不同騎乘姿勢對原地腳踏車運動之生理反應的影響
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2006
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
目的：比較在原地腳踏車測功儀上進行漸增式負荷運動測驗時，採用直立姿勢 (upright position; UP）、彎把姿勢 (drop position, DP)與俯握姿勢（aero position; AP）所測得生理反應是否有所差異。方法：實驗對象為12名健康男性（年齡23.30 ± 0.97歲；身高175.62 ± 6.66公分；體重72.63 ± 7.32公斤），以平衡次序法，在原地腳踏車測功儀上，分別以直立姿勢、彎把姿勢與俯握姿勢各進行一次漸增運動測驗（每次測驗時間至少間隔48小時），分別觀察在150 W、200 W與衰竭時的生理反應。結果：攝氧量在150 W時，俯握姿勢大於直立姿勢，衰竭時直立姿勢大於彎把姿勢，彎把姿勢大於俯握姿勢；換氣量部分，直立姿勢大於俯握姿勢，彎把姿勢大於俯握姿勢；心跳率部分直立姿勢大於彎把姿勢，彎把姿勢大於俯握姿勢；呼吸頻率部分，俯握姿勢大於直立姿勢與彎把姿勢，運動時間方面，直立姿勢大於彎把姿勢與俯握姿勢，以上結果均達顯著水準 (p< .05)，而血乳酸、自覺努力程度與均方根肌電訊號皆無顯著差異。結論：以不同之騎姿勢在原地腳踏車上進行漸增運動測驗時，其生理上的反應並不相同，隨騎乘姿勢與地面趨於水平，將限制生理功能之表現而影響運動表現。
Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the physiological responses in upright position (UP), drop position (DP) and aero position (AP) during incremental test on cycle ergometer. Methods: Twelve health males (age 23.30 ± 0.97 yrs；height 175.62 ± 6.66 cm；weight 72.63 ± 7.32 kg) completed these three tests respectively by counter-balance design. During these tests, we assessd the physiological responses at 150W, 200W and exhaustion. Results: There were significant (p<.05) differences as follows: in part of oxygen uptake(VO2) at 150W workload, AP > UP, at exhaustion, UP > DP >AP; in part of ventilation(VE), UP > AP, DP > AP; in part of heart rate(HR) UP > DP > AP; in part of respiratory rate, AP > UP, AP > DP, in part of the time to exhaustion, UP > DP, UP > AP. There were no significant differences among these three types of test in the following indicators of blood lactate, ratio of perceived exertion(RPE) and root mean square EMG(rmsEMG). Conclusions: Different body positions affect physiological responses during incremental test on cycle ergometer. With the closer horizontal body position, the body functions would be more likely to be limited. This may abate exercise performance further.
Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the physiological responses in upright position (UP), drop position (DP) and aero position (AP) during incremental test on cycle ergometer. Methods: Twelve health males (age 23.30 ± 0.97 yrs；height 175.62 ± 6.66 cm；weight 72.63 ± 7.32 kg) completed these three tests respectively by counter-balance design. During these tests, we assessd the physiological responses at 150W, 200W and exhaustion. Results: There were significant (p<.05) differences as follows: in part of oxygen uptake(VO2) at 150W workload, AP > UP, at exhaustion, UP > DP >AP; in part of ventilation(VE), UP > AP, DP > AP; in part of heart rate(HR) UP > DP > AP; in part of respiratory rate, AP > UP, AP > DP, in part of the time to exhaustion, UP > DP, UP > AP. There were no significant differences among these three types of test in the following indicators of blood lactate, ratio of perceived exertion(RPE) and root mean square EMG(rmsEMG). Conclusions: Different body positions affect physiological responses during incremental test on cycle ergometer. With the closer horizontal body position, the body functions would be more likely to be limited. This may abate exercise performance further.
Description
Keywords
騎乘姿勢, 生理反應, 原地腳踏車, body position, physiological response, cycle ergometer