团队运动运动员的 30-15 间歇健身测试及其相应连续版本的代谢特征——阐明努力间恢复的作用。

Metabolic Profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test and the Corresponding Continuous Version in Team-Sport Athletes-Elucidating the Role of Inter-Effort Recovery.

出版信息

Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021 Nov 1;16(11):1634-1639. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2020-0761. Epub 2021 Apr 12.

DOI:10.1123/ijspp.2020-0761

Abstract

PURPOSE

To elucidate the role of inter-effort recovery in shuttle running by comparing the metabolic profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and the corresponding continuous version (30-15IFT-CONT).

METHODS

Sixteen state-level handball players (age = 23 [3] y, height = 185 [7] cm, weight = 85 [14] kg) completed the 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT, and speed at the last completed stage (in kilometers per hour) and time to exhaustion (in seconds) were assessed. Furthermore, oxygen uptake (in milliliters per kilogram per minute) and blood lactate were obtained preexercise, during exercise, and until 15 minutes postexercise. Metabolic energy (in kilojoules), metabolic power (in Watts per kilogram), and relative (in percentage) energy contribution of the aerobic (WAER, WAERint), anaerobic lactic (WBLC, WBLCint), and anaerobic alactic (WPCr, WPCrint) systems were calculated by PCr-La-O2 method for 30-15IFT-CONT and 30-15IFT.

RESULTS

No difference in peak oxygen uptake was found between 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT (60.6 [6.6] vs 60.5 [5.1] mL·kg-1·min-1, P = .165, d = 0.20), whereas speed at the last completed stage was higher in 30-15IFT (18.3 [1.4] vs 16.1 [1.0] km·h-1, P < .001, d = 1.17). Metabolic energy was also higher in 30-15IFT (1224.2 [269.6] vs 772.8 [63.1] kJ, P < .001, d = 5.60), and metabolic profiles differed substantially for aerobic (30-15IFT = 67.2 [5.2] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 85.2% [2.5%], P < .001, d = -4.01), anaerobic lactic (30-15IFT = 4.4 [1.4] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 6.2% [1.8%], P < .001, d = -1.04), and anaerobic alactic (30-15IFT = 28.4 [4.7] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 8.6% [2.1%], P < .001, d = 5.43) components.

CONCLUSIONS

Both 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT are mainly fueled by aerobic energy, but their metabolic profiles differ substantially in both aerobic and anaerobic alactic energy contribution. Due to the presence of inter-effort recovery, intermittent shuttle runs rely to a higher extent on anaerobic alactic energy and a fast, aerobic replenishment of PCr during the short breaks between shuttles.

摘要

目的

通过比较 30-15 间歇健身测试（30-15IFT）和相应的连续版本（30-15IFT-CONT）的代谢谱，阐明在穿梭跑中努力间恢复的作用。

方法

16 名国家级手球运动员（年龄=23[3]岁，身高=185[7]厘米，体重=85[14]公斤）完成了 30-15IFT 和 30-15IFT-CONT，并评估了最后完成阶段的速度（以每小时公里数计）和力竭时间（以秒计）。此外，在运动前、运动中和运动后 15 分钟内获取了耗氧量（以毫升/千克/分钟计）和血乳酸。通过 PCr-La-O2 方法计算了 30-15IFT-CONT 和 30-15IFT 的代谢能（以千焦耳计）、代谢功率（以瓦特/千克计）和有氧（WAER、WAERint）、无氧乳酸（WBLC、WBLCint）和无氧非乳酸（WPCr、WPCrint）系统的相对能量贡献（以百分比计）。

结果

30-15IFT 和 30-15IFT-CONT 的峰值耗氧量无差异（60.6[6.6]与 60.5[5.1]mL·kg-1·min-1，P=.165，d=0.20），而 30-15IFT 的最后完成阶段速度更高（18.3[1.4]与 16.1[1.0]km·h-1，P<.001，d=1.17）。代谢能在 30-15IFT 中也更高（1224.2[269.6]与 772.8[63.1]kJ，P<.001，d=5.60），且代谢谱在有氧（30-15IFT=67.2[5.2]与 30-15IFT-CONT=85.2%[2.5%]，P<.001，d=-4.01）、无氧乳酸（30-15IFT=4.4[1.4]与 30-15IFT-CONT=6.2%[1.8%]，P<.001，d=-1.04）和无氧非乳酸（30-15IFT=28.4[4.7]与 30-15IFT-CONT=8.6%[2.1%]，P<.001，d=5.43）成分方面有显著差异。