U Drescher1,2, J Koschate3, L Thieschäfer3, S Schneider4,5, U Hoffmann3. 1. Institute of Physiology and Anatomy, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany. UweDrescher@gmx.de. 2. Bundeswehr Institute for Preventive Medicine, Aktienstraße 87, 56626, Andernach, Germany. UweDrescher@gmx.de. 3. Institute of Physiology and Anatomy, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany. 4. Institute of Movement and Neurosciences, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany. 5. Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, QLD, 4558, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to test whether or not the arteriovenous oxygen concentration difference (avDO2) kinetics at the pulmonary (avDO2pulm) and muscle (avDO2musc) levels is significantly different during dynamic exercise. METHODS: A re-analysis involving six publications dealing with kinetic analysis was utilized with an overall sample size of 69 participants. All studies comprised an identical pseudorandom binary sequence work rate (WR) protocol-WR changes between 30 and 80 W-to analyze the kinetic responses of pulmonary ([Formula: see text]) and muscle ([Formula: see text]) oxygen uptake kinetics as well as those of avDO2pulm and avDO2musc. RESULTS: A significant difference between [Formula: see text] (0.395 ± 0.079) and [Formula: see text] kinetics (0.330 ± 0.078) was observed (p < 0.001), where the variables showed a significant relationship (rSP = 0.744, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between avDO2musc (0.446 ± 0.077) and avDO2pulm kinetics (0.451 ± 0.075), which are highly correlated (r = 0.929, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: It is suggested that neither avDO2pulm nor avDO2musc kinetic responses seem to be responsible for the differences between estimated [Formula: see text] and measured [Formula: see text] kinetics. Obviously, the conflation of avDO2 and perfusion ([Formula: see text] ) at different points in time and at different physiological levels drive potential differences in [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] kinetics. Therefore, [Formula: see text] should, in general, be considered whenever oxygen uptake kinetics are analyzed or discussed.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to test whether or not the arteriovenousoxygen concentration difference (avDO2) kinetics at the pulmonary (avDO2pulm) and muscle (avDO2musc) levels is significantly different during dynamic exercise. METHODS: A re-analysis involving six publications dealing with kinetic analysis was utilized with an overall sample size of 69 participants. All studies comprised an identical pseudorandom binary sequence work rate (WR) protocol-WR changes between 30 and 80 W-to analyze the kinetic responses of pulmonary ([Formula: see text]) and muscle ([Formula: see text]) oxygen uptake kinetics as well as those of avDO2pulm and avDO2musc. RESULTS: A significant difference between [Formula: see text] (0.395 ± 0.079) and [Formula: see text] kinetics (0.330 ± 0.078) was observed (p < 0.001), where the variables showed a significant relationship (rSP = 0.744, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between avDO2musc (0.446 ± 0.077) and avDO2pulm kinetics (0.451 ± 0.075), which are highly correlated (r = 0.929, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: It is suggested that neither avDO2pulm nor avDO2musc kinetic responses seem to be responsible for the differences between estimated [Formula: see text] and measured [Formula: see text] kinetics. Obviously, the conflation of avDO2 and perfusion ([Formula: see text] ) at different points in time and at different physiological levels drive potential differences in [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] kinetics. Therefore, [Formula: see text] should, in general, be considered whenever oxygen uptake kinetics are analyzed or discussed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dynamic moderate exercise; Physiological modeling; Re-analysis; Venous transit time
Authors: Juan M Murias; Matthew D Spencer; John M Kowalchuk; Donald H Paterson Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 3.619