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

Publikationen: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungBegutachtung

Standard

Non-invasive estimation of muscle oxygen uptake kinetics with pseudorandom binary sequence and step exercise responses. / Drescher, Uwe; Schmale, R; Koschate, J; Thieschäfer, L; Schiffer, T; Schneider, S; Hoffmann, U.

in: European journal of applied physiology, Jahrgang 118, Nr. 2, 02.2018, S. 429-438.

Publikationen: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungBegutachtung

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{dc623f0f72394bdbb83c56bf891d8f4a,
title = "Non-invasive estimation of muscle oxygen uptake kinetics with pseudorandom binary sequence and step exercise responses",
abstract = "PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to test for significant differences in non-invasively estimated muscle oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) 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: see text]) was measured breath by breath. [Formula: see text] kinetics were estimated during phase II [Formula: see text] 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: see text] kinetics (p > 0.05). In addition, a very high variability between the models was determined for [Formula: see text] kinetics [mean time constants (τ) difference: - 2.5 ± 11.4 s]. A significant correlation for τ of [Formula: see text] between the STEP approach with experimentally determined phase I [Formula: see text] 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: see text] kinetics, but the very high variability impairs the predictability between the models. However, the determination of the length of phase I [Formula: see text] should be as appropriate as possible because predefined duration lengths can result in overestimations in [Formula: see text] kinetics.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Uwe Drescher and R Schmale and J Koschate and L Thiesch{\"a}fer and T Schiffer and S Schneider and U Hoffmann",
year = "2018",
month = feb,
doi = "10.1007/s00421-017-3785-8",
language = "English",
volume = "118",
pages = "429--438",
journal = "European journal of applied physiology",
issn = "1439-6319",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Non-invasive estimation of muscle oxygen uptake kinetics with pseudorandom binary sequence and step exercise responses

AU - Drescher, Uwe

AU - Schmale, R

AU - Koschate, J

AU - Thieschäfer, L

AU - Schiffer, T

AU - Schneider, S

AU - Hoffmann, U

PY - 2018/2

Y1 - 2018/2

N2 - PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to test for significant differences in non-invasively estimated muscle oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) 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: see text]) was measured breath by breath. [Formula: see text] kinetics were estimated during phase II [Formula: see text] 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: see text] kinetics (p > 0.05). In addition, a very high variability between the models was determined for [Formula: see text] kinetics [mean time constants (τ) difference: - 2.5 ± 11.4 s]. A significant correlation for τ of [Formula: see text] between the STEP approach with experimentally determined phase I [Formula: see text] 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: see text] kinetics, but the very high variability impairs the predictability between the models. However, the determination of the length of phase I [Formula: see text] should be as appropriate as possible because predefined duration lengths can result in overestimations in [Formula: see text] kinetics.

AB - PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to test for significant differences in non-invasively estimated muscle oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) 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: see text]) was measured breath by breath. [Formula: see text] kinetics were estimated during phase II [Formula: see text] 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: see text] kinetics (p > 0.05). In addition, a very high variability between the models was determined for [Formula: see text] kinetics [mean time constants (τ) difference: - 2.5 ± 11.4 s]. A significant correlation for τ of [Formula: see text] between the STEP approach with experimentally determined phase I [Formula: see text] 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: see text] kinetics, but the very high variability impairs the predictability between the models. However, the determination of the length of phase I [Formula: see text] should be as appropriate as possible because predefined duration lengths can result in overestimations in [Formula: see text] kinetics.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1007/s00421-017-3785-8

DO - 10.1007/s00421-017-3785-8

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 29250707

VL - 118

SP - 429

EP - 438

JO - European journal of applied physiology

JF - European journal of applied physiology

SN - 1439-6319

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 3204289