N = 32) in May (P = 0.02) and higher IgG in August (P = 0.02). Conclusion: These data indicate that a season of training by elite swimmers did not alter salivary immunoglobulin concentrations, and the presence of RTI had no significant impact on competitive performance.

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

3.8
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