Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, Thames Hall, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 May;112(5):1907-15. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2152-4. Epub 2011 Sep 17.
This study compared the oxygen uptake (VO(2)) and muscle deoxygenation (∆HHb) of two intermittent protocols to responses during continuous constant load cycle exercise in males (24 year ± 2, n = 7). Subjects performed three protocols: (1) 10 s work/5 s active recovery (R), R at 20 W (INT1): (2) 10 s work/5 s R, R at moderate intensity (INT2); and (3) continuous exercise (CONT), all for 10 min, on separate days. The work rate of CONT and the 10 s work of INT1 and INT2 were set within the heavy intensity domain. VO(2) and ∆HHb data were filtered and averaged to 5 s bins. Average VO(2) (80-420 s) was highest during CONT (3.77 L/min), lower in INT2 (3.04 L/min), and lowest during INT1 (2.81 L/min), all (p < 0.05). Average ∆HHb (80-420 s) was higher during CONT (p < 0.05) than both INT exercise protocols (CONT; 25.7 ± 0.9 a.u. INT1; 16.4 ± 0.8 a.u., and INT2; 15.8 ± 0.8 a.u.). The repeated changes in metabolic rate elicited oscillations in ΔHHb in both intermittent protocols, whereas oscillations in VO(2) were only observed during INT1. The greater ΔHHb during CONT suggests a reduction in oxygen delivery compared to oxygen consumption relative to INT. The higher VO(2) for INT 2 versus INT 1 and similar ΔHHb during INT suggests an increase in oxygen delivery during INT 2. Thus the different demands of INT1, INT2, and CONT protocols elicited differing physiological responses to a similar heavy intensity power output. These intermittent exercise models seem to elicit an elevated O(2) delivery condition compared to CONT.
本研究比较了两种间歇协议的摄氧量（VO2）和肌肉去氧（∆HHb）与男性连续恒负荷循环运动的反应（24 岁±2，n=7）。受试者进行了三种方案：（1）10 秒工作/5 秒主动恢复（R），R 为 20 W（INT1）；（2）10 秒工作/5 秒 R，R 为中等强度（INT2）；（3）连续运动（CONT），均为 10 分钟，在不同的日子进行。CONT 和 INT1 和 INT2 的 10 秒工作的工作率设定在高强度范围内。VO2 和 ∆HHb 数据经过滤波并平均到 5 秒的时间区间。在 CONT（3.77 L/min）中，平均 VO2（80-420 s）最高，INT2（3.04 L/min）次之，INT1（2.81 L/min）最低，均（p < 0.05）。在 CONT（p < 0.05）中，平均 ∆HHb（80-420 s）高于两种 INT 运动方案（CONT；25.7 ± 0.9 a.u. INT1；16.4 ± 0.8 a.u.和 INT2；15.8 ± 0.8 a.u.）。在两种间歇方案中，代谢率的反复变化引起了 ∆HHb 的振荡，而在 INT1 中仅观察到 VO2 的振荡。CONT 时 ∆HHb 较高表明与 INT 相比，氧气输送相对于氧气消耗减少。与 INT1 相比，INT2 的 VO2 较高，INT2 时 ∆HHb 相似表明 INT2 时氧气输送增加。因此，INT1、INT2 和 CONT 方案的不同需求引起了对相似高强度功率输出的不同生理反应。与 CONT 相比，这些间歇运动模型似乎引起了较高的 O2 输送条件。
