Pogliaghi S, Terziotti P, Cevese A, Balestreri F, Schena F
Laboratorio di Fisiologia dell'Esercizio, Facoltà di Scienze Motorie, Università degli Studi di Verona, Via Casorati, 43, 37131 Verona, VR, Italy.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Aug;97(6):723-31. doi: 10.1007/s00421-006-0229-2. Epub 2006 Jun 24.
The effect in healthy elderly subjects of cycle ergometer or arm ergometer training on peak oxygen consumption (VO(2peak)) and ventilatory threshold (VT) was studied. The aim was to determine the benefit of each training modality on specific and cross exercise capacity. The cross-effect was also evaluated as an index of the central nature of the adaptive response to training. Twelve non-smoking healthy males (age: 67 +/- 5 year; body mass: 75 +/- 9 kg) were randomly divided in two age-matched groups of six, performing an arm cranking (ARM) or a cycloergometer (CYC) training (12-week, 30 min, 3 times/week), while a third group of 6 subjects (age: 73 +/- 4 year; body mass: 80 +/- 8 kg) performed no training (control, C). At baseline and following the intervention, subjects carried out an incremental test to exhaustion both on the ergometer on which they trained (specific test) and on the other ergometer (cross test). Respiratory variables were measured breath by breath and heart rate (HR) was recorded. Peak oxygen consumption (VO(2peak)), ventilation (VE(peak)), oxygen pulse (O2P(peak)) and heart rate (HR(peak)) were averaged over the last 10 s of exercise. Following training, while HR(peak) remained unchanged, significantly higher W(peak), VO(2peak), VE(peak) and O2P(peak) were obtained in both training groups, on both ergometers. The amplitude of the increase in W(peak), VO(2peak) and O2P(peak) was significantly higher for specific than for cross tests ( approximately 19% vs. approximately 8 % in CYC; approximately 22% vs. approximately 9% in ARM, P < 0.01) while the increase in same test condition was similar. No change was observed in the C group. The results indicate that aerobic training brought about with different muscle masses, produce similar improvements in maximal and submaximal exercise capacity. Roughly half of such improvements are specific to exercise mode, which suggests peripheral adaptations to training. The other half is non-specific since it influences also the alternative exercise modality, and is probably due to central adaptations.
研究了卧式测力计或臂式测力计训练对健康老年受试者峰值耗氧量(VO₂峰值)和通气阈值(VT)的影响。目的是确定每种训练方式对特定运动能力和交叉运动能力的益处。交叉效应也作为训练适应性反应中枢性质的指标进行了评估。12名不吸烟的健康男性(年龄:67±5岁;体重:75±9千克)被随机分为两个年龄匹配的组,每组6人,分别进行手摇曲柄(ARM)或卧式测力计(CYC)训练(为期12周,每次30分钟,每周3次),而第三组6名受试者(年龄:73±4岁;体重:80±8千克)不进行训练(对照组,C)。在基线和干预后,受试者在他们所训练的测力计上(特定测试)以及在另一个测力计上(交叉测试)进行递增至力竭测试。逐次测量呼吸变量并记录心率(HR)。在运动的最后10秒内对峰值耗氧量(VO₂峰值)、通气量(VE峰值)、氧脉搏(O₂P峰值)和心率(HR峰值)进行平均。训练后,虽然HR峰值保持不变,但两个训练组在两种测力计上均获得了显著更高的功率峰值(W峰值)、VO₂峰值、VE峰值和O₂P峰值。特定测试中W峰值、VO₂峰值和O₂P峰值的增加幅度显著高于交叉测试(CYC组中约为19%对约8%;ARM组中约为22%对约9%,P<),而相同测试条件下的增加相似。C组未观察到变化。结果表明,不同肌肉量的有氧训练在最大和次最大运动能力方面产生了相似的改善。这种改善中约一半特定于运动模式,这表明是对训练的外周适应性。另一半是非特异性的,因为它也影响替代运动方式,可能是由于中枢适应性。