Cardiorespiratory Responses to Downhill Versus Uphill Running in Endurance Athletes. Issue 4 (2nd October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lemire, Marcel; Lonsdorfer-Wolf, Evelyne; Isner-Horobeti, Marie-Eve; Kouassi, Blah Y. L.; Geny, Bernard; Favret, Fabrice; Dufour, Stéphane P.
• Is Part Of: Research quarterly for exercise and sport. Volume 89:Issue 4(2018)
• Page Start: 511
• Page End: 517
• Publication Date: 2018-10-02
• Subjects: Heart rate -- inclined treadmill -- oxygen uptake -- pulmonary ventilation; Physical education and training -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Recreation -- Periodicals; Physical Education and Training -- Periodicals; Sports -- Periodicals; Exercise -- Periodicals; Education -- Periodicals; Lichamelijke opvoeding; Sport; Exercice -- Périodiques; Sports -- Périodiques; 613.7105
• DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2018.1510172
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0270-1367

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Purpose : Mountain running races are becoming increasingly popular, although our understanding of the particular physiology associated with downhill running (DR) in trained athletes remains scarce. This study explored the cardiorespiratory responses to high-slope constant velocity uphill running (UR) and DR.Method : Eight endurance athletes performed a maximal incremental test and 2 15-min running bouts (UR, +15%, or DR, −15%) at the same running velocity (8.5 ± 0.4 km·h −1 ). Oxygen uptake ( O2 ), heart rate (HR), and ventilation rates ( E ) were continuously recorded, and blood lactate (bLa) was measured before and after each trial.Results : Downhill running induced a more superficial E pattern featuring reduced tidal volume ( p < .05, ES = 6.05) but similar respiratory frequency ( p > .05, ES = 0.68) despite lower E ( p < .05, ES = 5.46), O2 ( p < .05, ES = 12.68), HR ( p < .05, ES = 6.42), and bLa ( p < .05, ES = 1.70). A negative slow component was observed during DR for O2 ( p < .05, ES = 1.72) and HR ( p < .05, ES = 0.80).Conclusions : These results emphasize the cardiorespiratory responses to DR and highlight the need for cautious interpretation of O2, HR, and E patterns as markers of exercise intensity for training load prescription and management.