Environmental Ergonomics Research Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Kyoto Institute of Technology, Kyoto, Japan.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2024 Sep 1;137(3):554-568. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00159.2024. Epub 2024 Jun 13.
Revisiting classical experiments on the impact of air resistance on metabolic rate, we aimed to overcome limitations of previous research, notably: low participant numbers ( = 1-3), highly turbulent wind, and confounding effects of rising body temperature. In a custom-built wind tunnel with reduced turbulence, 14 participants (8 males, 6 females) walked (5 km·h) and ran on a treadmill (70%V̇o) at 0, 2, 4, and 6 m·s headwind or tailwind in a counterbalanced design, with rest breaks between each exposure to avoid rises in body core temperature. Oxygen consumption (V̇o) exhibited strong linear relationships versus wind direction, dynamic pressure, and air speed squared (V), lower in magnitude for headwind than tailwind. A moderate linear relationship was observed between heart rate, wind direction, dynamic pressure, and V. Below 4 m·s, the effect of wind was well within inter- and intraindividual variation and equipment uncertainty, and only at wind speeds ≥4 m·s did the differences in physiological responses reach statistical significance. Our data indicate that at running speeds below 4 m·s (14.4 km/h), indoor treadmills and outdoor running are comparable in terms of the metabolic impact of air movement relative to the person. However, this does not extend to the thermoregulatory effect of wind, with outdoor running providing a higher cooling rate due to the self-generated wind created during running. By removing the confounding impact of core temperature rises, the observed effects of headwind were lower and those of tailwind larger than observed previously. In the context of middle-distance running, the headwind created by running at 21.5 km·h would result in a 2.2% increase of V̇o. A relative tailwind of the same speed would lead to a 3.1% reduction. Revisiting classical work by Pugh and Davies on the metabolic effects of air speed and direction, shortcomings in the original studies were addressed. Using more participants, less turbulent wind, and avoiding confounding effects of work-induced core temperature increases, new equations describing the impact of air speed/direction were developed. This study observed a lower impact of headwind and a larger impact of tailwind in the absence of an exercise-induced core temperature increase.
重新审视关于空气阻力对代谢率影响的经典实验,我们旨在克服先前研究的局限性,特别是:参与者人数少(=1-3),风场高度不稳定,以及体温升高带来的混杂影响。在一个具有低湍流的定制风洞中,14 名参与者(8 名男性,6 名女性)在跑步机上以 5km·h 的速度行走和跑步(70%V̇o),迎面或逆风风速分别为 0、2、4 和 6m·s,采用平衡设计,在每次暴露之间有休息时间,以避免核心体温升高。耗氧量(V̇o)与风向、动压和风速平方(V)呈强线性关系,逆风时的数值比顺风时小。观察到心率与风向、动压和 V 呈中度线性关系。在 4m·s 以下,风的影响在个体间和个体内差异以及设备不确定性范围内,只有在风速≥4m·s 时,生理反应的差异才具有统计学意义。我们的数据表明,在 4m·s(14.4km/h)以下的跑步速度下,室内跑步机和户外跑步在空气运动对人体代谢影响方面是可比的。然而,这并不适用于风的热调节效应,由于跑步时产生的自生成风,户外跑步提供了更高的冷却速度。通过消除核心体温升高的混杂影响,观察到的逆风影响较低,顺风影响较大,这与之前的观察结果不同。在中距离跑步的背景下,以 21.5km·h 的速度跑步产生的逆风将导致 V̇o 增加 2.2%。相同速度的相对顺风将导致 V̇o 减少 3.1%。重新审视 Pugh 和 Davies 关于空气速度和方向对代谢影响的经典著作,解决了原始研究的不足。使用更多的参与者、更稳定的风场,以及避免因工作引起的核心体温升高带来的混杂影响,开发了新的描述空气速度/方向影响的方程。在没有运动引起的核心体温升高的情况下,本研究观察到逆风的影响较小,顺风的影响较大。