Sousa Ana, Borrani Fabio, Rodríguez Ferran A, Millet Grégoire P
Research Center for Sports, Exercise and Human Development, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto DouroVila Real, Portugal.
Faculty of Biology and Medicine, ISSUL, Institute of Sport Sciences, University of LausanneLausanne, Switzerland.
Front Physiol. 2017 Sep 1;8:639. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00639. eCollection 2017.
Oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) kinetics has been reported to be influenced by the activity mode. However, only few studies have compared [Formula: see text]O kinetics between activities in the same subjects in which they were equally trained. Therefore, this study compared the [Formula: see text]O kinetics response to swimming, arm cranking, and cycling within the same group of subjects within the heavy exercise intensity domain. Ten trained male triathletes (age 23.2 ± 4.5 years; height 180.8 ± 8.3 cm; weight 72.3 ± 6.6 kg) completed an incremental test to exhaustion and a 6-min heavy constant-load test in the three exercise modes in random order. Gas exchange was measured by a breath-by-breath analyzer and the on-transient [Formula: see text]O kinetics was modeled using bi-exponential functions. [Formula: see text]O was higher in cycling (65.6 ± 4.0 ml·kg·min) than in arm cranking or swimming (48.7 ± 8.0 and 53.0 ± 6.7 ml·kg·min; < 0.01), but the [Formula: see text]O kinetics were slower in swimming (τ = 31.7 ± 6.2 s) than in arm cranking (19.3 ± 4.2 s; = 0.001) and cycling (12.4 ± 3.7 s; = 0.001). The amplitude of the primary component was lower in both arm cranking and swimming (21.9 ± 4.7 and 28.4 ± 5.1 ml·kg·min) compared with cycling (39.4 ± 4.1 ml·kg·min; = 0.001). Although the gain of the primary component was higher in arm cranking compared with cycling (15.3 ± 4.2 and 10.7 ± 1.3 ml·min·W; = 0.02), the slow component amplitude, in both absolute and relative terms, did not differ between exercise modes. The slower [Formula: see text]O kinetics during heavy-intensity swimming is exercise-mode dependent. Besides differences in muscle mass and greater type II muscle fibers recruitment, the horizontal position adopted and the involvement of trunk and lower-body stabilizing muscles could be additional mechanisms that explain the differences between exercise modalities.
据报道，摄氧量（[公式：见正文]）动力学受活动模式的影响。然而，只有少数研究比较了相同受试者在同等训练的不同活动之间的[公式：见正文]O动力学。因此，本研究在同一组受试者中，比较了高强度运动强度范围内游泳、手摇曲柄和骑自行车时的[公式：见正文]O动力学反应。十名训练有素的男性铁人三项运动员（年龄23.2±4.5岁；身高180.8±8.3厘米；体重72.3±6.6千克）以随机顺序在三种运动模式下完成了递增至力竭测试和6分钟的高强度恒定负荷测试。通过逐次呼吸分析仪测量气体交换，并使用双指数函数对运动中[公式：见正文]O动力学进行建模。骑自行车时的[公式：见正文]O（65.6±4.0毫升·千克·分钟）高于手摇曲柄或游泳时（48.7±8.0和53.0±6.7毫升·千克·分钟；<0.01），但高强度游泳时的[公式：见正文]O动力学（τ=31.7±6.2秒）比手摇曲柄（19.3±4.2秒；=0.001）和骑自行车（12.4±3.7秒；=0.001）时慢。与骑自行车（39.4±4.1毫升·千克·分钟；=0.001）相比，手摇曲柄和游泳时主要成分的幅度均较低（21.9±4.7和28.4±5.1毫升·千克·分钟）。尽管与骑自行车相比，手摇曲柄时主要成分的增益较高（15.3±4.2和10.7±1.3毫升·分钟·瓦；=0.02），但运动模式之间慢成分的幅度在绝对值和相对值上均无差异。高强度游泳时较慢的[公式：见正文]O动力学取决于运动模式。除了肌肉质量差异和更多地募集II型肌纤维外，所采用的水平姿势以及躯干和下身稳定肌肉的参与可能是解释运动方式之间差异的其他机制。
