Suppr超能文献

不同估算无氧能量产生方法之间的比较

A Comparison between Different Methods of Estimating Anaerobic Energy Production.

作者信息

Andersson Erik P, McGawley Kerry

机构信息

Swedish Winter Sports Research Centre, Department of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.

出版信息

Front Physiol. 2018 Feb 8;9:82. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00082. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

The present study aimed to compare four methods of estimating anaerobic energy production during supramaximal exercise. Twenty-one junior cross-country skiers competing at a national and/or international level were tested on a treadmill during uphill (7°) diagonal-stride (DS) roller-skiing. After a 4-minute warm-up, a 4 × 4-min continuous submaximal protocol was performed followed by a 600-m time trial (TT). For the maximal accumulated O deficit (MAOD) method the [Formula: see text]O-speed regression relationship was used to estimate the [Formula: see text]O demand during the TT, either including (4+Y, method 1) or excluding (4-Y, method 2) a fixed Y-intercept for baseline [Formula: see text]O. The gross efficiency (GE) method (method 3) involved calculating metabolic rate during the TT by dividing power output by submaximal GE, which was then converted to a [Formula: see text]O demand. An alternative method based on submaximal energy cost (EC, method 4) was also used to estimate [Formula: see text]O demand during the TT. The GE/EC remained constant across the submaximal stages and the supramaximal TT was performed in 185 ± 24 s. The GE and EC methods produced identical [Formula: see text]O demands and O deficits. The [Formula: see text]O demand was ~3% lower for the 4+Y method compared with the 4-Y and GE/EC methods, with corresponding O deficits of 56 ± 10, 62 ± 10, and 63 ± 10 mL·kg, respectively ( < 0.05 for 4+Y vs. 4-Y and GE/EC). The mean differences between the estimated O deficits were -6 ± 5 mL·kg (4+Y vs. 4-Y, < 0.05), -7 ± 1 mL·kg (4+Y vs. GE/EC, < 0.05) and -1 ± 5 mL·kg (4-Y vs. GE/EC), with respective typical errors of 5.3, 1.9, and 6.0%. The mean difference between the O deficit estimated with GE/EC based on the average of four submaximal stages compared with the last stage was 1 ± 2 mL·kg, with a typical error of 3.2%. These findings demonstrate a disagreement in the O deficits estimated using current methods. In addition, the findings suggest that a valid estimate of the O deficit may be possible using data from only one submaximal stage in combination with the GE/EC method.

摘要

本研究旨在比较四种估算超最大运动期间无氧能量产生的方法。21名参加国家和/或国际级比赛的初级越野滑雪运动员在跑步机上进行上坡(7°)对角步(DS)轮滑测试。经过4分钟的热身,进行了一个4×4分钟的连续亚最大运动方案,随后进行600米计时赛(TT)。对于最大累积氧亏(MAOD)方法,利用[公式:见正文]氧速回归关系来估算计时赛期间的[公式:见正文]氧需求,包括(4 + Y,方法1)或排除(4 - Y,方法2)基线[公式:见正文]氧的固定Y轴截距。总效率(GE)方法(方法3)包括通过将功率输出除以亚最大总效率来计算计时赛期间的代谢率,然后将其转换为[公式:见正文]氧需求。还使用了一种基于亚最大能量消耗(EC,方法4)的替代方法来估算计时赛期间的[公式:见正文]氧需求。在亚最大阶段,总效率/能量消耗保持恒定,超最大计时赛在185±24秒内完成。总效率和能量消耗方法产生相同的[公式:见正文]氧需求和氧亏。与4 - Y和总效率/能量消耗方法相比,4 + Y方法的[公式:见正文]氧需求低约3%,相应的氧亏分别为56±10、62±10和63±10 mL·kg(4 + Y与4 - Y和总效率/能量消耗相比,P < 0.05)。估算的氧亏之间的平均差异为-6±5 mL·kg(4 + Y与4 - Y,P < 0.05)、-7±1 mL·kg(4 + Y与总效率/能量消耗,P < 0.05)和-1±5 mL·kg(4 - Y与总效率/能量消耗),各自的典型误差分别为5.3%、1.9%和6.0%。基于四个亚最大阶段的平均值与最后一个阶段相比,用总效率/能量消耗估算的氧亏之间的平均差异为1±2 mL·kg,典型误差为3.2%。这些发现表明,使用当前方法估算的氧亏存在差异。此外,研究结果表明,结合总效率/能量消耗方法,仅使用一个亚最大阶段的数据可能可以有效估算氧亏。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验