4.4 Article

Changes in phosphocreatine concentration of skeletal muscle during high-intensity intermittent exercise in children and adults

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 113, 期 11, 页码 2769-2779

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-013-2712-x

关键词

P-31-MRS; Intramuscular pH; Maturation; Muscle metabolism; Recovery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The aim of the present study was to test the hypotheses that a greater oxidative capacity in children results in a lower phosphocreatine (PCr) depletion, a faster PCr resynthesis and a lower muscle acidification during high-intensity intermittent exercise compared to adults. Methods Sixteen children (9.4 +/- 0.5 years) and 16 adults (26.1 +/- 0.3 years) completed a protocol consisting of a dynamic plantar flexion (10 bouts of 30-s exercise at 25 % of one repetition maximum separated by 20-s recovery), followed by 10 min of passive recovery. Changes of PCr, ATP, inorganic phosphate, and phosphomonoesters were measured by means of 31 Phosphorous-magnetic resonance spectroscopy during and post-exercise. Results Average PCr (percentage of [PCr] at initial rest (%[PCr](i))) at the end of the exercise (adults 17 +/- 12 %[PCr](i), children 38 +/- 17 %[PCr](i), P < 0.01) and recovery periods (adults 37 +/- 14 %[PCr](i), children 57 +/- 17 %[PCr](i), P < 0.01) was significantly lower in adults compared to children, induced by a stronger PCr decrease during the first exercise interval (adults -73 +/- 10 %[PCr](i), children-55 +/- 15 %[PCr](i), P < 0.01). End-exercise pH was significantly higher in children compared to adults (children 6.90 + 0.20, -0.14; adults 6.67 + 0.23, -0.15, P < 0.05). Conclusions From our results we suggest relatively higher rates of oxidative ATP formation in children's muscle for covering the ATP demand of high-intensity intermittent exercise compared to adults, enabling children to begin each exercise interval with significantly higher PCr concentrations and leading to an overall lower muscle acidification.

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