4.2 Article

The (V) over dotO2 response to submaximal ramp cycle exercise:: Influence of ramp slope and training status

期刊

RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY & NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 161, 期 3, 页码 291-297

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.resp.2008.03.008

关键词

aerobic fitness level; gas exchange threshold (GET); mean response time (MRT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the study was to test whether ramp slope and training status interact in the oxygen uptake ((V) over dot(O2)) response during submaximal ramp exercise. Eight cyclists ((V) over dot(O2) peak = 67.8 +/- 3.7 ml min(-1) kg(-1)) and eight physically active students (PA students) ((V) over dot(O2) peak = 49.1 +/- 4.3 ml min(-1) kg(-1)) performed several ramp protocols, respectively, 25 and 40 W min(-1) for the cyclists and 10, 25 and 40 W min(-1) for the PA students. (V) over dot(O2) was plotted as a function of time and work rate up to the gas exchange threshold (GET). Faster ramp elicited a significantly shorter mean response time (MRT) in both groups, and MRT was significantly longer for each ramp protocol in the PA students (126 +/- 32 s, 76 +/- 15 s and 50 +/- 6 s for ramp 10, ramp 25 and ramp 40, respectively) compared to the cyclists (61 9 s and 40 11 s for ramp 25 and ramp 40, respectively). Ramp 40 showed less steep Delta(V) over dot(O2)/Delta W than ramp 25 in both groups (p < 0.01) and Delta(V) over dot(O2)/Delta W was less steep for each ramp protocol in PA students (p < 0.01) (9.82 +/- 0.30 ml min(-1) W-1 and 9.33 +/- 0.45 ml min(-1) W-1 for ramp 25 and ramp 40, respectively) compared to cyclists (10.31 +/- 0.40 ml min(-1) W-1 and 10.05 +/- 0.48 ml min(-1) W-1 for ramp 25 and ramp 40, respectively). In the PA students, Delta(V) over dot(O2)/Delta W did not differ between ramp 10 and ramp 25. Statistical analysis showed no interaction effects between ramp slope and training status for MRT (p = 0.62) and Delta(V) over dot(O2)/Delta W (p = 0.35). (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据