Back to all available

Effects of priming exercise on oxygen uptake kinetics, muscle oxygenation and metabolic responses in trained anaerobic athletes

sports-injury
sports-medicine

Abstract

Background. This study aimed to investigate the acute and residual effects of three different priming exercise strategies, including high-intensity priming exercise (HIPE), low-intensity priming exercise (LIPE), and low-intensity priming exercise with blood flow restriction (LIPE-BFR), on oxygen uptake kinetics, muscle oxygenation, and metabolic responses during severe-intensity cycling in trained anaerobic athletes.

Methods. Sixteen trained anaerobic athletes completed three severe-intensity cycling trials, each preceded by a different priming strategy applied in a randomized order. The experimental protocol began with an incremental exercise test to determine maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), followed by five submaximal constant-load cycling trials to derive individual power–VO2 regression equations. The three priming interventions included HIPE, LIPE, and LIPE-BFR. Key physiological parameters, including pulmonary oxygen uptake kinetics, muscle oxygenation, blood lactate concentration, accumulated oxygen difference (AVO2), and accumulated oxygen deficit (AOD), were assessed to quantify oxygen utilization and metabolic demand across sessions.

Results. Compared to HIPE, both LIPE and LIPE-BFR induced significantly lower A and longer TD, along with reduced TOImin and TOIss during exercise ( P < 0.05). HIPE elicited greater metabolic responses, including higher AVO 2, AOD, and BLa. Significant correlations were observed between VO 2 kinetics and metabolic demand, as well as between TOI indices and BLa ( P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found among the three conditions in VO₂ kinetics or metabolic outcomes during the subsequent severe-intensity cycling bout ( P > 0.05), except for a higher VO 2 baseline in the HIPE group ( P < 0.05).

Conclusion. Although the three priming strategies elicited distinct acute physiological responses, they did not improve oxygen uptake kinetics or metabolic efficiency during subsequent severe-intensity exercise. These findings indicate that the benefits of priming exercise may be limited by a physiological ceiling in well-trained anaerobic athletes, highlighting the need for future research on individualized protocols and recovery optimization.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].