Cardio-pulmonary responses to incremental eccentric and concentric cycling tests to task failure
Cardio-pulmonary responses to incremental eccentric and concentric cycling tests to task failure
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00421-018-3826-y
复制
发表时间：
2018-05-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Nosaka, Kazunori
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lipski, Marcin;Abbiss, Chris R.;Nosaka, Kazunori
本研究比较了增量向心和偏心循环测试之间的心肺反应，并检查了影响最大偏心循环能力的因素。 在不同的日子里，九名男性和两名女性（32.6 +/- 9.4 岁）进行了直立坐姿向心 (CON) 和偏心 (ECC) 循环测试，测试从 75 W 开始，增加 25 W min(-1)，直到任务失败。在测试过程中连续记录气体交换、心率（HR）和功率输出。参与者还进行了股四头肌最大自主收缩 (MVC)、下蹲和反向运动跳跃。ECC (449 +/- 115 W) 的峰值功率输出比 CON (294 +/- 61 W) 高 53% (P < 0.001, g = 1.77)，但峰值耗氧量低 43% (P < 0.001, g = 2.18)。 ECC (30.6 +/- 5.6 ml kg min(-1)) 高于 CON (43.9 +/- 6.9 ml kg min(-1))。 ECC (175 +/- 20 bpm) 和 CON (182 +/- 13 bpm) 之间的最大心率没有差异，但 ECC 期间心率相对于耗氧量的增加比 CON 期间高出 33% (P = 0.01)。 ECC 峰值功率输出与 CON 峰值功率 (r = 0.84)、峰值耗氧量 (r = 0.54) 和 MVC (r = 0.53) 之间观察到中等到强相关性 (P < 0.05)，而 ECC 峰值功率输出与深蹲以及反向运动跳跃高度之间没有观察到显着关系。出乎意料的是，CON 和 ECC 之间的最大心率相似。虽然 ECC 功率输出可以根据 CON 峰值功率输出进行预测，但在 3-6 次熟悉课程后进行的增量偏心循环测试可能有助于对健康且习惯的个人进行 ECC 训练。
This study compared cardio-pulmonary responses between incremental concentric and eccentric cycling tests, and examined factors affecting the maximal eccentric cycling capacity.On separate days, nine men and two women (32.6 +/- 9.4 years) performed an upright seated concentric (CON) and an eccentric (ECC) cycling test, which started at 75 W and increased 25 W min(-1) until task failure. Gas exchange, heart rate (HR) and power output were continuously recorded during the tests. Participants also performed maximal voluntary contractions of the quadriceps (MVC), squat and countermovement jumps.Peak power output was 53% greater (P < 0.001, g = 1.77) for ECC (449 +/- 115 W) than CON (294 +/- 61 W), but peak oxygen consumption was 43% lower (P < 0.001, g = 2.18) for ECC (30.6 +/- 5.6 ml kg min(-1)) than CON (43.9 +/- 6.9 ml kg min(-1)). Maximal HR was not different between ECC (175 +/- 20 bpm) and CON (182 +/- 13 bpm), but the increase in HR relative to oxygen consumption was 33% greater (P = 0.01) during ECC than CON. Moderate to strong correlations (P < 0.05) were observed between ECC peak power output and CON peak power (r = 0.84), peak oxygen consumption (r = 0.54) and MVC (r = 0.53), while no significant relationships were observed between ECC peak power output and squat as well as countermovement jump heights.Unexpectedly, maximal HR was similar between CON and ECC. Although ECC power output can be predicted from CON peak power output, an incremental eccentric cycling test performed after 3-6 familiarisation sessions may be useful in programming ECC training with healthy and accustomed individuals.