...
首页> 外文期刊>Medicine and science in sports and exercise >Rapid IV versus oral rehydration: responses to subsequent exercise heat stress.
【24h】

Rapid IV versus oral rehydration: responses to subsequent exercise heat stress.

机译:快速静脉补液与口服补液:对随后的运动热应激的反应。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

PURPOSE: This study sought to determine the effect of rapid intravenous (IV) versus oral (ORAL) rehydration immediately after dehydration, on cardiovascular, thermoregulatory, and perceptual responses during subsequent exercise in the heat. METHODS: Eight males (21.4 +/- 0.7 yr; 176.2 +/- 1.6 cm; 75.2 +/- 3.7 kg; 63.7 +/- 3.6 mL.kg.min VO2max, 9.0 +/- 1.7% fat) participated in three randomized trials. Each trial consisted of a 75-min dehydration phase (36 degrees C; 42.5% rh, 47 +/- 0.9% VO2max) where subjects lost 1.7 L (IV and no-fluid (NF) trials) to 1.8 L of fluid (ORAL trial). In the heat, fluid lost was matched with 0.45% saline in 20 min by either IV or ORAL rehydration; no fluid was given in the NF trial. Subjects then performed a heat-tolerance test (HTT; 37.0 degrees C, 45% rh, treadmill speed of 2.4 m.s, 2.3% grade) for 75 min or until exhaustion (Tre of 39.5 degrees C). During the HTT, thermal and thirst sensations, RPE, rectal temperature (Tre), heart rate (HR), and mean weighted skin temperature (Tsk) were measured. RESULTS: Plasma volume in the IV treatment was greater (P < 0.05) after rehydration compared with ORAL and NF. However, during the HTT there were no overall differences (P > 0.05) in HR, Tre, Tsk, RPE, thermal sensations, or HTT time (ORAL, 71 +/- 8 min; IV, 73 +/- 5 min; NF, 39 +/- 29 min) between the ORAL and IV treatments. Sensations of thirst were lower (P < 0.05) in ORAL compared with IV and NF, likely because of oropharyngeal stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a more rapid restoration of plasma volume, IV rehydration was not advantageous over ORAL rehydration in regards to physiological strain, heat tolerance, RPE, or thermal sensations.
机译:目的:本研究旨在确定脱水后立即进行快速静脉补液与口服补液对口服热运动后心血管,体温调节和知觉反应的影响。方法:八名男性(21.4 +/- 0.7 yr; 176.2 +/- 1.6 cm; 75.2 +/- 3.7 kg; 63.7 +/- 3.6 mL.kg.min VO2max,9.0 +/- 1.7%脂肪)参加了三个随机分组审判。每个试验都包括一个75分钟的脱水阶段(36摄氏度;相对湿度42.5%,最大摄氧量47 +/- 0.9%),其中受试者丢失了1.7升(静脉和无液体(NF)试验)至1.8升液体(ORAL)试用)。在高温下,静脉输注或口服补液在20分钟内使液体流失与0.45%的盐水相匹配; NF试验未给予补液。然后受试者进行耐热测试(HTT; 37.0摄氏度,45%rh,跑步机速度为2.4 m.s,2.3%坡度)持续75分钟或直至疲劳(Tre为39.5摄氏度)。在HTT期间,测量了热感和口渴感,RPE,直肠温度(Tre),心率(HR)和平均加权皮肤温度(Tsk)。结果:与ORAL和NF相比,补液后IV治疗的血浆体积更大(P <0.05)。但是,在HTT期间,HR,Tre,Tsk,RPE,热感觉或HTT时间(ORAL,71 +/- 8分钟; IV,73 +/- 5分钟; NF)没有总体差异(P> 0.05)。 ,在ORAL和IV治疗之间间隔39 +/- 29分钟)。与IV和NF相比,口服的口渴感较低(P <0.05),这可能是由于口咽刺激引起的。结论:尽管血浆容量恢复较快,但就生理机能,耐热性,RPE或热感觉而言,静脉补液在口服补液方面没有优势。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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