首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Frontiers in Physiology >Physiological Responses to Firefighting in Extreme Temperatures Do Not Compare to Firefighting in Temperate Conditions
【2h】

Physiological Responses to Firefighting in Extreme Temperatures Do Not Compare to Firefighting in Temperate Conditions

机译:极限温度下对消防的生理反应与温带条件下的消防相比

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine physiological responses to two different simulated firefighting exercises: a firefighting exercise with flashovers, smoke, poor visibility and extreme temperatures (300°) in a burning container and a standard firefighting exercise in temperate conditions. Furthermore, a second purpose of the study was to find out if the contribution of strength and endurance capacities to firefighting performance changes when the demands of the firefighting exercise change.>Methods: Sixteen professional firefighters performed a maximum treadmill test, strength testing, a standard simulated firefighting exercise (SFE) without heat and flashovers and a firefighting exercise with a simulation of the flashover phenomenon in a burning container (FOT). The treadmill testing was used to determine peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), ventilatory threshold (VT1) and respiratory compensation point (RCP). Three intensity zones were identified according to heart rate (HR) values corresponding to VT1 and RCP: zone 1–HR below VT1, zone 2-HR between VT1 and RCP, zone 3–HR above RCP. Firefighting performance was determined by a simple time-strain-air depletion model (TSA) taking the sum of z-transformed parameters of time to finish the exercise, strain in terms of mean heart rate, and air depletion from the breathing apparatus. Correlations were then established between TSA based firefighting performance parameters and fitness variables representing strength and endurance.>Results: HR was significantly lower during SFE (79.9 ± 6.9%HRmax) compared to FOT (85.4 ± 5.2%HRmax). During SFE subjects spent 24.6 ± 30.2% of time in zone 1, 65.8 ± 28.1% in zone 2 and 9.7 ± 16.6% in zone 3. During FOT subjects spent 16.3 ± 12.8% in zone 1, 50.4 ± 13.2% in zone 2 and 33.3 ± 16.6% in zone 3. Out of all correlations, relative VO2peak showed the highest relation to mean HR during SFE (−0.593) as well as FOT (−0.693).>Conclusions: Endurance in terms of VO2peak is an important prerequisite for both firefighting exercises. However, for standard simulated firefighting exercises it is important to work below VT1. For firefighting exercises in extreme temperatures with smoke, poor visibility and unexpected flashovers a high fitness level is required in order to keep the time spent above RCP as short as possible.
机译:>目的:本研究的目的是检查对两种不同的模拟消防演习的生理反应:带有闪络,烟雾,能见度差和在燃烧容器中处于极端温度(300°)的消防演习。在温带条件下进行消防演习。此外,该研究的第二个目的是找出当消防演习的需求发生变化时力量和耐力能力对消防性能的贡献是否发生变化。>方法:十六名专业消防员进行了最大的跑步机测试,强度测试,没有热量和闪络的标准模拟消防演习(SFE),以及具有模拟燃烧容器(FOT)闪络现象的消防演习。跑步机测试用于确定峰值摄氧量(VO2peak),通气阈值(VT1)和呼吸补偿点(RCP)。根据对应于VT1和RCP的心率(HR)值确定了三个强度区域:VT1下方的1–HR区,VT1和RCP之间的2–HR区,RCP上方的3–HR区。通过简单的时间-空气-空气消耗模型(TSA)来确定消防性能,该模型将完成运动的时间的z转换参数,平均心率方面的压力以及呼吸设备的空气消耗之和相加。然后在基于TSA的消防性能参数与代表力量和耐力的适应性变量之间建立了相关性。>结果: SFE(79.9±6.9%HRmax)的HR明显低于FOT(85.4±5.2%HRmax)的HR 。在SFE期间,受试者在第1区中花费了24.6±30.2%的时间,在第2区中花费了65.8±28.1%,在第3区中花费了9.7±16.6%。在FOT中,受试者在第1区中花费了16.3±12.8%,在第2区中花费了50.4±13.2%。在区域3中为33.3±16.6%。在所有相关性中,相对VO2peak与SFE(-0.593)和FOT(-0.693)期间的平均HR呈最高关系。>结论: VO2peak是两种消防演习的重要前提。但是,对于标准的模拟消防演习而言,在VT1以下工作很重要。对于在冒烟,能见度差和意外飞火的极端温度下进行的消防演习,需要较高的适应水平,以使在RCP上花费的时间尽可能短。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号