3.9 Article

Hypoxia, Hypobaria, and Exercise Duration Affect Acute Mountain Sickness

期刊

AEROSPACE MEDICINE AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE
卷 86, 期 7, 页码 614-619

出版社

AEROSPACE MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.3357/AMHP.4266.2015

关键词

normobaric; hypobaric; altitude; physical activity; severity; acute mountain sickness

资金

  1. DOD CDMRP program [W81-XWH1020199]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION: This study simultaneously quantified the effects of normobaric hypoxia (NH), hypobaric hypoxia (HH), exercise duration, and exposure time on acute mountain sickness severity (AMS-C). METHODS: Thirty-six subjects (27.7 +/- 7.8 yr) participated in a partial repeated measures study, completing two of six conditions: normobaric normoxia (NN: 300 m/984 ft equivalent), NH or HH (PO2 = 91 mmHg; 4400 m/14,436 ft equivalent), combined with moderate intensity cycling for 10 or 60 min. Subjects completed the Environmental Symptoms Questionnaire and oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured before, 1.5 h, 4 h, and 6.5 h into an 8-h exposure, and 1.5 h post-exposure. We fit multiple linear regression models with cluster adjusted standard errors on the exposure times using NH, HH, and long exercise as indicator variables, and AMS-C as the outcome variable. The SpO2 and pre-exposure AMS-C score were used as covariates. RESULTS: NH and HH led to substantial and progressively increasing AMS-C, but NN did not. The effect of HH on AMS-C was significantly different from NH, with AMS-C in HH being 1.6 times higher than in NH. HH led to significantly increasing AMS-C, regardless of the exercise duration, while NH only did so in combination with longer exercise. DISCUSSION: Increases in AMS-C were each independently related to NH, HH, and long duration exercise, with HH affecting AMS-C more severely. This suggests that hypobaria may affect AMS development above the level induced by hypoxia alone. This further suggests that NH and HH may not be interchangeable for studying AMS and that exercise duration may impact physiological responses.

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

3.9
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