| Literature DB >> 25994386 |
Vanessa Helena Pereira1, Maria Carolina Traina Gama1, Filipe Antônio Barros Sousa1, Theodore Gyle Lewis2, Claudio Alexandre Gobatto1, Fúlvia Barros Manchado-Gobatto1.
Abstract
The aims of the present study were analyze the fatigue process at distinct intensity efforts and to investigate its occurrence as interactions at distinct body changes during exercise, using complex network models. For this, participants were submitted to four different running intensities until exhaustion, accomplished in a non-motorized treadmill using a tethered system. The intensities were selected according to critical power model. Mechanical (force, peak power, mean power, velocity and work) and physiological related parameters (heart rate, blood lactate, time until peak blood lactate concentration (lactate time), lean mass, anaerobic and aerobic capacities) and IPAQ score were obtained during exercises and it was used to construction of four complex network models. Such models have both, theoretical and mathematical value, and enables us to perceive new insights that go beyond conventional analysis. From these, we ranked the influences of each node at the fatigue process. Our results shows that nodes, links and network metrics are sensibility according to increase of efforts intensities, been the velocity a key factor to exercise maintenance at models/intensities 1 and 2 (higher time efforts) and force and power at models 3 and 4, highlighting mechanical variables in the exhaustion occurrence and even training prescription applications.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25994386 PMCID: PMC4440209 DOI: 10.1038/srep10489
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Proposed complex network model. The nodes are measurements of changes in body systems at the mechanical (blue) and physiological (red) related levels and IPAQ score (red) during four different intensities of exercise tests.
Mean and ± standard deviations of parameters at each test intensity (1, 2, 3, 4).
| 247.84 ± 47.46 | 294.46 ± 40.18 | 412.71 ± 93.75 | 512.42 ± 105.25 | |
| 380.34 ± 48.91 | 445.23 ± 48.79 | 585.19 ± 123.14 | 784.63 ± 96.00 | |
| 120.05 ± 11.32 | 136.65 ± 17.53 | 161.86 ± 25.30 | 187.90 ± 27.55 | |
| 2.11 ± 0.33 | 2.19 ± 0.38 | 2.54 ± 0.40 | 2.77 ± 0.56 | |
| 626.08 ± 149.27 | 462.67 ± 133.29 | 236.64 ± 97.24 | 173.75 ± 62.68 | |
| 162.45 ± 56.04 | 135.48 ± 45.02 | 92.00 ± 25.03 | 77.73 ± 16.15 | |
| 12.20 ± 3.38 | 12.52 ± 4.49 | 15.12 ± 5.00 | 15.34 ± 5.49 | |
| 819.41 ± 287.44 | 709.33 ± 260.12 | 583.30 ± 219.01 | 433.75 ± 251.68 | |
| 180.11 ± 10.54 | 179.00 ± 9.82 | 180.00 ± 9.53 | 179.55 ± 8.42 | |
a Substantial difference between intensity 1, b intensity 2 , c intensity 3. (One-way ANOVA followed by Student-Newman-Keuls test, n = 9, P < 0.05).
Mean and standards deviations that characterize sample and became nodes to watch behavior in models dynamics over intensities.
| 139.26± | 47.14± | 91.49± | 2106.66± |
| 43.65 | 26.06 | 3.24 | 1162.06 |
Figure 2Proposed complex network model of influences, intensity/model 1.
Figure 3Proposed complex network model of influences, intensity/model 2.
Figure 4Proposed complex network model of influences, intensity/model 3.
Figure 5Proposed complex network model of influences, intensity/model 4.
Figure 6(a) Mean time limit and ±s.d. in which time until fatigue was inversely proportional to effort intensity, a Substantial difference between intensity 1, b intensity 2 , c intensity 3. (One-way ANOVA followed by Student-Newman-Keuls test, n = 9, P < 0.05). (b) Max degree distribution, hub nodes that are more correlated and therefore connected to others. (c) Max eigenvalues, at lower efforts (Models 1 and 2), velocity had major contributions; at higher efforts, force and power had greater value and contribution. (d) Max Betweenness, which considers the flow of information across nodes; the betweenness centrality was greater in model 3, with the main mechanical contribution; in model 4, Peak Power was the most influential. Max degree distribution: it appoints the major influent nodes, with the greater number of connections (hub nodes); Max Eigenvalue: the maximum eigenvalue of a network meaning the gravitational pull exerted by each node on the overall network. Higher eigenvalues mean more influence over other body systems. An eigenvalue greater than 1.0 means the network is unstable, though; an eigenvalue of zero means the node has no influence. The betweenness centrality: the amount of control exerted by links over the flow of information, expressed in terms of paths.