Journal of strength and conditioning research · 2024
Ventilatory and Perceived Ergogenic Effects of Mandibular Forward Repositioning During Running at Maximal Oxygen Uptake Intensity.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cardoso Filipa, Costa Mário J, Colaço Paulo, Vilas-Boas João Paulo, Pinho João C, Pyne David B, Fernandes Ricardo J
Аннотация
Cardoso, F, Costa, MJ, Colaço, P, Vilas-Boas, JP, Pinho, JC, Pyne, DB, and Fernandes, RJ. Ventilatory and perceived ergogenic effects of mandibular forward repositioning during running at maximal oxygen uptake intensity. J Strength Cond Res 39(1): e13-e19, 2025-Wearing an intraoral dental splint may enhance ventilatory function and exercise performance. Nineteen runners performed on a 400-m outdoor track: (a) an incremental protocol to assess the velocity at maximal oxygen uptake (vV̇ o2 max) and (b) 2 square wave bouts wearing 2 intraoral splints (with and without mandibular forward repositioning). The time until exhaustion at vV̇ o2 max (TLimv V̇ o2 max), ventilatory variables, oxygen uptake (V̇ o2 ) kinetics, energetic profiling, perceived exertion and kinematics, were all measured. Ventilatory data were assessed breath-by-breath and perceived exertion evaluated using the Borg 6-20-point scale at the end of TLimv V̇ o2 max bouts. Images were recorded by video cameras (120 Hz) and kinematic measures retrieved using Kinovea. A paired t test was computed for comparison of splints ( p ≤ 0.05). With (vs. without) mandibular forward repositioning, runners increased their TLimv V̇ o2 max by ∼6% ( p = 0.03), coupled with higher ventilation (151 ± 22 vs. 147 ± 23 L·min -1 , p = 0.04), end-tidal oxygen tension (114.3 ± 3.7 vs. 112.9 ± 3.9 mm Hg, p = 0.003), and lower inspiratory time (0.526 ± 0.083 vs. 0.540 ± 0.090 seconds, p = 0.02), despite similar V̇ o2 kinetics (e.g., 49.0 ± 8.7 vs. 47.7 ± 8.6 ml∙kg∙min -1 of fast component amplitude) being observed. The energy expenditure was ∼8% higher ( p = 0.03) with the mandible forward, coupled with lower perceived exertion scores ( p = 0.04). Mandibular forward repositioning was effective in acutely improving running performance at vV̇ o2 max with ergogenic effects on ventilatory and perceived variables.