Hochachka Peter W, Beatty Cheryl L
Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Blvd., V6T 1Z4, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003 Sep;136(1):215-25. doi: 10.1016/s1095-6433(03)00195-8.
In this analysis, four performance phenotypes were used to compare mechanisms of control of aerobic maximum metabolic rate (MMR): (i) untrained sedentary (US) subjects, as a reference group against which to compare (ii) power trained (PT), (iii) endurance trained (ET) and (iv) high altitude adapted native (HA) subject groups. Sprinters represented the PT group; long distance runners illustrated the ET group; and Quechuas represented the HA group. Numerous recent studies have identified contributors to control on both the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) supply side and the ATP demand side of ATP turnover. Control coefficients or c(i) values were defined as fractional change in MMR/fractional change in the capacity of any given step in ATP turnover. From the best available evidence it appears that at MMR all five of the major steps in energy delivery (namely, ventilation, pulmonary diffusion, cardiac output, tissue capillary - mitochondrial O(2) transfer, and aerobic cell metabolism per se) approach an upper functional ceiling, with control strength being distributed amongst the various O(2) flux steps. On the energy demand side, the situation is somewhat simplified since at MMR approximately 90% of O(2)-based ATP synthesis is used for actomyosin (AM) and Ca(2+) ATPases; at MMR these two ATP demand rates also appear to be near an upper functional ceiling. In consequence, at MMR the control contributions or c(i) values are rather evenly divided amongst all seven major steps in ATP supply and ATP demand pathways right to the point of fatigue. Relative to US (the reference group), in PT subjects at MMR control strength shifts towards O(2) delivery steps (ventilation, pulmonary diffusion and cardiac output). In contrast in ET and HA subjects at MMR control shifts towards the energy demand steps (AM and Ca(2+) ATPases), and more control strength is focussed on tissue level ATP supply and ATP demand. One obvious advantage of the ET and HA control pattern is improved metabolite homeostasis. Another possibility is that, with some reserve capacity in the O(2) delivery steps and control focussed on ATP turnover at the tissue level, nature has designed the ideal 'endurance machine'.
在本分析中,使用四种表现型来比较有氧最大代谢率(MMR)的控制机制:(i)未经训练的久坐不动(US)受试者,作为一个参考组,用于与(ii)力量训练(PT)、(iii)耐力训练(ET)和(iv)高海拔适应原住民(HA)受试者组进行比较。短跑运动员代表PT组;长跑运动员代表ET组;克丘亚人代表HA组。最近的许多研究已经确定了ATP周转的三磷酸腺苷(ATP)供应侧和ATP需求侧的控制因素。控制系数或c(i)值被定义为MMR的分数变化/ATP周转中任何给定步骤的能力的分数变化。从现有最佳证据来看,在MMR时,能量传递的所有五个主要步骤(即通气、肺扩散、心输出量、组织毛细血管 - 线粒体O₂转移以及有氧细胞代谢本身)都接近功能上限,控制强度分布在各个O₂通量步骤之间。在能量需求方面,情况有所简化,因为在MMR时,约90%基于O₂的ATP合成用于肌动球蛋白(AM)和Ca²⁺ATP酶;在MMR时,这两个ATP需求率似乎也接近功能上限。因此,在MMR时,控制贡献或c(i)值在ATP供应和ATP需求途径的所有七个主要步骤中相当均匀地分配,直至疲劳点。相对于US(参考组),在MMR时,PT受试者的控制强度向O₂输送步骤(通气、肺扩散和心输出量)转移。相比之下,在MMR时,ET和HA受试者的控制向能量需求步骤(AM和Ca²⁺ATP酶)转移,并且更多的控制强度集中在组织水平的ATP供应和ATP需求上。ET和HA控制模式的一个明显优势是改善了代谢物稳态。另一种可能性是,由于O₂输送步骤有一些储备能力,且控制集中在组织水平的ATP周转上,大自然设计了理想的“耐力机器”。