Robin Faricier, Lorenzo Micheli, Nasimi A Guluzade, Juan M Murias, Daniel A Keir
{"title":"修改后的阶梯-斜坡-阶梯方案，用于规定跑步机跑步中的恒速运动。","authors":"Robin Faricier, Lorenzo Micheli, Nasimi A Guluzade, Juan M Murias, Daniel A Keir","doi":"10.1007/s00421-024-05542-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study investigated whether a running-adapted version of the cycling-based \"step-ramp-step\" (SRS) protocol would improve prediction of <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> in treadmill exercise compared to the traditional prescriptive approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fourteen healthy individuals (6 females; 25 ± 6 years; 66.1 ± 12.7 kg) performed a treadmill-based SRS protocol including a ramp-incremental test to task failure followed by two constant-speed bouts within the moderate-(MOD<sub>step</sub>-below estimated lactate threshold; θ<sub>LT</sub>), and heavy-intensity domains (HVY<sub>step</sub>-between θ<sub>LT</sub> and respiratory compensation point; RCP). Using the uncorrected <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub>-to-speed relationship from the ramp exercise, three constant-speed bouts were performed at 40-50% between: baseline and θ<sub>LT</sub> (CSE<sub>MOD</sub>); θ<sub>LT</sub> and RCP (CSE<sub>HVY</sub>); and RCP and peak (CSE<sub>SEV</sub>). For CSE<sub>MOD</sub>, CSE<sub>HVY</sub>, and CSE<sub>SEV</sub> measured end-exercise <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> was compared to predicted <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> based on the: (i) \"SRS-corrected\" <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub>-to-speed relationship (where MOD<sub>step</sub> and HVY<sub>step</sub> were used to adjust the <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> relative to speed); and (ii) linear \"uncorrected\" data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Average treadmill speeds for CSE<sub>MOD</sub> and CSE<sub>HVY</sub> were 7.8 ± 0.8 and 11.0 ± 1.4 km·h<sup>-1</sup>, respectively, eliciting end-exercise <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> of 1979 ± 390 and 2574 ± 540 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>. End-exercise <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> values were not different compared to SRS-predicted <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> at CSE<sub>MOD</sub> (mean difference: 5 ± 166 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p = 0.912) and CSE<sub>HVY</sub> (20 ± 128 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p = 0.568). The linear \"uncorrected\" estimates were not different for CSE<sub>MOD</sub> (- 91 ± 172 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p = 0.068) but lower for CSE<sub>HVY</sub> (- 195 ± 146 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p < 0.001). For CSE<sub>SEV</sub> (running speed: 13.8 ± 1.7 km·h<sup>-1</sup>), the end-exercise <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> was not different from peak <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> achieved during the ramp (3027 ± 682 vs. 2979 ± 655 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p = 0.231).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In healthy individuals, the SRS protocol more accurately predicts speeds for a target <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> compared to traditional approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":12005,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A modified step-ramp-step protocol to prescribe constant-speed exercise in treadmill running.\",\"authors\":\"Robin Faricier, Lorenzo Micheli, Nasimi A Guluzade, Juan M Murias, Daniel A Keir\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00421-024-05542-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study investigated whether a running-adapted version of the cycling-based \\\"step-ramp-step\\\" (SRS) protocol would improve prediction of <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> in treadmill exercise compared to the traditional prescriptive approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fourteen healthy individuals (6 females; 25 ± 6 years; 66.1 ± 12.7 kg) performed a treadmill-based SRS protocol including a ramp-incremental test to task failure followed by two constant-speed bouts within the moderate-(MOD<sub>step</sub>-below estimated lactate threshold; θ<sub>LT</sub>), and heavy-intensity domains (HVY<sub>step</sub>-between θ<sub>LT</sub> and respiratory compensation point; RCP). Using the uncorrected <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub>-to-speed relationship from the ramp exercise, three constant-speed bouts were performed at 40-50% between: baseline and θ<sub>LT</sub> (CSE<sub>MOD</sub>); θ<sub>LT</sub> and RCP (CSE<sub>HVY</sub>); and RCP and peak (CSE<sub>SEV</sub>). For CSE<sub>MOD</sub>, CSE<sub>HVY</sub>, and CSE<sub>SEV</sub> measured end-exercise <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> was compared to predicted <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> based on the: (i) \\\"SRS-corrected\\\" <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub>-to-speed relationship (where MOD<sub>step</sub> and HVY<sub>step</sub> were used to adjust the <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> relative to speed); and (ii) linear \\\"uncorrected\\\" data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Average treadmill speeds for CSE<sub>MOD</sub> and CSE<sub>HVY</sub> were 7.8 ± 0.8 and 11.0 ± 1.4 km·h<sup>-1</sup>, respectively, eliciting end-exercise <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> of 1979 ± 390 and 2574 ± 540 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>. End-exercise <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> values were not different compared to SRS-predicted <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> at CSE<sub>MOD</sub> (mean difference: 5 ± 166 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p = 0.912) and CSE<sub>HVY</sub> (20 ± 128 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p = 0.568). The linear \\\"uncorrected\\\" estimates were not different for CSE<sub>MOD</sub> (- 91 ± 172 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p = 0.068) but lower for CSE<sub>HVY</sub> (- 195 ± 146 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p < 0.001). For CSE<sub>SEV</sub> (running speed: 13.8 ± 1.7 km·h<sup>-1</sup>), the end-exercise <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> was not different from peak <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> achieved during the ramp (3027 ± 682 vs. 2979 ± 655 mL·min<sup>-1</sup>; p = 0.231).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In healthy individuals, the SRS protocol more accurately predicts speeds for a target <math><mover><mi>V</mi> <mo>˙</mo></mover> </math> O<sub>2</sub> compared to traditional approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Applied Physiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Applied Physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05542-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05542-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A modified step-ramp-step protocol to prescribe constant-speed exercise in treadmill running.
Purpose: This study investigated whether a running-adapted version of the cycling-based "step-ramp-step" (SRS) protocol would improve prediction of O2 in treadmill exercise compared to the traditional prescriptive approach.
Methods: Fourteen healthy individuals (6 females; 25 ± 6 years; 66.1 ± 12.7 kg) performed a treadmill-based SRS protocol including a ramp-incremental test to task failure followed by two constant-speed bouts within the moderate-(MODstep-below estimated lactate threshold; θLT), and heavy-intensity domains (HVYstep-between θLT and respiratory compensation point; RCP). Using the uncorrected O2-to-speed relationship from the ramp exercise, three constant-speed bouts were performed at 40-50% between: baseline and θLT (CSEMOD); θLT and RCP (CSEHVY); and RCP and peak (CSESEV). For CSEMOD, CSEHVY, and CSESEV measured end-exercise O2 was compared to predicted O2 based on the: (i) "SRS-corrected" O2-to-speed relationship (where MODstep and HVYstep were used to adjust the O2 relative to speed); and (ii) linear "uncorrected" data.
Results: Average treadmill speeds for CSEMOD and CSEHVY were 7.8 ± 0.8 and 11.0 ± 1.4 km·h-1, respectively, eliciting end-exercise O2 of 1979 ± 390 and 2574 ± 540 mL·min-1. End-exercise O2 values were not different compared to SRS-predicted O2 at CSEMOD (mean difference: 5 ± 166 mL·min-1; p = 0.912) and CSEHVY (20 ± 128 mL·min-1; p = 0.568). The linear "uncorrected" estimates were not different for CSEMOD (- 91 ± 172 mL·min-1; p = 0.068) but lower for CSEHVY (- 195 ± 146 mL·min-1; p < 0.001). For CSESEV (running speed: 13.8 ± 1.7 km·h-1), the end-exercise O2 was not different from peak O2 achieved during the ramp (3027 ± 682 vs. 2979 ± 655 mL·min-1; p = 0.231).
Conclusion: In healthy individuals, the SRS protocol more accurately predicts speeds for a target O2 compared to traditional approaches.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Applied Physiology (EJAP) aims to promote mechanistic advances in human integrative and translational physiology. Physiology is viewed broadly, having overlapping context with related disciplines such as biomechanics, biochemistry, endocrinology, ergonomics, immunology, motor control, and nutrition. EJAP welcomes studies dealing with physical exercise, training and performance. Studies addressing physiological mechanisms are preferred over descriptive studies. Papers dealing with animal models or pathophysiological conditions are not excluded from consideration, but must be clearly relevant to human physiology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
