Suppr超能文献

在递增负荷测试和验证阶段,预激活热身会影响[此处原文缺失具体内容]的发生率吗?

Does a priming warm-up influence the incidence of during a ramp test and verification phase?

作者信息

Qiao JianBo, Rosbrook Paul, Sweet Daniel K, Pryor Riana R, Hostler David, Looney David, Pryor J Luke

机构信息

Center for Research and Education in Special Environments, Department of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States of America.

United States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), Natick, MA, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 8;20(1):e0313698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313698. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the effects of two different warm-up protocols (normal vs. priming) on the oxygen plateau () incidence rate during a ramp test. It also compared the cardiopulmonary responses during the ramp test and subsequent verification phase.

METHODS

Eleven recreational cyclists performed two experimental visits. The first visit required a normal warm-up (cycling at 50 W for 10 min) followed by the ramp test (30 W.min-1) and supramaximal verification phase with 30 min rest between tests. The second visit required a priming warm-up (cycling at 50 W for 4 min increasing to 70% difference between the gas exchange threshold [GET] and maximum work rate [WRmax] for 6 min) followed by the same protocol as in the first visit. Physiological responses were collected during the exercise and compared. Oxygen kinetics ( Kinetics) and incidence rate were determined during the ramp tests for both visits.

RESULTS

As planned, following the warm-up the priming visit experienced greater physiological response. However, the incidence rate of during the ramp test was the same between visits (73%), and maximal oxygen uptake was not different between visits after the ramp test (normal, 4.0 ± 0.8; primed, 4.0 ± 0.7 L·min-1, p = 0.230) and verification phase (normal, 3.8 ± 0.6; primed, 3.8 ± 0.7 L·min-1, p = 0.924) using a Holm-Bonferroni correction for controlling family-wise error rate. Kinetics were not different between visits during the ramp test (normal, 10.8 ± 1.1; primed, 10.8 ± 1.2 mL·min-1·W-1, p = 0.407). The verification phase confirmed in 100% for both the normal and priming visits.

CONCLUSION

Our hypothesis that a priming warm-up facilitates the incidence rate of during a ramp test is not supported by the results. The verification phase remains a prudent option when determining a 'true' is required.

摘要

目的

本研究比较了两种不同热身方案(常规热身与预激活热身)对递增负荷测试期间氧平台()发生率的影响。同时还比较了递增负荷测试及随后验证阶段的心肺反应。

方法

11名休闲自行车运动员进行了两次实验性访视。第一次访视要求进行常规热身(以50瓦功率骑行10分钟),随后进行递增负荷测试(30瓦·分钟-1)以及超最大强度验证阶段,测试之间休息30分钟。第二次访视要求进行预激活热身(以50瓦功率骑行4分钟,然后以气体交换阈值[GET]与最大工作率[WRmax]之间的差值增加70%的功率骑行6分钟),随后进行与第一次访视相同的方案。在运动过程中收集生理反应并进行比较。在两次访视的递增负荷测试期间测定氧动力学(动力学)和发生率。

结果

按计划,预激活访视在热身之后出现了更大的生理反应。然而,两次访视期间递增负荷测试期间的发生率相同(73%),并且在递增负荷测试后(常规热身,4.0±0.8;预激活热身,4.0±0.7升·分钟-1,p = 0.230)以及验证阶段(常规热身,3.8±0.6;预激活热身,3.8±0.7升·分钟-1,p = 0.924)使用霍尔姆-邦费罗尼校正来控制族系错误率时,最大摄氧量在两次访视之间没有差异。递增负荷测试期间两次访视之间的动力学没有差异(常规热身,10.8±1.1;预激活热身,10.8±1.2毫升·分钟-1·瓦-1,p = 0.407)。验证阶段在常规热身和预激活热身访视中均100%确认了。

结论

我们关于预激活热身有助于递增负荷测试期间发生率的假设未得到结果支持。在需要确定“真正的”时,验证阶段仍然是一个谨慎的选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c549/11709320/c54fe9920a4d/pone.0313698.g001.jpg

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