Logo image
Back
Non-invasive estimation of muscle oxygen uptake kinetics with pseudorandom binary sequence and step exercise responses
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Non-invasive estimation of muscle oxygen uptake kinetics with pseudorandom binary sequence and step exercise responses

U Drescher, R Schmale, J Koschate, L Thieschäfer, T Schiffer, Stefan Schneider and U Hoffmann
European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol.118(2), pp.429-438
2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3785-8
url
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3785-8View
Published Version

Abstract

circulatory modeling gas exchange moderate exercise time series analysis
Purpose: The aim of the study was to test for significant differences in non-invasively estimated muscle oxygen uptake ((Formula presented.)) kinetics, assessed by a square-wave exercise protocol (STEP) as well as by a time series approach with pseudorandom binary sequence (PRBS) work rate (WR) changes. Methods: Seventeen healthy and active individuals (10 women, 7 men; 23±2 years old; height 175±11 cm; body mass 73±14 kg [mean±SD]) completed five repetitions of WR transitions from 30 to 80 W for the STEP approach and two sequences of pseudorandom binary WR changes between 30 and 80 W for the PRBS approach. Pulmonary oxygen uptake ((Formula presented.)) was measured breath by breath. (Formula presented.) kinetics were estimated during phase II (Formula presented.) in the STEP approach and during the pseudorandom binary sequence WR changes in the PRBS approach. Results: No significant differences were observed between different models of the STEP and the PRBS approach for estimation of (Formula presented.) kinetics (p > 0.05). In addition, a very high variability between the models was determined for (Formula presented.) kinetics [mean time constants (Ï„) difference: - 2.5±11.4 s]. A significant correlation for Ï„ of (Formula presented.) between the STEP approach with experimentally determined phase I (Formula presented.) lengths and the PRBS approach was noticed (r = 0.536; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Both approaches (STEP and PRBS) are not significantly different for estimating the (Formula presented.) kinetics, but the very high variability impairs the predictability between the models. However, the determination of the length of phase I (Formula presented.) should be as appropriate as possible because predefined duration lengths can result in overestimations in (Formula presented.) kinetics. © 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

Details

Metrics

2 File views/ downloads
489 Record Views
3 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Web Of Science research areas
Physiology
Sport Sciences
Logo image