| Title |
Electrostimulation improves muscle perfusion but does not affect either muscle deoxygenation or pulmonary oxygen consumption kinetics during a heavy constant-load exercise
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, October 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-007-0581-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gwenael Layec, Grégoire P. Millet, Aurélie Jougla, Jean-Paul Micallef, David Bendahan |
| Abstract |
Electromyostimulation (EMS) is commonly used as part of training programs. However, the exact effects at the muscle level are largely unknown and it has been recently hypothesized that the beneficial effect of EMS could be mediated by an improved muscle perfusion. In the present study, we investigated rates of changes in pulmonary oxygen consumption (VO(2p)) and muscle deoxygenation during a standardized exercise performed after an EMS warm-up session. We aimed at determining whether EMS could modify pulmonary O(2) uptake and muscle deoxygenation as a result of improved oxygen delivery. Nine subjects performed a 6-min heavy constant load cycling exercise bout preceded either by an EMS session (EMS) or under control conditions (CONT). VO(2p) and heart rate (HR) were measured while deoxy-(HHb), oxy-(HbO(2)) and total haemoglobin/myoglobin (Hb(tot)) relative contents were measured using near infrared spectroscopy. EMS significantly increased (P < 0.05) the Hb(tot) resting level illustrating a residual hyperaemia. The EMS priming exercise did not affect either the HHb time constant (17.7 +/- 14.2 s vs. 13.1 +/- 2.3 s under control conditions) or the VO(2p) kinetics (time-constant = 18.2 +/- 5.2 s vs. 15.4 +/- 4.6 s under control conditions). Likewise, the other VO(2p) parameters were unchanged. Our results further indicated that EMS warm-up improved muscle perfusion through a residual hyperaemia. However, neither VO(2p) nor [HHb] kinetics were modified accordingly. These results suggest that improved O(2) delivery by residual hyperaemia induced by EMS does not accelerate the rate of aerobic metabolism during heavy exercise at least in trained subjects. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 18 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 20% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2009.
All research outputs
#5,203,794
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,401
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,289
of 83,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#9
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 83,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.