4.3 Article

Haemodynamic effect of metaboreflex activation in men after running above and below the velocity of the anaerobic threshold

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 93, 期 4, 页码 447-457

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/expphysiol.2007.041863

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have shown that the muscle metaboreflex, along with its effect on peripheral vasculature, is capable of inducing substantial enhancement in cardiac performance, stroke volume and cardiac output. This study was designed to determine whether the metaboreflex recruited by means of postexercise muscle ischaemia (PEMI) after running at two intensities was capable of eliciting similar enhancement in these cardiovascular parameters. In eight healthy male athletes the metaboreflex was studied with the PEMI method at the start of recovery from running bouts at a velocity of 30% above (PEMI-AV(AT)) or below (PEMI-BVAT) the anaerobic threshold previously assessed. Control exercise recovery tests at the same intensities were also conducted. Haemodynamics were evaluated by means of impedance cardiography. The main results were that: (1) the PEMI-AV(AT) test induced an increase in stroke volume, which was not present during the other protocol conditions; (2) the PEMI-AV(AT) test also induced a blunted heart rate response compared with the control situation, but this relative bradycardia was fully compensated by the stroke volume increment so that cardiac output was maintained and even increased in comparison with the other protocol sessions; and (3) finally, there was no detectable increase in systemic vascular resistance during PEMI-AV(AT). These results provide evidence that, like what has previously been reported for small muscle mass exercise, metaboreflex activation after running is capable of enhancing cardiac performance and stroke volume. Moreover, this study strengthens the concept that the cardiovascular response to metaboreflex is not merely the consequence of an increase in systemic vascular resistance.

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

4.3
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