Influence of a Vented Mouthguard on Physiological Responses in Handball
Influence of a Vented Mouthguard on Physiological Responses in Handball
复制标题
DOI：
10.1519/jsc.0000000000002596
复制
发表时间：
2020-07-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Busse, Martin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schulze, Antina;Laessing, Johannes;Busse, Martin
Schulze，A，Laessing，J，Kwast，S和Busse，M.通气式护齿器对手球中生理反应的影响。J Strength Cond Res 34（7）：2055-2061，2020-护齿器（MG）提高运动安全性。然而，气道阻塞和由此导致的性能下降是关于其使用的理论缺点。本研究的目的是评估可能的限制，“发泄”MG有氧性能手球。对14名男子职业手球运动员在新开设的手球专项训练课中的生理效应进行了研究。测量值为摄氧量、通气量、心率和乳酸。相似的摄氧量（V？在使用和不使用MG的情况下观察到（51.9 +/- 6.4 L中心点min（-1）中心点kg（-1）vs. 52.1 +/- 10.9 L中心点min（-1）中心点kg（-1））。在最大负荷期间，通气MG的通气量明显较低（153.1 +/- 25 L中心点min（-1）vs. 166.3 +/- 20.8 L中心点min（-1））。使用MG时，呼气末O-2浓度（17.2 +/- 0.5% vs. 17.6 +/- 0.8%）和CO2浓度（4.0 +/- 0.5% vs. 3.7 +/- 0.6%）分别显著降低和升高。使用和不使用MG的吸气和呼气时间分别为0.6 +/-0.1秒和0.7 +/-0.2秒，表明没有相关的气流限制。MG对最大负荷无显著影响。较低的通风给定V？o（2）与MG使用相关的值可能是外周肌肉组织的生物力学和下呼吸驱动改善的效果。
Schulze, A, Laessing, J, Kwast, S, and Busse, M. Influence of a vented mouthguard on physiological responses in handball.J Strength Cond Res34(7): 2055-2061, 2020-Mouthguards (MGs) improve sports safety. However, airway obstruction and a resulting decrease in performance are theoretical disadvantages regarding their use. The study aim was to assess possible limitations of a "vented" MG on aerobic performance in handball. The physiological effects were investigated in 14 male professional players in a newly developed handball-specific course. The measured values were oxygen uptake, ventilation, heart rate, and lactate. Similar oxygen uptake (V?o(2)) values were observed with and without MG use (51.9 +/- 6.4 L center dot min(-1)center dot kg(-1)vs. 52.1 +/- 10.9 L center dot min(-1)center dot kg(-1)). During maximum load, ventilation was markedly lower with the vented MG (153.1 +/- 25 L center dot min(-1)vs. 166.3 +/- 20.8 L center dot min(-1)). The endexpiratory concentrations of O-2(17.2 +/- 0.5% vs. 17.6 +/- 0.8%) and CO2(4.0 +/- 0.5% vs. 3.7 +/- 0.6%) were significantly lower and higher, respectively, when using the MG. The inspiration and expiration times with and without the MG were 0.6 +/- 0.1 seconds vs. 0.6 +/- 0.1 seconds and 0.7 +/- 0.2 seconds vs. 0.6 +/- 0.2 seconds (all not significant), respectively, indicating that there was no relevant airflow restriction. The maximum load was not significantly affected by the MG. The lower ventilation for given V?o(2)values associated with MG use may be an effect of improved biomechanics and lower respiratory drive of the peripheral musculature.