Nicolò Andrea, Marcora Samuele M, Bazzucchi Ilenia, Sacchetti Massimo
Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome 'Foro Italico', Rome, Italy.
Endurance Research Group, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Kent, Chatham Maritime, Kent, UK.
Exp Physiol. 2017 Aug 1;102(8):934-949. doi: 10.1113/EP086352. Epub 2017 Jun 30.
What is the central question of this study? By manipulating recovery intensity and exercise duration during high-intensity interval training (HIIT), we tested the hypothesis that fast inputs contribute more than metabolic stimuli to respiratory frequency (f ) regulation. What is the main finding and its importance? Respiratory frequency, but not tidal volume, responded rapidly and in proportion to changes in workload during HIIT, and was dissociated from some markers of metabolic stimuli in response to both experimental manipulations, suggesting that fast inputs contribute more than metabolic stimuli to f regulation. Differentiating between f and tidal volume may help to unravel the mechanisms underlying exercise hyperpnoea. Given that respiratory frequency (f ) has been proposed as a good marker of physical effort, furthering the understanding of how f is regulated during exercise is of great importance. We manipulated recovery intensity and exercise duration during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) to test the hypothesis that fast inputs (including central command) contribute more than metabolic stimuli to f regulation. Seven male cyclists performed an incremental test, a 10 and a 20 min continuous time trial (TT) as preliminary tests. Subsequently, recovery intensity and exercise duration were manipulated during HIIT (30 s work and 30 s active recovery) by performing four 10 min and one 20 min trial (recovery intensities of 85, 70, 55 and 30% of the 10 min TT mean workload; and 85% of the 20 min TT mean workload). The work intensity of the HIIT sessions was self-paced by participants to achieve the best performance possible. When manipulating recovery intensity, f , but not tidal volume (V ), showed a fast response to the alternation of the work and recovery phases, proportional to the extent of workload variations. No association between f and gas exchange responses was observed. When manipulating exercise duration, f and rating of perceived exertion were dissociated from V , carbon dioxide output and oxygen uptake responses. Overall, the rating of perceived exertion was strongly correlated with f (r = 0.87; P < 0.001) but not with V . These findings may reveal a differential control of f and V during HIIT, with fast inputs appearing to contribute more than metabolic stimuli to f regulation. Differentiating between f and V may help to unravel the mechanisms underlying exercise hyperpnoea.
本研究的核心问题是什么?通过在高强度间歇训练(HIIT)期间操纵恢复强度和运动持续时间,我们检验了以下假设:快速输入对呼吸频率(f)调节的贡献大于代谢刺激。主要发现及其重要性是什么?在HIIT期间,呼吸频率而非潮气量对工作量变化做出快速且成比例的反应,并且在两种实验操作中均与一些代谢刺激标志物分离,这表明快速输入对f调节的贡献大于代谢刺激。区分f和潮气量可能有助于揭示运动性通气过度的潜在机制。鉴于呼吸频率(f)已被提议作为体力消耗的良好标志物,进一步了解运动期间f的调节方式非常重要。我们在高强度间歇训练(HIIT)期间操纵恢复强度和运动持续时间,以检验以下假设:快速输入(包括中枢指令)对f调节的贡献大于代谢刺激。七名男性自行车运动员进行了递增测试、10分钟和20分钟的持续计时赛(TT)作为初步测试。随后,在HIIT(30秒工作和30秒主动恢复)期间,通过进行四次10分钟和一次20分钟的试验(恢复强度为10分钟TT平均工作量的85%、70%、55%和30%;以及20分钟TT平均工作量的85%)来操纵恢复强度和运动持续时间。HIIT训练的工作强度由参与者自行控制,以尽可能达到最佳表现。当操纵恢复强度时,f而非潮气量(V)对工作和恢复阶段的交替表现出快速反应,与工作量变化程度成比例。未观察到f与气体交换反应之间的关联。当操纵运动持续时间时,f和自觉用力程度与V、二氧化碳排出量和摄氧量反应分离。总体而言,自觉用力程度与f密切相关(r = 0.87;P < 0.001),但与V无关。这些发现可能揭示了HIIT期间f和V的差异控制,快速输入似乎对f调节的贡献大于代谢刺激。区分f和V可能有助于揭示运动性通气过度的潜在机制。