Ana Sousa1, Pedro Figueiredo, Paola Zamparo, David B Pyne, João P Vilas-Boas, Ricardo J Fernandes. 1. 1Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, PORTUGAL; 2Physical Education School, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, BRAZIL; 3Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, ITALY; 4Department of Physiology, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, AUSTRALIA; and 5Porto Biomechanics Laboratory, LABIOMEP, University of Porto, Porto, PORTUGAL.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A bioenergetical analysis of different exercise modes near maximal oxygen consumption (V˙O2max) intensity is scarce, hampering the prescription of training to enhance performance. We assessed the time sustained in swimming, rowing, running, and cycling at an intensity eliciting V˙O2max and determined the specific oxygen uptake (V˙O2) kinetics and total energy expenditure (Etot-tlim). METHODS: Four subgroups of 10 swimmers, 10 rowers, 10 runners, and 10 cyclists performed (i) an incremental protocol to assess the velocity (vV˙O2max) or power (wV˙O2max) associated with V˙O2max and (ii) a square wave transition exercise from rest to vV˙O2max/wV˙O2max to assess the time to voluntary exhaustion (Tlim-100%V˙O2max). The V˙O2 was measured using a telemetric portable gas analyzer (K4b, Cosmed, Rome, Italy) and V˙O2 kinetics analyzed using a double exponential curve fit. Etot-tlim was computed as the sum of its three components: aerobic (Aer), anaerobic lactic (Analac), and anaerobic alactic (Anaalac) contributions. RESULTS: No differences were evident in Tlim-100% V˙O2max between exercise modes (mean ± SD: swimming, 187 ± 25; rowing, 199 ± 52; running, 245 ± 46; and cycling, 227 ± 48 s). In contrast, the V˙O2 kinetics profile exhibited a slower response in swimming (21 ± 3 s) compared with the other three modes of exercise (rowing, 12 ± 3; running, 10 ± 3; and cycling, 16 ± 4 s) (P < 0.001). Etot-tlim was similar between exercise modes even if the Analac contribution was smaller in swimming compared with the other sports (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although there were different V˙O2 kinetics and ventilatory patterns, the Tlim-100%V˙O2max was similar between exercise modes most likely related to the common central and peripheral level of fitness in our athletes.
PURPOSE: A bioenergetical analysis of different exercise modes near maximal oxygen consumption (V˙O2max) intensity is scarce, hampering the prescription of training to enhance performance. We assessed the time sustained in swimming, rowing, running, and cycling at an intensity eliciting V˙O2max and determined the specific oxygen uptake (V˙O2) kinetics and total energy expenditure (Etot-tlim). METHODS: Four subgroups of 10 swimmers, 10 rowers, 10 runners, and 10 cyclists performed (i) an incremental protocol to assess the velocity (vV˙O2max) or power (wV˙O2max) associated with V˙O2max and (ii) a square wave transition exercise from rest to vV˙O2max/wV˙O2max to assess the time to voluntary exhaustion (Tlim-100%V˙O2max). The V˙O2 was measured using a telemetric portable gas analyzer (K4b, Cosmed, Rome, Italy) and V˙O2 kinetics analyzed using a double exponential curve fit. Etot-tlim was computed as the sum of its three components: aerobic (Aer), anaerobic lactic (Analac), and anaerobic alactic (Anaalac) contributions. RESULTS: No differences were evident in Tlim-100% V˙O2max between exercise modes (mean ± SD: swimming, 187 ± 25; rowing, 199 ± 52; running, 245 ± 46; and cycling, 227 ± 48 s). In contrast, the V˙O2 kinetics profile exhibited a slower response in swimming (21 ± 3 s) compared with the other three modes of exercise (rowing, 12 ± 3; running, 10 ± 3; and cycling, 16 ± 4 s) (P < 0.001). Etot-tlim was similar between exercise modes even if the Analac contribution was smaller in swimming compared with the other sports (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although there were different V˙O2 kinetics and ventilatory patterns, the Tlim-100%V˙O2max was similar between exercise modes most likely related to the common central and peripheral level of fitness in our athletes.
Authors: Paulo Azevedo; Dharini M. Bhammar; Tony G. Babb; T. Scott Bowen; Klaus K. Witte; Harry B. Rossiter; Julien V. Brugniaux; Ben D. Perry; Ricardo Dantas de Lucas; Tiago Turnes; Jeann L. Sabino-Carvalho; Thiago Ribeiro Lopes; Rodrigo Zacca; Ricardo J. Fernandes; Greg L. McKie; Tom J. Hazell; Lucas Helal; Anderson Donelli da Silveira; Craig Ryan McNulty; Robert Andrew Roberg; Tom E. Nightingale; Abdullah A. Alrashidi; Evgeny Mashkovskiy; Andrei Krassioukov; Pierre Clos; Davy Laroche; Benjamin Pageaux; David C. Poole; Andrew M. Jones; Gustavo Z. Schaun; Diego Santos de Souza; Tatiane de Oliveira Barreto Lopes; Mary Vagula; Li Zuo; Tingyang Zhao Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2018-07-01
Authors: Fábio J Lanferdini; Renata L Krüger; Bruno M Baroni; Caetano Lazzari; Pedro Figueiredo; Alvaro Reischak-Oliveira; Marco A Vaz Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Joana F Reis; Gregoire P Millet; Paula M Bruno; Veronica Vleck; Francisco B Alves Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Victor M Reis; Eduardo B Neves; Nuno Garrido; Ana Sousa; André L Carneiro; Carlo Baldari; Tiago Barbosa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Filipa Cardoso; Ana S Monteiro; João Paulo Vilas-Boas; João Carlos Pinho; David B Pyne; Ricardo J Fernandes Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-02-08
Authors: J Arturo Abraldes; Ricardo J Fernandes; Núria Rodríguez; Ana Sousa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-13 Impact factor: 3.390