Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/84933
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHiang, Hoon Kayen
dc.contributor.authorAli, Muhammad J.en
dc.contributor.authorGovindasamay, Balasekaranen
dc.contributor.authorSeet, Gerald Gim Leeen
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-19T03:38:07Zen
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-06T15:53:54Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-19T03:38:07Zen
dc.date.available2019-12-06T15:53:54Z-
dc.date.issued2017en
dc.identifier.citationAli, M. J., Govindasamay, B., Hiang, H. K., & Seet, G. G. L. (2017). Physiological differences between a noncontinuous and a continuous endurance training protocol in recreational runners and metabolic demand prediction. Physiological Reports, 5(24), e13546-.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10356/84933-
dc.description.abstractThis study investigated the physiological difference in recreational runners between a noncontinuous and a continuous endurance training protocol. It also aimed to determine physiological surrogate that could monitor metabolic demand of prolonged running in real‐time. For data collection, a total of 18 active male recreational runners were recruited. Physiological (HR, RR, RER, VO2, BLa), and overall perceptual (RPEO) responses were recorded against three designed test sessions. Session 1 included VO2submax test to determine critical speed (CS) at anaerobic threshold (AT). Session 2 was the noncontinuous CS test until exhaustion, having 4 is to 1 min work‐to‐rest ratio at CS, whereas session 3 was the continuous CS test till exhaustion. As 1‐min recovery during session 2 may change fatigue behavior, it was hypothesized that it will significantly change the physiological stress and hence endurance outcomes. Results reported average time to exhaustion (TTE) was 37.33(9.8) mins for session 2 and 23.28(9.87) mins for session 3. Participants experienced relatively higher metabolic demand (BLa) 6.78(1.43) mmol.l−1 in session 3 as compared to session 2 (5.52(0.93) mmol.l−1). RER was observed to increase in session 3 and decrease in session 2. Student's paired t‐test only reported a significant difference in TTE, ṼO2, RER, RPEO, and BLa at “End” between session 2 and 3. Reported difference in RPEO and %HRmax at “AT” were 5 (2.2) and 89.8 (2.60)% during session 2 and 6 (2.5) and 89.8 (2.59)% during session 3, respectively. Regression analysis reported strong correlation of %HRmax (adj. R‐square = 0.588) with BLa than RPEO (adj. R‐square = 0.541). The summary of findings suggests that decreasing RER increased TTE and reduced BLa toward “End” during session 2 which might have helped to have better endurance. The %HRmax was identified to be used as a better noninvasive surrogate of endurance intensity estimator.en
dc.format.extent9 p.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPhysiological Reportsen
dc.rights© 2017 The Author(s). Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en
dc.subjectCritical Speeden
dc.subjectEndurance Performanceen
dc.titlePhysiological differences between a noncontinuous and a continuous endurance training protocol in recreational runners and metabolic demand predictionen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.contributor.schoolSchool of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineeringen
dc.contributor.researchInstitute for Sports Researchen
dc.identifier.doi10.14814/phy2.13546en
dc.description.versionPublished versionen
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
Appears in Collections:MAE Journal Articles

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Plumx

Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.