Acute psycho-physiological responses to submaximal constant-load cycling under intermittent hypoxia-hyperoxia vs. hypoxia-normoxia in young males


Abstract

Background. Hypoxia and hyperoxia can affect the acute psycho-physiological response to exercise. Recording various perceptual responses to exercise is of particular importance for investigating behavioural changes to physical activity, given that the perception of exercise-induced pain, discomfort or unpleasure, and a low level of exercise enjoyment are commonly associated with a low adherence to physical activity. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the acute perceptual and physiological responses to aerobic exercise under intermittent hypoxia-hyperoxia (IHHT), hypoxia-normoxia (IHT), and sustained normoxia (NOR) in young recreational active healthy males. Methods. Using a randomized, single-blinded, crossover design, 15 males (age: 24.5±4.2 yrs) performed 40min of submaximal constant-load cycling (at 60% peak oxygen uptake, 80rpm) under IHHT (5x4 min hypoxia and hyperoxia), IHT (5x4 min hypoxia and normoxia) and NOR. Inspiratory fraction of oxygen during hypoxia and hyperoxia was set to 14% and 40%, respectively. Heart rate (HR) and muscle oxygenation (total tissue (tHb) and oxygenated haemoglobin concentration (SmO2)) of the right vastus lateralis muscle were continuously recorded during cycling. Participants’ peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) and perceptual responses (i.e., perceived motor fatigue, effort perception, perceived physical strain, affective valence, arousal, motivation to exercise, and conflict to continue exercise) were surveyed prior, during (every 4min), and after cycling. Prior to and after exercise, peripheral blood lactate concentration (BLC) was determined. Exercise enjoyment was ascertained after cycling. For statistical analysis, repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted. Results. No differences in the acute perceptual responses were found between conditions (p≥0.059, ηp²≤0.18), while the physiological responses differed. Accordingly, SpO2 was higher during the hyperoxic periods in the IHHT compared to the normoxic periods in the IHT (p<0.001, ηp²=0.91). Moreover, HR (p=0.005, ηp²=0.33) and BLC (p=0.033, ηp²=0.28) were higher during IHT compared to NOR. No differences between conditions were found for percentual changes in tHb (p=0.684, ηp²=0.16) and SmO2 (p=0.093, ηp²=0.16). Conclusion. IHT is associated with a higher physiological response and metabolic stress, while IHHT did not lead to an increase in HR and BLC compared to NOR. In addition, compared to IHT, IHHT seems to improve reoxygenation indicated by a higher SpO2 during the hyperoxic periods. However, there were no differences in perceptual responses and ratings of activity enjoyment between conditions. These results suggest that replacing normoxic by hyperoxic reoxygenation-periods during submaximal constant-load cycling under intermittent hypoxia reduced the exercise-related physiological stress but had no effect on perceptual responses and perceived activity enjoyment in young recreational active healthy males.
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 peer.review@peerj.com.