4.4 Article

No influence of ischemic preconditioning on running economy

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 117, 期 2, 页码 225-235

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-016-3522-8

关键词

Ischemia; Reperfusion; Endurance performance; Oxygen uptake; Exercise economy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many of the potential performance-enhancing properties of ischemic preconditioning suggest that the oxygen cost for a given endurance exercise workload will be reduced, thereby improving the economy of locomotion. The aim of this study was to identify whether ischemic preconditioning improves exercise economy in recreational runners. A randomized sham-controlled crossover study was employed in which 18 adults (age 27 +/- 7 years; BMI 24.6 +/- 3 kg/m(2)) completed two, incremental submaximal (65-85% VO2max) treadmill running protocols (3 x 5 min stages from 7.2-14.5 km/h) coupled with indirect calorimetry to assess running economy following ischemic preconditioning (3 x 5 min bilateral upper thigh ischemia) and sham control. Running economy was expressed as mlO(2)/kg/km and as the energy in kilocalories required to cover 1 km of horizontal distance (kcal/kg/km). Ischemic preconditioning did not influence steady-state heart rate, oxygen consumption, minute ventilation, respiratory exchange ratio, energy expenditure, and blood lactate. Likewise, running economy was similar (P = 0.647) between the sham (from 201.6 +/- 17.7 to 204.0 +/- 16.1 mlO(2)/kg/km) and ischemic preconditioning trials (from 202.8 +/- 16.2 to 203.1 +/- 15.6 mlO(2)/kg/km). There was no influence (P = 0.21) of ischemic preconditioning on running economy expressed as the caloric unit cost (from 0.96 +/- 0.12 to 1.01 +/- 0.11 kcal/kg/km) compared with sham (from 1.00 +/- 0.10 to 1.00 +/- 0.08 kcal/kg/km). The properties of ischemic preconditioning thought to affect exercise performance at vigorous to severe exercise intensities, which generate more extensive physiological challenge, are ineffective at submaximal workloads and, therefore, do not change running economy.

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

4.4
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