Drescher U, Koschate J, Schiffer T, Schneider S, Hoffmann U
Institute of Physiology and Anatomy, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, 50933, Germany.
Institute of Physiology and Anatomy, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, 50933, Germany.
Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2017 Jun;240:70-80. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2017.03.001. Epub 2017 Mar 6.
The aim of the study was to compare the kinetics responses of heart rate (HR), pulmonary (V˙Opulm) and predicted muscular (V˙Omusc) oxygen uptake between two different pseudo-random binary sequence (PRBS) work rate (WR) amplitudes both below anaerobic threshold.
Eight healthy individuals performed two PRBS WR protocols implying changes between 30W and 80W and between 30W and 110W. HR and V˙Opulm were measured beat-to-beat and breath-by-breath, respectively. V˙Omusc was estimated applying the approach of Hoffmann et al. (Eur J Appl Physiol 113: 1745-1754, 2013) considering a circulatory model for venous return and cross-correlation functions (CCF) for the kinetics analysis.
HR and V˙Omusc kinetics seem to be independent of WR intensity (p>0.05). V˙Opulm kinetics show prominent differences in the lag of the CCF maximum (39±9s; 31±4s; p<0.05).
A mean difference of 14W between the PRBS WR amplitudes impacts venous return significantly, while HR and V˙Omusc kinetics remain unchanged.
本研究旨在比较两种低于无氧阈的不同伪随机二进制序列（PRBS）工作率（WR）幅度下心率（HR）、肺摄氧量（V˙Opulm）和预测肌肉摄氧量（V˙Omusc）的动力学反应。
8名健康个体进行了两种PRBS WR方案，分别涉及30W至80W以及30W至110W之间的变化。HR和V˙Opulm分别逐搏和逐次呼吸进行测量。V˙Omusc采用Hoffmann等人（《欧洲应用生理学杂志》113: 1745 - 1754, 2013年）的方法进行估算，该方法考虑了静脉回流的循环模型以及用于动力学分析的互相关函数（CCF）。
HR和V˙Omusc动力学似乎与WR强度无关（p>0.05）。V˙Opulm动力学在CCF最大值的延迟方面显示出显著差异（39±9秒；31±4秒；p<0.05）。
PRBS WR幅度之间14W的平均差异对静脉回流有显著影响，而HR和V˙Omusc动力学保持不变。
