4.5 Article

Effects of intravenous N-acetylcysteine infusion on time to fatigue and potassium regulation during prolonged cycling exercise

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 96, 期 1, 页码 211-217

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00458.2003

关键词

reactive oxygen species; muscle fatigue; sodium-potassium-adenosine triphosphatase; training status

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The production of reactive oxygen species in skeletal muscle is linked with muscle fatigue. This study investigated whether the antioxidant compound N- acetylcysteine ( NAC) augments time to fatigue during prolonged, submaximal cycling exercise. Seven men completed a double- blind, crossover study, receiving NAC or placebo before and during cycling exercise, comprising 45 min at 70% of peak oxygen consumption ( V (over dot)(O2) peak) and then to fatigue at 90% V(over dot)(O2 peak). NAC was intravenously infused at 125 mg . kg(-1) . h(-1) for 15 min and then 25 mg . kg(-1) . h(-1) for 20 min before and throughout exercise, which was continued until fatigue. Arterialized venous blood was analyzed for NAC concentration, hematology, and plasma electrolytes. NAC induced no serious adverse reactions and did not affect hematology, acid- base status, or plasma electrolytes. Time to fatigue was reproducible in preliminary trials ( coefficient of variation 7.4 +/- 1.2%) and was not augmented by NAC ( NAC 14.6 +/- 4.5 min; control 12.8 +/- 5.4 min). However, time to fatigue during NAC trials was correlated with V(over dot)(O2) peak ( r = 0.78; P < 0.05), suggesting that NAC effects on performance may be dependent on training status. The rise in plasma K (+) concentration at fatigue was attenuated by NAC ( P < 0.05). The ratio of rise in K (+) concentration to work and the percentage change in time to fatigue tended to be inversely related ( r = -0.71; P < 0.07). Further research is required to clarify a possible training status- dependent effect of NAC on muscle performance and K (+) regulation.

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