Joana F. Reis, Gregoire P. Millet, Paula M. Bruno, Veronica Vleck, Francisco B. Alves
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) kinetics in front crawl between male and female swimmers at moderate and heavy intensity. We hypothesized that the time constant for the primary phase [Formula: see text] kinetics was faster in men than in women, for both intensities. Nineteen well trained swimmers (8 females mean ± SD; age 17.9 ± 3.5 years; mass 55.2 ± 3.6 kg; height 1.66 ± 0.05 m and 11 male 21.9 ± 2.8 years; 78.2 ± 11.1 kg; 1.81 ± 0.08 m) performed a discontinuous maximal incremental test and two 600-m square wave transitions for both moderate and heavy intensities to determine the [Formula: see text] kinetics parameters using mono- and bi-exponential models, respectively. All the tests involved breath-by-breath analysis of front crawl swimming using a swimming snorkel. The maximal oxygen uptake [Formula: see text] was higher in men than in women [4,492 ± 585 ml·min(-1) and 57.7 ± 4.4 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1) vs. 2,752.4 ± 187.9 ml·min(-1) (p ≤ 0.001) and 50.0 ± 5.7 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)(p = 0.007), respectively]. Similarly, the absolute amplitude of the primary component was higher in men for both intensities (moderate: 1,736 ± 164 vs. 1,121 ± 149 ml·min(-1); heavy: 2,948 ± 227 vs. 1,927 ± 243 ml·min(-1), p ≤ 0.001, for males and females, respectively). However, the time constant of the primary component (τp) was not influenced by sex (p = 0.527) or swimming intensity (p = 0.804) (moderate: 15.1 ± 5.6 vs. 14.4 ± 5.1 s; heavy: 13.5 ± 3.3 vs. 16.0 ± 4.5 s, for females and males, respectively). The slow component in the heavy domain was not significantly different between female and male swimmers (3.2 ± 2.4 vs. 3.8 ± 1.0 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1), p = 0.476). Overall, only the absolute amplitude of the primary component was higher in men, while the other [Formula: see text] kinetics parameters were similar between female and male swimmers at both moderate and heavy intensities. The mechanisms underlying these similarities remain unclear.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,251,858
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,899
of 13,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,706
of 422,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#70
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 422,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 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 69% of its contemporaries.
